Clarification of the nature of the dispersal of material and cosmic aggregates

[AnAncientAwakening]

As I begin a formal study into Dewey Larson's work, I am running across a particular concept that is causing some confusion, and requires clarification. Any insight would be helpful.

On page 72 of 'The Neglected Facts of Science', Mr. Larson states, "The various physical processes to which matter is subject alter positions in space independently of positions in time, and vice versa. As a result, the atoms of a material aggregate, which are contiguous in space, are widely dispersed in time, while the atoms of a cosmic aggregate, which are contiguous in time, are widely dispersed in space."

Gopi did a good job of representing this concept in a graph that he created for one of his powerpoint presentations, but it's still hazy.

It has been helpful for me to actually list the definitions of certain words as a means of clarification (in a fashion similar to Bruce's RS-104 Scalar Motion paper):

Space = an area or an expanse
Time = the progression of existence
Dimension = an extension

When we speak of the progression of existence (time) existing in 3 dimensions, those dimensions/extensions are past, present, and future, is that correct? Whereas, in 3 dimensional space, those dimensions are length, width, and height. Quite a different way of viewing things; though one that I cannot as of yet picture in my mind's eye due to the fact that mass physically exists in the 3D temporal frame (thus, would not cosmic matter also have LWH dimensions?) Essentially, I cannot quite picture what 'clock space' looks like; what with it being an abstract thought.

Part of the confusion comes in due to all my questions posed regarding the nature of the LMs and their own abilities to move freely between both frames of reference/sectors. Having read through the many accounts listed in Brigg's book ("An Encyclopedia of Faeries…"), as well as the many responses to my questions from Daniel, it appears that there have been many instances of human beings 'crossing over' into the realm of time, sometimes without even knowing that they have done so (not certain how this happens, but that is a different question entirely). If spatial material aggregates are widely dispersed in time, i.e. each atom is in a different physical location, how is it possible then for one to 'cross over' into time and take one's body along on this stroll through the progression of existence? For additional clarification, let's take a spatial example: my cat. My cat is a material aggregate with an absolute magnitude in space. My cat is composed of many contiguous atoms (the smallest units of matter), aggregated together to form this purring little life form. So then, if those same atoms that compose my cat are widely dispersed in the other realm, (the progression of existence), what does my cat actually look like in that realm? Perhaps I'm still thinking of 'time' too much in the sense of one single physical location. Larson does state that his system "doubles the size" of the Universe, which would imply that the exact same physical phenomena that take form in the spatial realm also do so in the temporal realm.

Anyhow, that would be my main question here: what does a spatial material aggregate such as my cat appear to look like in the realm of time, where each atom of her spatial body is widely dispersed rather than being aggregated together?

[Ilkka]

As I begin a formal study into Dewey Larson's work, I am running across a particular concept that is causing some confusion, and requires clarification. Any insight would be helpful.

On page 72 of 'The Neglected Facts of Science', Mr. Larson states, "The various physical processes to which matter is subject alter positions in space independently of positions in time, and vice versa. As a result, the atoms of a material aggregate, which are contiguous in space, are widely dispersed in time, while the atoms of a cosmic aggregate, which are contiguous in time, are widely dispersed in space."

Gopi did a good job of representing this concept in a graph that he created for one of his powerpoint presentations, but it's still hazy.

Hazy (like gas transparent) indeed in the other side, but on the other it seems more solid. I once heard that radiation was something like "throw a bunch of marbles in a hall way and when walking through all the marbles as in radiation affects the whole time that you are progressing in time. Maybe this is similar thing but different. Hard to describe how I see it, since I have serious difficulties of expressing myself clearly, to anyone and always leave something behind that might have been important in realizing what I was trying to say. But I try to do it anyway, may fail totally though.

Anyhow, that would be my main question here: what does a spatial material aggregate such as my cat appear to look like in the realm of time, where each atom of her spatial body is widely dispersed rather than being aggregated together?

I would think your cat would be invisible for the entities on the other side just as we are, or then appear as flashes of light, or whatever is the opposite of flash of light in the cosmic side.

