First There’s Nothing, Then There Is.

Fuller starts us out at a place that nicely coincides with the numbers given us by modern physics.

In high school math you may or may not recall the parts about actions and reactions, Newton’s laws, that stuff. The billiard balls and angles. Well, basically we still use these same laws, and, not a whole hell of alot more. We shoot things at things for US\$50 Billion and see how they react. Makes sense in a basically 2 dimensional universe. We can even make it work more or less in a 3 dimensional Universe but let’s have a look at this, shall we?

The billiard balls we are examinimg are moving about in what appear to be indeterminate patterns. For arguments sake, and a coherent starting place, we’ll call this “space”; Aether, vacuum space, Zero Point Energy, Higgs field, whatever. Seems to be where all the energy is, no matter how you cut it. It’s everywhere and it’s just energy events. Now, let’s take, for a moment, the work of the Russian scientists  referenced in David Wilcock’s work which we will use presently to nicely model the toroidal (doughnut shapes) used in Kozyrev’s and, later, Nassim Haramein’s presentations.

Fuller uses the term “energy event” and combines these as action-reaction-resultant. Remember, there aren’t 2 balls on a flat plane but millions all going in different directions. Now, let’s throw in the unprovable, but highly plausible, hypothesis that somehow, consciousness (human or otherwise) can cause these energy events as a disturbance in the counter-rotating layers of this aether. We can even use this model to exhibit where angular momentum (another physics sticking point) may come from.

To summarize, let’s see if we can map these up/down spins of modern physics with the 4 dimensional advantages of Synergetics. Shown here on the right as some of Fuller’s original sketches.

I’m open to suggestions.

I can now also see how the Up and Down characteristics of physics can relate to the radiant and gravitational aspects of Synergetics giving us the “tunable/untunable” in the form of visible and invisible, perhaps?