RS2--daniel

these 13 steps in moving between the worlds of space time and time/space that you mentioned in the et/ed paper? the faster than light speeds (within consciousness that is) what are they?? i saw that and well i had the desire to ask =)

thenativewanderer wrote:these 13 steps in moving between the worlds of space time and time/space that you mentioned in the et/ed paper? the faster than light speeds (within consciousness that is) what are they?? i saw that and well i had the desire to ask =)

Not an easy explanation, as it is based on Larson's atomic model, not the conventional one. It has to do with how dimension create "speed ranges." If anyone has read Universe of Motion, Larson refers to the inanimate speed ranges as 1-x (low), 2-x (intermediate) and 3-x (ultra-high). The 4th is the inverse-low speed of the cosmic sector. 3 dimensions, 4 speed ranges.

In Larson's atomic model, the atom is comprised of "double-rotating units" (solid rotations, as Nehru describes them). Each is a 3D, temporal structure. Particles are incomplete atoms, and have a single, double-rotating unit. Complete atoms have two, double-rotating units and since they are independent of each other, the atomic structure appears 6D, much like the 6-torus of String Theory. This works for both material atoms, and cosmic (antimatter) atoms. A life unit is a stable combination of material and cosmic atoms (Beyond Space and Time), so it has two, 6D systems involved, which give the life unit a total of 12 independent variables, or is 12D. 12D gives rise to 13 "speed ranges", so to transition from a 3D, spatial body in the low speed range, all the way over to the 3D, temporal body in the inverse-low speed range, requires a total of 13 steps.

Got all that? There will be a quiz tomorrow!

To me the goal would be not so much a transition into temporal domain, but a full access to the abilities of the temporal body from within the spatial body. We internalize the temporal body, or bring it into coherent alignment with the physical body, as a greater whole. I believe this union of the spatial and temporal body was the goal of alchemy in both the western and eastern traditions. In the toltec tradition the temporal body is called The Double. In some taoist traditions it's called the Gold Dragon Body. Dan Winter explains the science behind the transmutation of matter into the superconductive state of bliss. Torsion fields, especially the coherent fractality of the heart field is key to accessing the "source field", as David Wilcock would call it.

Spot on, Faunus! Only get transitions from side to side when you're 3D and are in the cycle of reincarnation.

Are there any visuals for explaining some of these processes? I convert words to pictures in my head in order to understand them easier. Each time you give an analogy I get it. However, I'm having a difficult time visualizing the time/space/motion/dimension models and differences.

On the other hand, I was able to visualize some of the scenarios from the Montauk (?) project much too clearly. OY!

As for the astronomy stuff - such a no brainer and a relief. I remember sitting through my college Astronomy class (years ago) trying to understand what they were explaining and it just did not make sense. (and I'm considered to be fairly intelligent) I simply couldn't connect the dots (no pun intended). Now I know it was not me, it was that the information was not coherent.

Back to the pictures - straight lines and circles are good! Nothing fancy.

emmyb wrote:Are there any visuals for explaining some of these processes?

The difficulty with diagramming a universe of motion is that the stuff on paper doesn't move! The best concept I have come across is a speedometer. There is a bunch of visuals on the RS2 site on theoretical work, particularly in the forum. Prof. Nehru did some interesting ones using gear trains to show how the photon worked.

emmyb wrote:On the other hand, I was able to visualize some of the scenarios from the Montauk (?) project much too clearly. OY!

It was an interesting job, to say the least.

emmyb wrote:As for the astronomy stuff - such a no brainer and a relief. I remember sitting through my college Astronomy class (years ago) trying to understand what they were explaining and it just did not make sense. (and I'm considered to be fairly intelligent) I simply couldn't connect the dots (no pun intended). Now I know it was not me, it was that the information was not coherent.

Larson's book, Universe of Motion, in which he corrects the backwards evolution is probably one of the most interesting books I have every read, being a very-amateur astronomer, myself. I've always felt the same way... conventional astronomy is just too complicated. I do recommend reading Larson's paper, The Mythical Universe of Modern Astronomy, that shows all the problems with the existing system clearly.

emmyb wrote:Back to the pictures - straight lines and circles are good! Nothing fancy.

MiniMoose here on the forum has volunteered to try to make some graphics and pictures of this stuff, so I am going to send her some of my scribbles I use to try to figure out things. If it doesn't make her pull all her hair out, we should probably get some nice graphics.

I found this interesting. It is explaining dimensions and shows time as one other dimension with three parts. If I am correct the time line is actually how we get motion. If something lasts long enough we see it as a real object. Something that is beyond time and space could only be what senses and relates to it. The next "dimension" will be we call ascension for those able to understand it, I believe. Some would call it the astral world or dream state. It requires a higher level of being. Just my thoughts.