When you enter in the cosmic side I think you would "gather" yourself and be whole you in there and free to roam around. I mean once you try to go to the otherside you must accelerate your body over the speed of light and that will pretty much disperse your atoms in a flash of light and "boom!" you emerge or appear on the cosmic side. Can't say it will happen exactly like that, because I haven't done that I like to think so, based on the stuff I have been reading on this and AQ forum.

The comprehension of these concepts takes time and pondering after a while it becomes clear. "Nothing but motion" that is time and space ever onwards. If you take current time as moments and imagine them as little images, many millions or billions 3D images or events per second then you might see how your physical body is dispersed on a larger area of time when you still seem to be whole in material side. All this because it is over light speed or at "ludicrous speed"(Space Balls reference). Maybe that analogy might help.

[daniel]

First, let's clarify the definitions:

Space = an area or an expanse
Time = the progression of existence
Dimension = an extension

Space = a volume or an expanse
Time = a volume or an expanse
Progression = the clock of existence (as a speed datum of unity)
Dimension = the number of independent variables required to express a concept

The concept of a clock is a bit confusing for most people. All a clock is, is a measurement of change. Clock time measures the way space changes; clock space measures the way time changes. And how do we measure change? Well, we need something "fixed" to measure the difference from. In the RS, that "something" is the progression of the natural reference system, unity. Larson just calls the "difference" a "displacement." It is the progression that defines the clock (the fixed reference) that we measure change from. That is why there are two clocks in the RS, clock time and clock space, since speed is a relation of space:time and the progression is where space:time=1.

When we speak of the progression of existence (time) existing in 3 dimensions, those dimensions/extensions are past, present, and future, is that correct? Whereas, in 3 dimensional space, those dimensions are length, width, and height.

No, the dimensions of time are also length, width and height--but rather than having units of feet or meters, they have units of seconds. With 3D time, 3D must describe a volume... for example, something 3 seconds long, 2 seconds wide and 5 seconds high.

The past is the last step of the progression (discrete speed), the present is the current, and the future is the next.

Quite a different way of viewing things; though one that I cannot as of yet picture in my mind's eye due to the fact that mass physically exists in the 3D temporal frame (thus, would not cosmic matter also have LWH dimensions?) Essentially, I cannot quite picture what 'clock space' looks like; what with it being an abstract thought.

Clock space "looks" just like clock time, except it is measuring the change of temporal length, width and height (in seconds) with respect to distance (eg: feet or meters). Clock time measures LWH in feet/meters with respect to duration (seconds). Both are just a "delta" from unit speed.

If spatial material aggregates are widely dispersed in time, i.e. each atom is in a different physical location, how is it possible then for one to 'cross over' into time and take one's body along on this stroll through the progression of existence? For additional clarification, let's take a spatial example: my cat. My cat is a material aggregate with an absolute magnitude in space. My cat is composed of many contiguous atoms (the smallest units of matter), aggregated together to form this purring little life form. So then, if those same atoms that compose my cat are widely dispersed in the other realm, (the progression of existence), what does my cat actually look like in that realm?

The localized/nonlocal structure only applies to the inanimate realm. A cat is not inanimate, it is at Level 2, Biologic. The body is localized in space and dispersed in time, whereas the soul is localized in time and dispersed in space. But when connected together as a life unit, you have a cell that is localized in BOTH space and time, and also nonlocal to both as a "field," such as an aura. (I believe I covered a lot of this structure in my paper on Homo Sapiens Ethicus.) So your confusion comes from trying to compare apples and bricks. You can't build a house with apples, nor juice bricks.

Anyhow, that would be my main question here: what does a spatial material aggregate such as my cat appear to look like in the realm of time, where each atom of her spatial body is widely dispersed rather than being aggregated together?

If the cat has an individuated soul (unlikely), it would look just like a cat. If not, then it would look like the "archetypal cat." All life must have a linkage between the material and cosmic, that is what defines it as life. But it does not have to be a 1:1 correlation (individual), it can be a 1:many or many:1 connection, which psychology defines as archetypes and complexes in an attempt to describe that linkage.

