Page 1 of 3

### Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:27 pm
In case anyone here doesn't visit the RS2 website much, Bruce has recently uploaded part 4 of the RS2 introductory papers. It's excellent, well written, funny and helps explain scalar motion and Reciprocal System basics very well:

RS2-104: Scalar Motion
Anyone who has explored the realm of the science that lies beyond what is taught in the classroom, will undoubtedly run across the term “scalar” without any consistency of application. Scalar waves, scalar energy, scalar motion, scalar this, scalar that… it appears the term is popular to describe something that the author does not quite understand themselves. This paper explains the "scalar" concept and how it is used in the Reciprocal System.

http://reciprocalsystem.org/PDFa/RS2-10 ... uce%29.pdf

If you are new here and looking for more of the same (and a whole lot more) then the other RS2 papers can be found at http://reciprocalsystem.org/.

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:42 am
Something about it confuses me. Where he explains how something like gravity (a scalar motion "force field") makes two things (e.g. a planet and a moon) SEEM like they interact, but actually there's no interaction at all.

I struggle to get around the "programming" I have about how the two "interact" through gravity - being an observer, observing the "illusion" of the interaction between the earth and moon. I understand Larson does not recognize the observer part of the "equation" since scalar motion cannot be "observed" directly, but we can't deny that the moon sticks close to the earth and the earth to the sun. The only way we think this can be possible is because of how we think about gravity - and that being the cause of it.

In one sense I get that there's no interaction. The Earth's gravity "well" doesn't change because of the moon, neither does the moon's change because of the Earth's proximity to it. But because of the way we think of gravity, it seems like its gravity that's making them stick so close to each other.

This makes me think of one of daniel's papers about the evolution of star systems and planets. Perhaps those "set orbits" are what makes things like planets seem like they interact via gravity where-as its got nothing to do with it directly, but rather the evolution of the sun and its fields' push and pull effects.

But then I don't get, why, if I jump, I come back down to earth? I'm not spinning in an orbit and I'm not in some invisible threshold being pushed/pulled into a specific distance from the earth seeming to "interact" with me gravitationally speaking?

I iz confuzed!

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:13 am
infinity wrote:This makes me think of one of daniel's papers about the evolution of star systems and planets. Perhaps those "set orbits" are what makes things like planets seem like they interact via gravity where-as its got nothing to do with it directly, but rather the evolution of the sun and its fields' push and pull effects.

But then I don't get, why, if I jump, I come back down to earth? I'm not spinning in an orbit and I'm not in some invisible threshold being pushed/pulled into a specific distance from the earth seeming to "interact" with me gravitationally speaking?
The way Bruce explains it is... get a long stretch of straight road and put two Deloreans at opposite ends, facing each other. Accelerate both to 88 mph and shift into neutral. Each Delorean weights 2840 pounds. Calculate the force of attraction between them that will cause them to crash into each other. (F = G (m1 m2)/ r^2).

Of course, common sense tells you that it is NOT the mass of the cars that are pulling them together, they just happen to have an "inward" speed of their own that will cause the collision. All atoms are "inward in space", but in 3 dimensions instead of 1 (the road), so all atoms want to collide with each other.

Now, replace the road with a rubber band and stretch the rubber band at a rate of 88 mph, while the two cars are moving against the stretch at 88 mph. That is the "expansion of space" that Larson calls "the progression of the natural reference system." What happens? With the road moving out at the same rate the cars are moving in, the cars never get any closer to each other--they remain at a fixed distance, though anything on the road in front of them will crash into the front grille at 88+88=176 mph--local gravity. Jumping would be like throwing something out of the front of the car, to land on the road, it will come flying back at you. Since all this motion is going on, yet the two cars remain at a fixed distance, you would perceive the two cars as being "in orbit" about each other, yet there is no interaction, at all, between them.

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:00 pm
I wish that someone could draw Daniels post on paper or make an animation out of this scene, I for one would like to see that animation.

