Reciprocal System Research Society

Actually I have found the solution. The numbers used for the sun (location, size, mass) in SR/GR calculations are off by 4% due to an error in the gamma transformation factor as used by Lorentz and Einstein.

I'll report on that later.

bperet wrote: "Dark energy accounts for that attractive force of temporal progression. And remember that the reciprocal of the "vacuum of space" is the "solid of time"--it looks like a fluid." Now you got me confused Bruce. I thought dark energy was the astronomers lab...

<r>If I understand it well, an expanding universe could be explained by the "Big Bang" only, but to explain an accelerating expanding universe we need "dark energy" too?<br/> <br/> That alone would put Occam's Razor greatly in favor of Larsonian expansion <E>:)</E><br/> <br/> Regards,<br/> <br/> Ste...

Does RST or RS2 have an explanation for what astronomers call "magnetic reconnection"? I was triggered by this article and the great animation that goes with it: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/themis_power.html To me "crossing magnetic field lines" that "reconnect...

I had taken this text and picture from Larson as the starting point: The two-unit maximum range in one dimension involves one unit of speed, s/t, extending from zero speed to unit speed, and one unit of inverse speed, t/s, extending from unit speed to zero inverse speed. Unit speed and unit energy (...

<t>The postulate of RST and RS2 is that motion comes in three scalar dimensions and three speed classifications: unit speed(1, 1/1), below lightspeed (V,s/t) or above lightspeed (E,t/s).<br/> <br/> The overview of possible speed combinations can be ordered as a triangle in the shape of a tetraktys:<...

Hi All, I was recently discussing results of RST compared to GR. For the gravitational deflection of lightrays by the sun KVK Nehru calculates that the GR results should be corrected with a factor 3/pi, so the results of RST would be 1.67 arcseconds versus 1.75 arcseconds for GR. It can all be found...

<r>Thanks for all the answers Bruce. The two links will already keep me busy for the coming weeks...I must say being an EE that a white dwarf core makes more sense to me than all dynamo theories.<br/> <br/> So...if you still stand by the article, do you still think a core flare could be due any time...

<t>I recently came across Bruce's article in Reciprocity XXVII about the Geophysics of planetary evolution. I was a little puzzled about the suggestion that the planets have stable orbits because they have a white dwarf fragment at their core.<br/> <br/> Do you still stand by that article? And if so...