RS2--daniel

Wireless engineer Eric Dollard teaches how dielectric and magnetic fields are both required to produce an electric field and that electricity is not electrons flowing through wires, which he says is impossible.

When referring to the dielectric field, is that the same or similar to the aether, electrostatic charge, gravity and/or 3D time?

Also, Dollard says that matter comes from fields and not the other way around and that E equals MC squared is not correct because matter and energy are not equivalent. I assume he means that matter comes from the aether, which seems to be what Dr. Paul Violette teaches as well.

I would appreciate any help with understanding these concepts and how they relate to the Reciprocal System.

PHIon wrote:Wireless engineer Eric Dollard teaches how dielectric and magnetic fields are both required to produce an electric field and that electricity is not electrons flowing through wires, which he says is impossible.

I concur, and so does Larson. In the Reciprocal System, particles can be charged or uncharged (conventional science only recognizes the charged state). The uncharged electron, which is the true anti-particle (not the positron) is the source of electric current, appearing as a "hole" because it has its existence in coordinate time, where we can't measure structure. (See Basic Properties of Matter.) Since atoms are temporal displacements, and the electron is a spatial displacement, the relationship of space/time constitutes motion, so uncharged electrons can freely move through atomic structure as current. A conventional, charged electron has its displacement in time, just like the atom, and the relation of time/time is NOT motion, so charged electrons cannot flow between atoms, but must exist outside the atomic structure, in the vacuum of space (vacuum of space/time of charged electron IS motion). It is actually pretty simple, once you understand the space/time relationships.

PHIon wrote:When referring to the dielectric field, is that the same or similar to the aether, electrostatic charge, gravity and/or 3D time?

All fields are "equivalent space;" the shadow of 3D time on 3D space. AEther IS 3D time; remember that space and time are reciprocals of each other, so the "vacuum of space" is balanced by the "solid of time" (aether). Atoms, being temporal displacements, therefore appear solid and "aetheric," being arranged in a 3D spatial vacuum.

Gravity is not a field, it is an inward, scalar motion. Gravity does not actually "pull" on anything, which is why it cannot be shielded. See Larson's book, Beyond Newton: An Explanation of Gravitation.

PHIon wrote:Also, Dollard says that matter comes from fields and not the other way around and that E equals MC squared is not correct because matter and energy are not equivalent. I assume he means that matter comes from the aether, which seems to be what Dr. Paul Violette teaches as well.

In the RS, atomic rotation is in 3D time, so therefore matter IS aether.

And E=mc² does not say "matter and energy are equivalent." Look at the space/time relations:

E (t/s) = m (t³/s³) (s/t)²

It says that matter (mass) is 3-dimensional energy (which, of course, is not the same as 1-dimensional energy).

Daniel, I hoped I was somewhat following you until you said, "the electron is a spatial displacement" and later that a "conventional, charged electron has its displacement in time, just like the atom".

Are uncharged electrons spatial which can flow into the atom (space with time is motion) and charged electrons temporal which do not flow into the atom (time with time is not motion)? If charged electrons are temporal why are they in the vaccum of space?

Is the idea to invite the charged electron into space so that there can be motion? Is this what ancient sacred sites designed with sacred geometry are about, to be human-made black holes on the world Grid lines to invite charge into space which then produces a flow into time to generate an electric field for the inhabitants of the region?

Not having a science backround is making this material a struggle for me but it just means I will have to work harder. I hope grade school kids are learning the basics about this in our lifetime.

PHIon wrote:Are uncharged electrons spatial which can flow into the atom (space with time is motion) and charged electrons temporal which do not flow into the atom (time with time is not motion)? If charged electrons are temporal why are they in the vaccum of space?

An uncharged electron is a spatial rotation; a "charge" is a vibration (photon), so a charged electron is a rotational vibration. It is the charge that provides the temporal displacement of the uncharged, spatial rotation of the electron--not the electron, itself.

An uncharged electron (space) in the vacuum (space) cannot not move, as space/space is not motion. But it IS carried by the "progression of the natural reference system" (a term Larson uses to describe the natural, outward scalar movement of the Universe, which is described as the "Hubble Expansion" in conventional astronomy. The only difference is that Larson applies this expansion to subatomic systems, as well as galaxies--as I've said, same concepts, just different scales.) Whereas the progression moves at the speed of light (unit speed, 1.0 s/t), anything that does not move with respect to the progression, is observed as moving at the speed of light. This includes photons (light) and uncharged electrons. (aka zero point energy.)

The charged electron (basically an uncharged electron that captured a photon), vibrates between space and time. So it actually wants to spend half its time in the atom (spatial rotation/temporal rotation) and half of its time in vacuum (temporal charge/spatial vacuum). So you tend to find charged electrons hanging around surfaces--on the border between the two. In electronics, it is known as the "skin effect." They just don't like to be either inside the atom, or in the vacuum, so they accumulate at the boundary.