[AnAncientAwakening]

Daniel,

Thanks for this. I will respond with questions point by point, as there is a lot to consider here, but for now, my current question has to do with 'The Neglected Facts of Science'. I'll keep it simple, as I need to get this foundation under me before proceeding forward: Larson makes reference to "an expanding plastic ball, with dots scattered throughout its volume" (this I believe is a much better example of expansion than is an expanding balloon with dots drawn on its surface.) Larson then places this ball in a room. Please let me know if I'm imagining this correctly: Taking this from a macroscopic/galactic perspective, i.e. the dots within the volume of the ball are galaxies (let's start big first, then work our way down from there), the 'expanding plastic ball' with matter scattered throughout its volume is the Natural Reference System, and the room is Space, i.e. these two phenomenon are, in a sense, SEPARATE from one another (again, not truly separate, as the Natural Reference System is in some manner COUPLED to space, and/or space is some sort of 'natural consequence' of the actions of the Natural Reference System, but I need to work this out in my mind, and I am abstractly imagining two phenomenon that are separate of one another). Space is simply 'space', a 'frame of reference' whereby we can perceive the expansion of the Natural Reference System. There is nothing 'in space' itself apart from that which is coupled to it by the Natural Reference System. Neither phenomenon has any 'border' nor 'boundary' of which to speak, i.e. the 'ball' does not have a surface/circumference, and the room has no walls, floor, nor ceiling. In the most broad spectrum sense possible, have I got the right idea here?

The 'contraction' of the Natural Reference System would I suppose be 'inverse space', or time. I'll get back to this concept at a later date, as I am still struggling to divorce myself from the idea that 'time' is the 'progression' of something. I see things 'age' within space (the body) as well as within inverse space (the soul), and cannot help but think of this progression as 'the passing of time': an all-encompassing phenomenon affecting BOTH frames of reference. It appears that we have several different definitions of time, and it becomes convoluted. As I move forward in my understanding on this, it is much easier for me (at least initially) to take any concept of 'time' out of the RS equations, and instead replace these with the term 'inverse space'. This makes sense in my mind from the perspective of projective and sacred geometry, i.e. an inside and an outside to the form. I see these images and it makes sense, though again, in an abstract manner. Take, for example, the image below. Am I essentially seeing here three dimensional scalar motion, i.e. the geometric form itself is a 3D spatial/inverse spatial object, whereas the lines of projection are scalar motion in three dimensions? The projective lines have no physical form, because motion, being the underlying constituent of the universe, does not in and of itself have physical form. As Larson states, "all elements of a scalar motion system are moving." In order to take physical form, motion couples itself to two distinct reference systems, these being 3D 'space' and 3D 'inverse space'. Thus, the motion takes form in BOTH reference systems, not in one alone. It does this by 'displacing' itself from a datum base; that datum base being the speed of light (that last part is very hazy, and I'll need more foundation before being in a position to grasp it). This leads to another very interesting question: What is it that is 'moving' the 'mover'? As Larson states, "The finding that the fundamental forces are properties of fundamental motions rather than autonomous entities does not, in itself, solve the problem as to the origin of these forces. In the case of gravitation, for instance, it merely replaces the question, What is the origin of the gravitational force? with the question, What is the origin of the gravitational motion? But it is a definite step in the right direction." Again, in a broad spectrum sense, am I perceiving/interpreting Larson's thoughts correctly?

[AnAncientAwakening]

(Billy goes for a late night snack break, then returns with this...)

Ah, ok, so please tell me if I've now got THIS part of it right in my head: Photons are carried via a medium (The Natural Reference System, i.e. MOTION) at the speed of light. Since this is the fastest speed possible in space, all slower departures from this speed are contained within 3D space, whereas all speeds above this are contained with 3D inverse space. Thus, the speed of light is the datum base; a departure from which we measure as 'change' or 'displacement'. Larson calls it 'unity' because in his mind, it serves as the unification point of space and inverse space. But then again, you've stated that the progression of the Natural Reference System is unity, i.e. the datum base of progression takes place at the speed of light, i.e. the point of unification of space and inverse space? When taking 3D physical form, all motions traveling more slowly than the speed of light take that form in space, whereas all motions traveling above that speed take that from in inverse space. I am still hazy on the chatter concerning light standing still and everything else moving, because light still has a speed, and I am wondering as to whether or not every single 3D physical form, on either side of the speed of light has an inverse of some sort, but again, speaking in broad terms, am I beginning to see the 'light at the end of the reciprocal tunnel'?