If something lasts long enough we see it as a real object. Something that is beyond time and space could only be what senses and relates to it. The next "dimension" will be we call ascension for those able to understand it, I believe. Some would call it the astral world or dream state. It requires a higher level of being.

In the context of what you're saying (which isn't the context of the speed at which our eyes can see), you can't technically see anything "that lasts long enough" because you imply that it needs to have "linear time" in order to be visible.

We can only "see" what is in the "present". We can never "see" what is in the "past" or "future" in the sense that you are talking about.

So that 3d cube marked "present" is the ONLY thing we can see given standard circumstances.

Another note is that we only "see" in 2D, not 3D. In order to "see" in 3D, you must be able to perceive whatever is at all 3 coordinates of 3D at the same time, which means if you look at me in 3D you must be able to see my heart pumping, inside my chest with your very own eyes without opening my chest with a knife. But the fact is, we only see x,y (how tall and how wide). We can't see the "depth" otherwise we'd see THROUGH everything too (a surface (i.e 2D area) won't block our vision).

Our perception of "depth" is actually two 2D Maps from each eye interpreted by our brain to ONLY tell us "how far" a point is on that 2D map from us. It can't necessarily tell us "what exactly is at that point of depth", because it might be inside an opaque object that our 2D-viewing eyes can't penetrate.

Its sad to say but we can only see in 2D if we're talking eye-sight.

Another thing I want to point out is that the term "dimensions" imply the addition of "planes" as reference points. where 2D has "2" dimensions x,y and 3D has "3" dimensions x,y,z we think that there's a 4-dimensional way of perceiving something directly with 4 dimensions x,y,z,+1

But look at that dimensional diagram. See how each "higher" dimension is actually just the previous one in "stacks" or in "series". A whole bunch of 1-dimensional lines next to each other will look like a 2-dimensional square(area). A stack of areas on top of each other look like a "cube".

In the end, its not really 3 types of dimensions, its still "one" type of dimension. It is a coordinate, a point. Each "higher" dimension is just another set of points. But only space works like that. Time does not. Otherwise I can just take a 3-d cube on my desk, move it with my hand to the other end of the desk, and say "hey look at my 4d hypercube moving through past and present and future". I'll get laughed at because its still a 3-d cube, its coordinates just changed, and its 5 seconds later in the day. Nothing impressive about it. It didn't "ascend" and became a "4-D hypercube" by the "divine might of so-so" moving his "mighty arm of godlike powers through time and space" just because added some linear attribute to the cube. Ahem...

Time works in cycles (e.g. vibrations, patterns), duration (persistence), transformation (change in "substance"), intensity (intensity we could inaccurately understand as "speed" or "energy") and such attributes that we can't explain with spatial coordinates called points.

4-D hypercubes are thus not "3d plus time = 4D". Its still 3D, with a linear relativity (backwards and forwards) and a direction (e.g. past is backwards, future is forwards) as additional attributes. Think of those attributes as the "color" of the cube and the "brightness" of the cube. color and brightness are just additional attributes of the same 3d object. They don't make the object 5d simply because its got color AND brightness in addition to 3 dimensions of space.

If you want to think of a 4-d cube, think of a spinning 3-d cube. want a 5-d cube? Make it change between variations of matter, anti-matter, and vacuum as its "substance" while spinning for only a duration. want a 6-d cube? Have it in a pattern of absorbing and radiating energy as it spins and changes in substance all at the same time.

This doesn't make sense. There's a reason for that. Because its not stable, not useful, not sustainable. Everything that exists in some form of sustainable state (i.e. for longer than some instant of linear time), doesn't exhibit an x+n amount of dimensions. It exhibits a precise, limited amount of dimensions. The dimensions are also not described with one type of coordinate, but different types of coordinates.

"Ascension" is not the 'addition' of dimensions, it is the awareness of more types of coordinates of the already existing dimensions.

Now some may say "but they have proven 10 or 12 or x amount of dimensions with math". What type of math? Did you know there's at least 9 types of math? And that they are not compatible with each other - thats why they're distinguished from each other. And why should "reality" subscribe to a man-made type of "math" simply because that "math" says it must?

We can only "see" what is in the "present". We can never "see" what is in the "past" or "future" in the sense that you are talking about.

Infinity your are right about how we are taught through science to view our world and taking only our reality from our physical body.

I add this to the conversation by example. Take for instant the video camera. It can only record or see what it is mechanically made to do. With greater and greater sophistication of the equipment we get a better and better view and play back of what it see. But it is not human. We, humans, have the ability to get more meaning out of what is viewed by our memories. Association of prior visions and relating of new images is our best attribute. We can see thing the machines can't (at least not yet! ).