PHIon wrote:Is the idea to invite the charged electron into space so that there can be motion? Is this what ancient sacred sites designed with sacred geometry are about, to be human-made black holes on the world Grid lines to invite charge into space which then produces a flow into time to generate an electric field for the inhabitants of the region?

Uncharged positrons (temporal rotations) hang out in the vacuum of space, where they can move freely. Positrons are also one of the building blocks of atoms, so they tend to precipitate out of the vacuum to form atoms.

The charged electron does not want to be "in" anything--it prefers the boundary surface, so your conclusion does not logically follow. Sacred geometry has to do with resonance. In the Reciprocal System, everything is motion, and all structure is based on rotation (spinning) and vibration, so ALL matter has a frequency at which it operates. When geometry is aligned to the wavelengths of these subatomic and atomic systems, then you get sacred geometry (which, BTW, is the way LM tech works).

Sacred sites have a variety of functions, from Spaceports for the old SM transports to systems that generate Qi/prana (usually when a site is in a cropland).

PHIon wrote:Not having a science backround is making this material a struggle for me but it just means I will have to work harder. I hope grade school kids are learning the basics about this in our lifetime.

Actually, grade school kids do remarkably well with the Reciprocal System concepts, because they are "natural," based in yin-yang. Conventional science is one huge invention, and has everything inside-out, upside-down and backwards. Once you are taught "that" is the "truth," it makes for quite the stumbling block to learning new ideas.

I have wanted to teach grade school kids the Reciprocal System. Once they grasped the concepts, they would really run with it and come up with all sorts of ideas that we older folks would never think of. (Not to mention the havoc they would wreak on science teachers!)

daniel wrote:I have wanted to teach grade school kids the Reciprocal System. Once they grasped the concepts, they would really run with it and come up with all sorts of ideas that we older folks would never think of. (Not to mention the havoc they would wreak on science teachers!)

It's funny you should say that, Daniel...I have grade school kids whom I would rather learn the Reciprocal System, but I don't think I'm qualified. If you could prepare a course in the Reciprocal System that I could teach my kids, I'd greatly appreciate it Heck, if you could prepare a course, I'd use it for myself too!!!

In all honesty, that isn't a bad idea. Keep me posted if you ever decide to do something like that. I would love for my kids to learn the real truth and the real science...it is my mission in this life

PeacefulMe wrote:It's funny you should say that, Daniel...I have grade school kids whom I would rather learn the Reciprocal System, but I don't think I'm qualified. If you could prepare a course in the Reciprocal System that I could teach my kids, I'd greatly appreciate it Heck, if you could prepare a course, I'd use it for myself too!!!

Prof. Frank Meyer (deceased), one of Larson's friends, was a teacher at the University of Wisconsin and tried to teach the Reciprocal System in his physics class--when the administration found out, he was told to stop immediately or they would strip him of his tenure. If you think religious zealots are bad... try a conventional physicist!

PeacefulMe wrote:In all honesty, that isn't a bad idea. Keep me posted if you ever decide to do something like that. I would love for my kids to learn the real truth and the real science...it is my mission in this life

Bruce on the RS2 site is actually writing up some "mini lessons" on Reciprocal System concepts. Each one is just 4 pages long, so it can be printed on 8.5x17 paper and folded in half, for a convenient handout. Each one of these lessons targets a single concept concerning the RS, so it can be easily studied.

The initial work is here: Reciprocal System for Non-dummies

Guess what I just downloaded.

I am going to dive in to to Mr. Larson's books whether I sink or swim. I have learned much in life from simply jumping in without a net.

Maybe not having a science background will actually help me as if I were a child starting over in grade school without too many preconceived notions. If I don't posses a real gift for this, I will still be able to help people in some way with this material, maybe in an artistic context. I am stretching myself at the very least in a very exciting way.

For me, the most important thing I have ever learned is the love of learning. Nobody has to tell me to study anymore because I have learned to enjoy the process of learning and now see that what I study relates to real life and is not out there in "abstract-land". Granted, many things we were taught in school I am glad to have learned even though I did not see the point at the time - like memorizing the multiplication tables. I couldn't believe at the time we had to memorize all that! I sure am glad now. I guess the adults knew a thing or two after all.

I, too, want to help kids with this subject but am still not sure if this is my calling. Let's see if I learn it first. The feeling is there for sure that I would love kids to get started in life with information they probably still remember from their experiences before physical birth in space. They will be designing tomorrow's flux vehicles, healing technologies and art so why not get things going early as they are probably eager to get to work on forming a galactic society. Adults will need just as much help if not more.

PHIon wrote:They will be designing tomorrow's flux vehicles, healing technologies and art so why not get things going early as they are probably eager to get to work on forming a galactic society. Adults will need just as much help if not more.

That's certainly the right attitude! It has always been my view that we should push ahead on our own, and show the ETs what we can do with a little old-fashioned ingenuity!