As a final note: I really must go back and watch the video on Goethe's work, as a deeper understanding of the phenomenon known as 'light' will undoubtedly open this up even more.

So then, what does any of this have to do with 'octaves of existence'? Are there more than two main reference systems, or do these 'octaves' somehow 'flow through' these reference systems or through the Natural Reference System itself, without crossing over into either space or inverse space?

Why do I feel as though I've just come out of 'ludicrous speed'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky1HiwZjYKE

[joeyv23]

As I read the above two posts, this clip from Forrest Gump came to mind. Just replace the word 'Alabama' with 'Billy'

[SpaceMan]

It seems to me like everything you’ve just gone over is correct; though I would be wary of thinking of the natural reference system as a physical “medium” as that would indicate that it is something that the photon is actually moving through which seems like one of those artifacts of a universe of matter. I guess medium doesn’t necessarily imply something of that nature, but I thought it worth mentioning.

I'll get back to this concept at a later date, as I am still struggling to divorce myself from the idea that 'time' is the 'progression' of something. I see things 'age' within space (the body) as well as within inverse space (the soul), and cannot help but think of this progression as 'the passing of time': an all-encompassing phenomenon affecting BOTH frames of reference.

I’m not sure if you were attempting to communicate this point or not, but on the off chance you overlooked what you just said. There is a progression of something of an all-encompassing nature affecting both frames of reference, and that is the progression of the natural reference system. This progression actually being the thing we perceive as clock time(inverse space)/clock space

the geometric form itself is a 3D spatial/inverse spatial object, whereas the lines of projection are scalar motion in three dimensions? The projective lines have no physical form, because motion, being the underlying constituent of the universe, does not in and of itself have physical form.

Thanks for nailing that idea down for me. It had been swimming around in my head, but didn’t want to stay still long enough to be pinned down.

that datum base being the speed of light (that last part is very hazy, and I'll need more foundation before being in a position to grasp it)

I am still hazy on the chatter concerning light standing still and everything else moving, because light still has a speed, and I am wondering as to whether or not every single 3D physical form, on either side of the speed of light has an inverse of some sort

Light could be seen as standing still because it is the speed from which all displacements are made. It is the constant from which all things all measured. From the perspective of a displacement in either space or inverse space (time) the speed unity is the foundation.

So then, what does any of this have to do with 'octaves of existence'? Are there more than two main reference systems, or do these 'octaves' somehow 'flow through' these reference systems or through the Natural Reference System itself, without crossing over into either space or inverse space?

The impression I get is that Larson’s Sector 1 is first density. Sector 1 being just aggregates of spatial matter or inverse spatial matter (temporal matter). Sector 2 is second density. Sector 2 being a combination of aggregates of spatial and inverse spatial matter. This combination we call a life unit. Sector 3 is third density. Sector 3 being a life unit coupled to something Larson calls the ethical control unit. To continue your convention the ethical unit is an aggregate that exists beyond space and inverse space (time) in its own “realm” that is reciprocally related to motion as a whole. A sector 4 could be created to pair with fourth density. If in third density we have the coupling of a life unit to an ethical unit fourth density would be the complete actualization of those relations with both halves of the life unit communicating efficiently and the center of awareness residing in the ethical control unit. Fourth density the way I’m conceptualizing it here is where beings not only straddle space and inverse space (time) but also lie on the boundary between the mortal and immortal realms and to use the daniel paper homo sapiens ethicus definitions. The mortal realms being the aggregates situated within the confines of space and time (motion). The immortal realms being what exists beyond the physical world of motion. Once a being on the boundary of the mortal and immortal realms becomes balanced enough to exist in the realm beyond motion I would call that fifth density. It is difficult to talk in a precise manner beyond this point, but there are two more densities or sectors left. I’m thinking of it this way densities 1,2, and 3 are a process of evolving through and organizing 3 things into more whole relationships. The 3 things being space, time (inverse space), and beyond space and time. At this point we hit 4th density on the border between motion and beyond motion. Evolving past this point since beyond motion is reciprocally related to motion we would have 3 more densities 5,6, and 7 going through and organizing these same 3 things space, time (inverse space), and beyond motion albeit in a reciprocally related manner to densities 1, 2, and 3.

Considering all of that I would say that the densities are just increasingly complex ways of perceiving the reference systems and their interactions. Starting with the most direct and simplest of one reference system then the interaction of two. Then on to being conscious about the two of them and realizing their source the third (natural reference system). Next we run into being conscious of and perceiving the intimate relationship of all 3 (4th density). Now we start the 5th density with actually being the consciousness and perceiving it directly. In the 6th perhaps two reference systems and there interactions are perceived directly through thought ... whatever that means and in the 7th all 3 are directly perceived through thought. That was a weird exercise.

[joeyv23]

I'll get back to this concept at a later date, as I am still struggling to divorce myself from the idea that 'time' is the 'progression' of something.

I'd like to add for posterity's sake that the progression of (clock) time is 'stuff' moving in space. Where something moves away from unity in space, it does so as well, in 'inverse space'/(time) and it's equally important to recall that the progression of (clock) space is 'stuff' moving in time. As I understand it, the progression from unity, the movement out/in from datum of 1/1 where it can be conceived that light 'stands still' IS the progression of the natural reference system. I think this is in alignment with Spaceman's comment's above, just wanted to reiterate on the chance that different wording might help something click into place. And that's not to say that Spaceman's wording was lacking at all. I'm quite impressed with his ability to elucidate and relay his thoughts as has been done here, as am I with yours. I'm gonna have to step up my game as far as technical understanding goes so you two don't leave me in the dust, complacent with a fair grasp of a conceptual basis for understanding the System, speaking long winded turns of phrase and trying to not choke on the particulate.

[daniel]

Larson makes reference to "an expanding plastic ball, with dots scattered throughout its volume" (this I believe is a much better example of expansion than is an expanding balloon with dots drawn on its surface.)

With your chef background, perhaps "raisins in an expanding cake in the oven" would work better. The flour is space, the yeast is the expansion due to progression and the raisins are the temporal displacements--atoms, galaxies, etc, depending on scale.

Space is simply 'space', a 'frame of reference' whereby we can perceive the expansion of the Natural Reference System. There is nothing 'in space' itself apart from that which is coupled to it by the Natural Reference System. Neither phenomenon has any 'border' nor 'boundary' of which to speak, i.e. the 'ball' does not have a surface/circumference, and the room has no walls, floor, nor ceiling. In the most broad spectrum sense possible, have I got the right idea here?

Space and time are just labels to describe the two aspects of motion. You could use yang and yin, respectively, or anything else that forms a natural inverse, like limbs and roots of the tree of motion.

We add symbolic meaning to "space" because that is our linear, point-to-point reference system. So whatever name you apply to that space concept must have the property of "connect-a-dot" in straight lines.

Time would be the same situation, if "time" was your linear reference system--but it is not. So we have to interpret "time" differently than space, and it can't be linear since space is linear. In our level of understanding, it is binary--if it is not straight, than it is curved, so time exhibits "curved" structures, the simplest of which is rotation, a line bent around to meet itself. Vortices, helixes, etc., are also possibilities. This is what Larson calls "equivalent space" -- a spatial concept that we "equate" motion in time to.

"Nothing" in the RS is "no speed change from unity." We cannot perceive nothing because there is nothing to observe the change with. Our senses are based on watching dots in space, connected by lines, move around. No dots--we're mystified.

Take the photon, a dot moving in a straight line, the "particle." That's easy to understand--throw a baseball. But when that dot starts moving through a chunk of glass--a displacement in time--you've switched your perspective from space to its inverse, time, so the photon can no longer move in a straight line--it has to move inversely, as a curve, and wiggle as a wave to get through. Once it pops out the other side of the glass, you've flipped back to the original perspective and behold--it's become a particle again. That is your wave-particle duality that has been puzzling physicists for centuries, in very simple form.

The 'contraction' of the Natural Reference System would I suppose be 'inverse space', or time.

Yes, it is called "gravity." And inside-out expansion.

