Dewey Larson’s Reciprocal System of Theory (RSt) is quite a different concept of the universe, and it harmonizes quantum physics, Newtonian physics, astronomy/cosmology and metaphysics.

In 20.6, Ra is asked about RSt and it’s discoverer, Dewey Larson. In 20.7, Ra answered that Larson’s theory is correct, but incomplete. The unidentified rotation concepts Ra mentioned were developed in the 1990s and 2000s by two other people, they called the expanded theory RS2.

When I read that a sixth density social memory complex stated that it was correct, I felt compelled to look into it more. I did. Has anyone here investigated the harmonization of physics and metaphysics, as described in RSt?

Everything in our physical world is a recapitulation of the non-physical world. Space/time and time/space are comprehensible. RS makes creation look very simple, very consistent, and very ordered throughout the layers of existence. The space of physical universe is not a container, despite it appearing that way. There is more, in sessions 27, 28, 39, 41, and a few others. Most of the time, Ra mentions Larson without being specifically asked about him, because they clearly agree with his conceptual description of the creation, and point to RSt for the answer.

Pretty cool. I love this creation more, every day.


I have not specifically looked into this. I barely know anything about physics, but it makes all the sense in the world to me (pun intended) that the physical phenomena/perceptions are the manifestations (mind/body) of the metaphysical (spirit), and yet all is truly one (mind/body/spirit).

1 Like

Thank you Gottafly, Ia m musing that I am going to try my feeble green brain to it !! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

I found Tesla’s statement to be a simpler expression:
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration .”
–Nikola Tesla.

And to describe “Space/Time” and “Time/Space” is not a container yet it appeared that way, I found it easier to use the metaphor of Virtual Reality or Game. Wherein the “Body” is symbolized acting in similar manner as “Avatar” inside the game. (Also many thanks to the hit movie Avatar which bring such concept to the masses),

Thus imagine Jack sitting on a living room sofa, putting on his VR goggles to play VR game, while sitting beside him is Sophie his sister.
While playing the game Jack asked Sophie, “Sophie where are you?” and Sophie answered him with “Wherever and whenever you are (in the VR world), I will always be with you.” As Sophie is sitting next to Jack in the living room, yet it’s outside of the VR world which Jack is currently immersed himself in.



Larson and Tesla agreed. Larson was about forty years younger than Tesla.

Larson wrote textbooks about his findings.

Tesla mostly disguised his findings in his patents, which requires a lot of additional research. He gave many lectures, but didn’t go into enough details to be reproducible, unfortunately.

So your point is: Larson is “better” / “superior” than Tesla?

I don’t see either as “better” or “lesser” than the others, both statement are unique using each point of view and limitation of scope. Yet I find Tesla’s statement is more “compact” and “simpler” thus “easily discernable”.

Similarly Quo statement is “more discernable” compared to Ra, yet both are merely different identity of the same “consciousness”. Neither are better or worse, superior or inferior. The way each describe things might be different, as each have their own unique point of view.

And we can expand the comparison from only Quo, Ra with Siddhartha, Rumi, Jesus…
They all carries the same message:
Wahdatun Al Wujd, singularity of all form of existence.
Law Of One

I’m just saying one gives more actionable details. Since they both have similar theories, neither can be better than the other, IMO. I respect your opinion that Tesla is better.

But farther than who’s better, are we actioning any principle on our own? Have you tried materializing what you think? Would it be more important to know this but can’t apply? Or to apply but don’t help? My humble opinion is we need to understand and apply, practice with ourselves first…

Good point. I’m actively working on something. I asked about Larson’s work, because his work has enough details available to be useful. I need a few years, and some likeminded people, though.


My point was none of them are better or not better, superior or inferior.
Different yes, as each capture the thing from each own’s context and perspective.
And ‘the thing’ has infinite possibility of perspective.