Although, I think I get the whole gravity thingy, or going to "get it" on the way when new "OS" is fully installed in my mind. I have been forgetting the previous knowledge that is wrong and it takes time to be reprogrammed fully. Dont know how much time it takes, maybe it is unique for everyone.

I try to make an analogy about my understanding of this thing. Imagine that you are standing on a deck of a ship and it is moving in one direction so you share its speed and when you jump you still have its speed shared so this applies our gravity as well. In reality the direction would be towards earths core, so basically we have this one speed towards it and the whole planet has one speed around the sun etc. Not specifically accurate analogy, perhaps but close I think.

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:12 am
From your explanation, it sounds like you're describing that gravity is not the "pull" of two things on each other, but rather the "expansion of space" that PUSHES stuff against other stuff.

So in some sense I'm not being pulled by the earth, I'm being pushed against the earth by, well, "the expansion of space".

If I understand this correctly, gravity between 2 objects then, is because the amount of "spatial expansion" between the two are very low IN RELATIONSHIP TO the "spatial expansion" between the closed system of these two objects and the open system of all other objects. So the higher amount of "spatial expansion" around these 2 objects, cause them to be "pushed" to stay close to each other. And so gravity is then a RATIO that measures the difference between the "spatial expansion" BETWEEN the two objects as compared to the "spatial expansion" AROUND the objects.

So if I want to levitate, all I need to do is make the space between me and the earth expand at the same rate as the space above me, and I can "hang out" in mid-air.

How am I doing so far?

But to make all of this work, if I understand it right, then "matter" has to expand at a slower rate than space. But something tells me that its because of the reciprocal structure of the universe that the progression of the natural reference datum appears to happen this way. If "space" is expanding, so is "time", right?

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:23 am
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wv74kNU2WiQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dan Winter explains gravity as "The attraction due to gravity is caused by the adding and multiplying constructively, successfully of the heterodynes of waves of charge. As they approach center the phase velocities create a centripedal force where compression turns into acceleration".

This is only possible, he goes on to prove with golden mean geometry. Is this the acceleration from the Material [less than speed of light ] to the Cosmic sector {faster than speed of light?

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:16 pm
infinity wrote:From your explanation, it sounds like you're describing that gravity is not the "pull" of two things on each other, but rather the "expansion of space" that PUSHES stuff against other stuff.

So in some sense I'm not being pulled by the earth, I'm being pushed against the earth by, well, "the expansion of space".

If I understand this correctly, gravity between 2 objects then, is because the amount of "spatial expansion" between the two are very low IN RELATIONSHIP TO the "spatial expansion" between the closed system of these two objects and the open system of all other objects. So the higher amount of "spatial expansion" around these 2 objects, cause them to be "pushed" to stay close to each other. And so gravity is then a RATIO that measures the difference between the "spatial expansion" BETWEEN the two objects as compared to the "spatial expansion" AROUND the objects.

So if I want to levitate, all I need to do is make the space between me and the earth expand at the same rate as the space above me, and I can "hang out" in mid-air.

How am I doing so far?

But to make all of this work, if I understand it right, then "matter" has to expand at a slower rate than space. But something tells me that its because of the reciprocal structure of the universe that the progression of the natural reference datum appears to happen this way. If "space" is expanding, so is "time", right?
Very good. Keep in mind the reciprocal relation between space and time, and that outward in one aspect is equivalent to inward in the other. Gravity is "outward in time" (the temporal rotation of the atom) and therefore appears as "inward in space." As Bruce explains on the RS2 site, rotation and translation are also geometric reciprocals, so "rotationally outward in time" (mass) is analogous to "linearly inward in space" (gravity).

