Reciprocal System for Non-Dummies

Uploads of presentations on the RS2. Please use this forum to upload large files, such as Powerpoint presentations, large images, or animated GIF files.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1188
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Reciprocal System for Non-Dummies

Post by bperet » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:13 pm

At the request of the Al-Ruh organization in England, I am working on a series of short papers to describe the basic concepts of RS/RS2. The idea being that one paper attempts to cover one concept, so it can be studied and reviewed before moving on to the next. I will be translating these into video/slide presentations after I get a few done, with commentary (and subtitles!)

I will attach the PDFs to this topic, as I get them reviewed and released. You can view the PDFs by clicking on the underlined heading, or from the list at the bottom.

1.0 Creating a Theory
Discusses how theories come into being, and the difference between natural law (what Larson calls 'scalar') and Man's law (artificial realities, such as coordinate systems). 4 pages.

1.1 Fundamental Postulates
A short history of Larson's postulates and the underlying concepts. 4 pages.

1.2 The Play, the Players and the Stage (being reviewed)
Conventional science views space and time as a stage on which the actors (atoms) play their roles. This paper is a discussion of how Larson's universe of motion is both stage, actors and script. 4 pages.

1.3 RS2, the Reevaluation (writing in progress)
Why Larson's work was reevaluated, and the modifications that RS2 makes from Larson's original concepts.

Please leave a comment if you have any suggestions for papers. Thanks.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

hi Bruce,

Post by duane » Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:38 pm

hi Bruce,

just saw this

I think it is very well worded

the difference between "natural" and "manmade" laws are a big confusion

especially when the manmade are deriatives of deriatives of deriatives of.......... (maybe approaching infinity!)

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1188
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Natural and Artificial laws

Post by bperet » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:34 pm

the difference between "natural" and "manmade" laws are a big confusion
They are, indeed. I actually got the idea for the paper from Black's Law Dictionary, where it makes the distinction between a natural person (a sovereign) and an artificial person--you corporate identity that makes you a subject to "man's law"--the law of the ruler of the country.
especially when the manmade are deriatives of deriatives of deriatives of.......... (maybe approaching infinity!)
That's going to be a tough paper to write, but it is in essence the concept of speed--the first delta to start things changing.

Next paper is up: 1.1: The Fundamental Postulates.
Every dogma has its day...

Steve
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:36 pm

The Nature of Theories

Post by Steve » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:37 am

Hi Bruce - I read "Creating a Theory", and it seems to me that you are working through something that most scientists don't even realize needs to be addressed. It has been my experience that scientists think they are working to uncover the "true" nature of the universe, and that that nature can be codified by something called a "law". The basic underlying myth is that there is a law to be uncovered. There is no such thing as a law, except in our heads. Reality is reality. Theories are theories. Never the twain shall mix.

What we are really doing with science is constructing abstract conceptual "maps" of reality. Most scientists confuse the map with reality. Hence they claim, for example, that Einstein proved Newton "wrong" with relativity theory. The notion of Newton being "wrong" is to me absurd and shows those making the statement to be ignorant of the fundamental nature of science.

Newton created a conceptual map of reality. That map still works today. What we have learned is that there are conditions under which use of Newton's map is appropriate, and now that we have, for example, GPS systems, there are conditions where his map of reality falls short.

Maps are shorthand ways to describe reality. They are only useful insofar as they help us predict something about nature. Because they are shorthand, we never confuse a map of colorado with colorado. Yet scientists commonly confuse the Standard Model, for example, with reality. They don't see the difference because they typically regard with an almost religious fervor whatever physics map they are invested in. In some ways this is understandable, given that we all have to pay the bills, and THAT reality makes most of us sometimes blind to seeing truth. Understandable, but still not forgivable for those claiming to hold rigor and logic paramount.

If I want to climb a mountain, I use a topo map. If I want to drive to Denver, I use a highway map. Each map is useful and correct if used in the right situation. It would be stupid to say that a topo map is "wrong" for driving - it's just less useful if I can have a highway map instead.