I'll get back to this concept at a later date, as I am still struggling to divorce myself from the idea that 'time' is the 'progression' of something. I see things 'age' within space (the body) as well as within inverse space (the soul), and cannot help but think of this progression as 'the passing of time': an all-encompassing phenomenon affecting BOTH frames of reference. It appears that we have several different definitions of time, and it becomes convoluted.

To understand the observed, you need to understand the assumptions made by the observer. That is what the difficulty is with understanding the RS. Perhaps this will help... everyone has and Ego, whose function is to keep his butt alive, so the body, along with its sensory system, are the most important thing in the universe to the Ego. Enter religion, which we've all been exposed to, and it's programming that man is the supreme, ultimate, end-all creation of God, and everything else exists as a resource to be consumed by him. That's the premise of human observation, simply put in two words: ME, NOW!

If you notice, ME is a location, a single point in space, NOW is a temporal location, a single point in time. A point has no dimensions, so there is no dimensionality to conventional thought. People live in the "instance" of me, now, and that is how science is taught. Take a snapshot of the Universe, freezing space and time so there is no change, and develop theories around it.

Then Larson comes along with a video camera, and adds the concept of "constant change" to their photo album, showing how they put the pictures in the book backwards and upside-down, because a video shows how things changed--not just "before" and "after" photos, like you see on so many bogus commercials where they take the "after" photo before, then pay someone a lot of money to put on 50 pounds and take the "before" picture, after.

So you have to get out of that "snapshot" mode of thinking, and start thinking like a video. Cause and effect are simply before and after photos. The process that goes on in between is usually ignored. That process of before becoming after is what "time" actually is, and what the Reciprocal System addresses. The last comment Larson made in his lecture video was his conclusion that his RS is "nothing but abstract CHANGE in three dimensions."

That is the challenge in understanding the RS--to read between the points, and make the connection.

In order to take physical form, motion couples itself to two distinct reference systems, these being 3D 'space' and 3D 'inverse space'.

There is actually a term for inverse space used by conventional science, called R-space (reciprocal space). They have not yet realized it is time.

What is it that is 'moving' the 'mover'? ... Again, in a broad spectrum sense, am I perceiving/interpreting Larson's thoughts correctly?

Scalar motion is actually easy to understand, when taken to a 2D analogy. (For a 3D one, see the programming develop by Bruce and Zuoqian on RS2 to convert scalar motion to a coordinate system).

Take a bag of magnetic marbles and dump them on a flat table. What happens? They start rolling around all over, some of them pushing away from each others as like poles repel and others sticking together as opposites attract. Notice what is going on--the ONLY variables here are the strengths of the pushes and pulls exerted by the magnetic fields. After a while, the system will find equilibrium and freeze into a structure, a bunch of clumps and chains, being held apart by those areas that are pushing rather than pulling. Scalar motion is only pushes and pulls.

Now, if you want a coordinate system out of it you have to do a couple of things. First, you have to pick one of the balls as the origin, the (0,0) of your coordinate system. Since you can walk around the table and look at that ball from any perspective, which way to you call "right," the +X axis? Well, you have to pick another ball and say that one is going to be to the right of the one you picked as the origin. Now since you don't have any units of measure, you take a piece of string and mark the distance between the origin ball and the X axis ball, and call that "1 string."

Using a square, you can now determine the Y axis as perpendicular to the line formed by the origin--X ball, and start measuring where the other balls are, in relation to the origin ball in units of "1strings." That is how you transform scalar motion to a coordinate system.

In the RS, the balls (atoms, molecules, aggregates) are just scattered in a volume, rather than on a surface. Each ball has a displacement in time to form a spatial coordinate system, and a displacement in space to form a temporal coordinate system. But you have to be careful of what you pick for your origin, X and Y balls, because not all elements have displacements in the inverse aspect, so some will be missing from the inverse perspective.

And remember--if there is no observer, there is nobody to create the coordinate system by picking what balls to look at.

You are getting there. Given your music background, you might want to consider the material and cosmic sectors like the treble and bass clefs. The bass clef is analogous to the stage on which the treble clef actors are performing. But they always work together to create the play.

[AnAncientAwakening]

And to think: It only took me 27:56 to understand the 'inverse' nature of space and time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZldItU_W190