We, I believe, have what is call a spirit. I believe that it is that being or spirit that is actually "seeing" and not our mind as we are taught. That being or whatever you want to call it, is what gives us life. Our bodies are just a shell, a mechanical means of living. That "thing" is what is seeing. It can see past (remember) and future (predict) time. Some are better at doing this then others and some are just doing OK. But over all spirit is the intelligent being.

When we talk about the other side of reality (3D time) it seems to me that it is the same thing a dreams. In dreams the time does not seem real as in too fast or too slow. We can move about as normal or travel in a blink of an eye. The Ascension that I talked about is the merging of our world with the dream world. We would be living in the dream world full time. Can you imagine living permanently in a dream?

We, humans, have the ability to get more meaning out of what is viewed by our memories.

What is interesting in this perspective is that memory or prediction doesn't "change" the "form" of what was viewed. What was viewed stays the same and in fact cannot be changed for that space and that time. The question is begged - by looking at it from different perspectives, do we get a better "view" of it (i.e. retrieve more information from it?) or do we actually "add" more information to it (by adding our subjective understanding / meaning) to it? These are two extremes of which neither is entirely accurate on their own. In fact, both is true to a degree (depending on the region of time/space or space/time we are operating in which might change the speed and effectiveness of these two influences).

The point is, as we know, consciousness / attention enables us to "modify" the properties of an observed object simply by the way we observe it (quantum physics perspective). So the point here is that our "meaning" we get out of it actually "transforms" the object - even if it is by an unobservable degree of change RELATIVE to the tools we use to observe it, it is still changed.

I believe that it is that being or spirit that is actually "seeing" and not our mind as we are taught.... That "thing" is what is seeing. It can see past (remember) and future (predict) time. Some are better at doing this then others and some are just doing OK.

Our eyesight-based information are still limited to interpreted 2D maps. But it is possible to learn "psi" abilities that can "super-impose" the information of full 3D spatial perspective (like a hologram is see-through). The book Autobiography of a Yogi has an example of this. When reading up on near neath experiences, it is commonly reported that people have full 360 degree "sight" and even to the degree of full awareness of the creatures living on your eye-lids and inside your ears. However, this perspective is always reported in spatial terms (full 3D space) and I haven't found anyone "seeing" the time aspects of such observations - despite using "bodies" that were completely non-physical.

I'm not sure its possible to use "visual" representations to truly "see" future, although visual representation may be used to "interpret" what is sensed about the future (e.g. on-comming truck could mean get out the way in physical traffic because a truck is going to hit you in 15 seconds or it could represent oncomming symbolic catastrophe as a wake-up call to pay attention to the direction in life you're heading into). The point is that the 'senses' used that are time-space based are very very different from our physical senses.

This makes it hard for us to use existing language (designed for space-time descriptions) to discuss and define time-space concepts and experiences.

In time-space extreme, "meaning" is not merely interpretation but it is a creative force that changes things "physically" as if it is magic. In space-time extreme, "meaning" is merely an opinion or interpretation of a subjective perspective. To call a tree a rock is not going to change how it looks in an instant. Its still a tree. But in time-space things don't work like that.

The meaning of "Meaning" changes depending on whether you're talking space-time or time-space. What this translates to, is that it would depend on what speed region one is in (in the context of RS2 speeds), that will change the meaning of how we add "Meaning" to something. So in time-space, adding "meaning" to something, is changing it, starting the present "time" and into the "future". But what it "was" before we added new meaning, will always remain the same for that "time". That is not changeable because it is a "snapshot photo" of the past.

So if I take a snapshot of the tree, then change it into a rock, it will now be a rock, but the snapshot photo will still show a tree.

Thus, even "Meaning" is mutable and even "meaning" is not really "human" or "intelligent" but simply a creative force tool that we can use because we have a self-aware consciousness. However, that doesn't make the past "meaningless" as the meaning of what was past cannot be "replaced" since for that time and that space it is "set in stone" and recorded for all eternity to be so.

This means that we are always "free" from the past with no limitation on anything in the "future", yet the "past" helps to add to the spice of the future, the meaning created in the past will always be what one starts with or builds on.

This is why I love the quote from Kane from the game Command and Conquer: "He who conquers the past, commands the future. He who commands the future, conquers the past."

With this understanding we can begin to grasp that "time" is not needed for "change" or for "meaning". In fact, "time itself" is simply another way of describing something, or changing something, or creating something. Memory or prediction, past or future, does not play a role in "meaning". But only that "spirit" or that pure "consciousness" that you are is what is the source of real meaning. The ONLY source. Realizing that and using that is a much deeper and harder thing to do than it sounds.