To levitate, what you have to do is add enough "outward in space" to cancel out the spatially inward effect of "outward in time." Believe it or not, that is actually how the "states of matter" (solid, liquid, vapor and gas) work. Thermal motion has a net outward vibration in space, which counters the gravitational attraction in a specific dimension of three dimensions. So when things are cold, the thermal motion has no cancelling effect, as gravity wins in all dimensions. When things heat up they melt--ONE of the inward, gravitational dimensions gets cancelled out by the outward thermal motion, with the other two still "sticking" so the molecules stay stuck together, but can move around a bit in that cancelled dimension, giving liquid properties. Increase the temperature more towards the boiling point, and a second gravitational dimension gets cancelled out, allowing the molecules more freedom to move, being only stuck together by a single dimension (like balls connected by strings). That's the vapor state. Get it still hotter, and all three dimensions get cancelled out, and the molecules cannot stick together at all, and fly apart from each other (the progression takes over), until they are stopped by a wall--the gas state.

When you understand that everything is motion--speeds--all that is needed for "special effects" is to understand how to change that ratio of speed. For levitation, you just need to do what thermal motion does, but at a bioenergetic level. To overcome the "inward in space" (outward in time) pull of gravity, you need "outward in space." Setting yourself on fire doesn't work, because that will make your molecules come apart and turn you to dust. But you can try yang bioenergy, that "flame of consciousness"--yang being spatial, here in the material sector. Yin bioenergy is Qi, ch'i or prana. Yang is the next one up... shen or kundalini. Get your kundalini to rise, and you will too!

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:42 pm
aeral wrote:Dan Winter explains gravity as "The attraction due to gravity is caused by the adding and multiplying constructively, successfully of the heterodynes of waves of charge. As they approach center the phase velocities create a centripedal force where compression turns into acceleration".

This is only possible, he goes on to prove with golden mean geometry. Is this the acceleration from the Material [less than speed of light ] to the Cosmic sector {faster than speed of light?
In the Reciprocal System, there are two components to gravity: rotational mass and gravitational charge. The rotational mass is fixed for each element, as it defines the element, and has a value of twice the atomic number. In the early 19th century research, they referred to this as "weight" instead of "mass."

The gravitational charge (also known as isotopic mass) is the extra bit that is added (or subtracted) to the rotational mass to get the actual mass of the atom. All charges are vibrations, having 1/2 the effectiveness of a rotation and measured as 1 AMU (which is why a rotation is 2 AMU). It would seem that he is only addressing the gravitational charge portion of the net, gravitational effect. The gravitational charge varies between atoms, depending upon the magnetic ionization level of the environment (a concept I use frequently in my papers). As a result, you see a lot of fractional mass values, because that is the average weight of an isotopic range of mass. If you could actually weigh a single atom, it would always be an integer value in AMUs = 2Z + G.

The only problem I see with Winter's explanation is that he is explaining the effect of scalar motion, not the cause, and assumes the effect IS the cause. Kind of "putting the cart before the horse."

The Golden Ratio (phi) is the consequence of the interaction between motion in space (squares) and motion in "equivalent space" (how time is represented in space, circles)--the result is the spiral with the phi ratio. Since space is discrete (squares), the ratio arises as part of that "quantum PI" function that Bruce describes in his next paper, RS2-105: Quantum PI.

BTW, did you catch the ENKI reference in his video?

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:43 am
The most difficult part of all of this, for me, is to try and get a visual picture of what is going on. Getting a picture of one side of the RS is fair enough, but both sides at the same time (not even considering translations/rotations in equivalent time or space) is not so easy.

Later, full "3D" understanding is attained, where currently the capacity is only a "2D" understanding.

My problem is I keep visualizing the 2D version (shadow cast by the 3D picture) while trying to understand the 3D picture. But simply looking at different "2D shadows" won't help much as there's not only an outside face but also an inside which doesn't "cast a shadow" and can only be appreciated when "3D" capacity for understanding is there.

### Re: Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:26 pm
Daniel said;
"BTW, did you catch the ENKI reference in his video?"

Oh yeah! I remember somewhere Dan Winter telling of a time when he was in the great pyramid and he experienced what he called a "swoon" after which he accessed ancestral memory of some sort and the Enki/ Enlil story was part of that. I'll see if I can find the video.