And of course there are maps that are just plain wrong, even for the application they are intended for. But those maps pretty quickly get thrown out as ppl see they yield incorrect results (we get lost). Unfortunately for science, because most scientists don't understand they are map makers they don't regard putting Denver 5 miles from St Louis as bad map making. Physicists just throw in some fudge factors to make the problem ignorable if all the other cities are correct in their relative positions on the map.

Larson's theory is simply a new (old) map of reality. It seems to me to do a darn good job of predicting reality in ways that many modern theories fall short. But it is still a shorthand way to predict reality, not reality itself. Shorthand maps cannot ever be reality. Only reality will ever be reality. So no map will ever be a 100% description of reality. That is impossible. Too bad all scientists are never given a course in college that helps them to understand this!

Hopefully this analogy will help with some aspects of section 1.0.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1188
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Concept map

Post by bperet » Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:48 am

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the concept-map description. I think that will help a lot of people clarify the "concept," so to speak.

I completely agree with you that we'll never have a theory to describe it all. RS2 goes through a major update a couple of times a year, as better ways to map the concepts become apparent. I think that is the best any theory can achieve--a close approximation of what is known at the time. That's why there is no RS2 book yet--every time I get a good chunk written, somebody comes along and does a "what if" or "have you seen this", and it ends up in the shredder, being reworked again! (I suppose there will come a time when it has been revised sufficiently that the changes will be minor, not major, and that will be when I get a book out.)

So, any ideas, please feel free to post and discuss. The more perspectives that are shared, the easier it is to see what you're trying to look at.
Every dogma has its day...

Djchrismac
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

RS2 visual aids and analogies, Katirai style

Post by Djchrismac » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:21 pm

I've been thinking about this a lot recently and how to better illustrate some of the core RS2 concepts for people new to the theory. I reckon after a good 3 years plus of reading up on everything that I can that i'm able to grasp a lot of it but still struggle with visualising many concepts, probably due to being taught everything backwards since birth so i'm not alone there that's for sure. It's not easy unlearning what you have learned.

Despite having mentioned it on the Visibility of Stars and Galaxies topic, I only recently read Bahram Katirai's Revolution in Astronomy and thought it did a great job of making things a bit easier to understand and visualise the RS2 topic. As you said, replace aether with time and they are pretty much the same, very complementary.
I've been going through Bahram Katirai's book, Revolution in Physics..... I find the book very interesting, because if you substitute "time" for "ether," you end up with many of the concepts of the Reciprocal System, including an independent charge mechanism (Katirai's samareh) and that atoms are rotating systems. But since Katirai's premise is from the cosmic sector side of things, he fills in many of the gaps that Larson never addressed.



Katirai, like Larson, is also a "common sense" observer. Most people will discount what their senses tell them, if it conflicts with their beliefs. Larson and Katirai are the opposite. When they encounter something that doesn't make sense, they investigate it, rather than ignore it, to try to understand it and incorporate it into their world views.
This last paragraph sums it up perfectly so i'm thinking it may be really useful to try and use a more Katirai way of describing and visualising time/space (aether) for RS2. I think anything we can do to assist newcomers and regulars alike who have been finding it hard to picture how a universe of motion really works and fits together would be beneficial.

As good as some of the introductory papers by Gopi and Jameela are, along with the excellent RS2-101 series, I think they do lack some of the excellent analogies found on the forum here and on the CH and AQ fora.

If you think this would be a good idea then i'll start finding what I can from the fora and then look at Katirai's book again and see if I can match some of the concepts with the RS2 galactic view. Let me know if you think this would be worthwhile? If so i'll make a start on it this weekend.

One final thought, with everything in the universe of motion following many of the same rules but at different scales (atoms/solar systems for example) I keep looking around in nature for examples of something that we have possibly overlooked that we could use as an excellent example for many concepts, much like Larson's classic shavings down the plughole revelation. I keep getting the nagging feeling that a perfect example is out there in nature, somewhere....

Post Reply