Vibratory physics: the Research of John Worrell Keely's

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

Vibratory physics: the Research of John Worrell Keely's

Post by bperet » Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:31 pm

John Ernst Worrell Keely was a 19th century researcher whom developed a system now known as "vibratory physics". It is based on music theory, representing atomic structures as notes and chords in music. But what most people miss is that the "note" is a rational number... a ratio that is a subdivision of an octave (the ratio of 1:2). Larson's Reciprocal System is also based on ratios for its various atomic and subatomic structures, except Larson refers to them as "motions", not "notes", and "multi-dimensional motion" instead of "chords".

But therein lies and interesting "key" to applying Keely's ideas to the Reciprocal System in the area of the distributed scalar motions, which is what I did in the "Forces and Force Fields" topic in the main discussion forum. In connecting the two theories, it becomes apparent that Larson's theory is based on the "local" view of discrete, quantized objects, and Keely's on the "non-local" view of fields, waves and distributed motions.

There are many similarities and differences in the two systems. By taking a look at them, additional information may be obtained. For example, Larson has two scalar directions, inward and outward. But Keely has three "modes" of interaction in his vibratory system: sympathy, harmony and discordance. I used the sympathy and discord modes in new interpretation of dielectric and magnetic fields; sympathy produces outward motion and discord produces inward motion. The "harmonic" mode falls into play during the interaction of dielectric and magnetic fields, which is known in electronics as "resonance".

Dale Pond has a substantial amount of Keely's works on his site, Keely predates Larson by about 70 years, so when reading his material, one must keep in mind that it's a 19th century mindset and assumptions; not a whole lot of conventional physics was known then (which, IMHO, is a good thing, as his research did not try to force-fit into an existing framework).

I don't understand music theory well; it would be interesting to get an RS student, who is also a musician, to take a look at his theories and see what correlations can be drawn, particularly from his diagrams which detail the notes (motions) and chords (compound and interacting motions).
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

An important point with

Post by Gopi » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:01 am

An important point with respect to Gyroscopes that hit me was the fact that the gyroscope that was hung from the ceiling and was rotating, in Eric laithwaite's videos, was rotating with two radii, but it was transforming continuously from one radius to the other, and more importantly, there are only two radii physically possible, as the gyroscope can either point towards or away from gravity while precessing, but in no other direction. Then I saw what the locus of the center of the gyroscope was, as it executed that motion... it was a double spiral, vortex or Anu! The radius first decreases, as the gyroscope precesses upwards, then decreases as the gyroscope precesses downwards.

Here is an excerpt from a book by Laithwaite:

One further point about liquid vortices. Schwenk points out that a splinter of wood circling within a water vortex will always be oriented in the direction in which it first entered the vortex. In this it resembles the free gyroscope which will maintain its axis of spin in space to coordinates thaat can only be drawn with reference to the fixed stars that have not moved in the history of man.

It is interesting to note that it is this property of the gyroscope which facilitates its common use in navigation systems. It appears we are still "going by the stars"!

Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Vibratory physics: the Research of John Worrell Keely's

Post by duane » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:55 am

this is somewhat rambling(even more than usual for me)
and I need pictures and analogs to get through RS

I stumbled across this yesterday

Gyroscopic Primer by Prof Eric Laithwaite Full Video

a object (gyroscope) spinning 90 degree from axis of another object
precesses around that object with no (or very little) centrifugal force between them
so where does the force go, or why didn't it get generated?

I got to thinking about the Earth
standard thinking is
it spins within the atmosphere
and with the "Coriolis Effect"
high and low pressure (gyroscopic) cells are generated

it has been shown that weather cells have a "magnetic signature"
magnetism is a spin 90 degrees out of phase with electricity
maybe "magnetic" effects are the results of the "Coriolis effect" of the Earth spinning in the
aether and the atmosphere is just along for the ride ... -Henne.pdf

Based upon these empirical observations
and recordings the question remains how
then, could a mesocyclone create a magnetic
field? Dr. Marty Simon, Professor Physics
Department, UCLA, suggested that perhaps
the magnetic field was created by a moving
charge. In his opinion, this was not a case
of spin-polarization, as the dipole moments
would have trouble lining up while moving
(M. Simon 2006, personal communication)
perhaps the magnetic field generates the mesocyclone

User avatar
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

Re: Vibratory physics: the Research of John Worrell Keely's

Post by bperet » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:31 am

duane wrote:perhaps the magnetic field generates the mesocyclone
That is what I concluded, many years ago in the paper, "At the Earth's Core: The Geophysics of Planetary Evolution."

Cyclones (hurricanes) behave just like sunspots do--and most likely, for the same reason. Nehru calls this phenomenon co-magnetism, because it behaves inversely to regular magnetism.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply