The Ra Material 16.35:
Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.
The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term.
Perhaps Ra knows a little more than he is saying... or that Carla was able to interpret. Knowing how channeled communicaiton works, and seeing how far off the world view of the instrument this concept would be, it makes me wonder.
Larson refers to gravitationally-bound astronomical systems as behaving like a "viscous liquid." Nehru further commented that it may actually be more like a "hot solid." When studying Larson's Liquid State papers, I noticed that they are basically referring to the same condition, since our definition of the melting point is based on a percentage of an aggregate entering the liquid state--not based on atomic properties. In both cases, the astronomical situation within the gravitational limit is the same--that of a high-viscosity liquid (which is what a heated solid also is).
However, the situation is radically different beyond the gravitational limit, where NO dimensions are being gravitationally bound. This is analogous to a gaseous state. This got me thinking about "gravitational lensing" and more appropriately, the index of refraction when light (photons) bends crossing from a viscous liquid to a gas. I used to scuba dive and one of the first things you notice is that if you reach for something at an angle above the surface--it isn't where you grabbed. It is down lower, due to the index of refraction. The same reason why it is difficult to catch a fish with your hands, standing in the water.
This also gave me a clue as to how photons could traverse the gap between gravitational limits--circular polarization. The light we normally see is plane polarized, because it's been bouncing off stuff (very pronounced when diving). Out where there is nothing to bounce off of, light will take its "natural" state, which I believe to be circularly polarized. This comes from my use of quaternions to model birotation--by default, both aspects of birotation move in the same, scalar direction. It takes an influence from an oppositely-directed motion, like the time of the atom, to flip one aspect and create opposite rotations and linear polarization. Circularly polarized photons ARE NOT CARRIED by the progression, because they have a 1-unit inward motion, due to the rotation (aka, same reason that the rotational base does--like a ball rolling forward on a belt, rather than being carried by it). These circularly polarized photons will traverse the gap between gravitational limits, existing in a state analogous to a gas.
Photons then encounter the gravitational limit, and just like shining a flashlight on a pond, take on linear polarization and refract--distorting the original angle that they approached from. Applying this to the astronomical scale, the "stars" aren't where we see them.
The way we measure stellar distances is through triangulation, using the position of the Earth on opposite sides of the sun to make the base of the triangle:
Conventional astronomy assumes that "space" is the same, 3D gravitationally-bound system we find within our solar system, so they, like a scuba diver reaching for an object that he sees but isn't actualy there, are not accounting for the refractive index at the gravitational limit--assuming a straight line and as a result, placing the star MUCH further away than it actually is. To account for "why" they can see it, they make the star larger than it is, and the errors just compound from that point.
At this time, I have no idea as to how to calculate the gravitational "index of refraction" because I have no idea of what density matter is, out at the gravitational limit. Because it is a natural boundary, stuff may accumulate there (like the Oort cloud, which may actually be the G limit), making the density high, with a correspondingly high IOR. That means that what we see, isn't where it is, as far as we think it is, and even not as bright as we may label it.
I've been typesetting Larson's Liquid State papers, trying to come up with a computer model for thermal motion--not as easy as it sounds. The primary difference between thermal motion, a linear vibration, and the photon, also a linear vibration, is that thermal motion takes place inside the time region of an atom, and although a 1-dimensional motion, effects all three dimensions of motion (what Larson calls a distributed scalar motion).
Because the vibration is in time, rather than in space, the outward half of the cycle in time is ignored, as being coincident with the temporal aspect of the progression. Therefore, only the inward half of the vibration--in time--has any net effect. Inward in time = outward in space, so the thermal vibration acts in conjunction with the spatial aspect of the progression, increasing inter-atomic distance in those dimensions where it has an effect. When the magnitude of the thermal motion (aka, it's "frequency") becomes large enough to push that dimension past the atom's gravitational limit, there is no longer any cohesion in that dimension of motion. Hence, we get the states of matter described in the topic, which is defined by the number of dimensions that thermal motion has a magnitude that is larger than the inward, gravitational motion.
This structure makes "heat" a property of the atom, not of the aggregate. Conventional science believes heat to be a property of the aggregate, so all of our measurement techniques are based on statistical probability, not atomic structure. Based on Larson's research, a "liquid" is defined as a condition when 30% of the atoms (or molecules) in an aggregate have ONE dimension of thermal motion exceeding the gravitational motion--not all of them--70% of the atoms are still in the solid state of that "liquid." (These percentages give rise to the concept of viscosity and fluidity.)
In the molecular situation, it is a clear-cut demarcation based solely on dimensions. A molecule cannot be partly solid and partly liquid--as an aggregate can--it's either one or the other. So when working with thermal properties, the melting and critical points tend to be arbitrary, based on observation of a certain percentage of atoms in the aggregate reaching a specific state.
In Nehru's dialogues with Larson, he mentions the fact that there are 4 states of matter, not three, as described in the opening topic. Science has finally caught up with the RS, and now admits to a "supercritical fluid" that has all the properties of Nehru's "vapor" state, being a mix between the liquid and gaseous states. I consider this to be more validation of Larson's thermal concepts.
(CNN) -- Cassiopeia A was a star more than eight times the mass of our sun before it exploded in the cataclysmic, fiery death astronomers call a supernova.
And thanks to NASA space telescopes, scientists are learning more than ever about exactly how it happened.
The NuSTAR space telescope array is the first to map the radioactive material from a supernova explosion. The results were published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
"Until we had NuSTAR, we couldn't see down to the core of the explosion," Brian Grefenstette, lead author and research scientist at the California Institute of Technology, said at a news conference Wednesday.