Powerpoint Presentation

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
Gopi
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

Powerpoint Presentation

Post by Gopi » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:12 pm

Hi everyone,

I am preparing a powerpoint presentation on the RS2, incorporating the

revised postulates. I am attaching it here. It would be really helpful if

you could give feedback regarding its presentation and development,

especially those who have very little idea about RS2! This ppt is not

complete in itself, i.e. a reasonable explanation is assumed to accompany

it :)

Thanks,

Gopi

Please note: The file has been moved to the forum "RS2 presentations"

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

Re: Powerpoint Presentation

Post by bperet » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:49 pm

Gopi wrote:
I am preparing a powerpoint presentation on the RS2, incorporating the revised postulates. I am attaching it here. It would be really helpful if you could give feedback regarding its presentation and development, especially those who have very little idea about RS2! This ppt is not complete in itself, i.e. a reasonable explanation is assumed to accompany it :)
First, a word from our sponsor... I suppose I should make an area for large file attachments, since right now they get sent out to our email users, and 360K is a pretty big download for a dialup user. Might be easier to have a separate area so it is optional if they want to download it, rather than have it fill their inbox. I'll set something up, and post directions on how to use it.

Now back to the Show...

Slide 7: Might want to explain why the aspects are quantized, versus "real" numbers, since most people are familiar with the long decimal digits of legacy science constants. Also, the jump from "ratio" to "speed" should be better defined before using "speed", since "ratio" is postulated, not speed (the former being projective, and the latter affine).

Slide 9: Nehru's explanation of why there are 3 dimensions would go really well here. That way there is no ambiguity on why there are 3 dimensions (since string theory, which is popular these days, promotes 11 dimensions).

Slide 11: Might want to include quaternions as well, which are the polar version of homogenous coordinates, since a lot depends on the rectangular/polar relationship of space and time later on.

Slide 15: The first transformation (affine) creates the zero and infinity concepts, giving a both reference points and directions to ratio, which results in scalar direction and speed. It also creates the point-at-zero + plane-at-infinity of space, and the plane-at-zero + point-at-infinity of time.

For future reference, the "vanishing point perspective" is a good way to look at counterspace, since the counterspace infinity is the vanishing point in perspective drawings.

Slide 16: not correct from a scalar sense. The left is outward in TIME, the right is outward in SPACE. They can also be viewed as inward in SPACE and inward in TIME, respectively. This is a tricky one to explain, because what you see depends on where you stand... might want to first introduce the observer perspective, and show how a material observer can see "speed", whilst a cosmic observer will look at the same thing and see "energy."

Good start!
Every dogma has its day...

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

Reasoning and Presentation

Post by bperet » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:43 am

Larson pointed out in his videotaped lecture that there are two types of reasoning: inductive and deductive.

Inductive reasoning is drawing conclusions from provided data, like stating the fundamental postulates and then deriving the Universe from them.

Deductive reasoning is the opposite... starting with the Universe, and derive the fundamental postulates from observation.

Most presentations are made from the inductive standpoint. Postulates are made, corollaries produced, and then natural consequences are derived. Very neat, clean and logical. But then it has to be expressed to humans, who do not tend to be very logical... particularly with their fascination for courtroom dramas and mysteries -- both being deductive reasoning processes. The only inductive processes the common man goes thru is in schooling, which they are taught to dislike. Everyone knows that a "lecture" is boring, but a "mystery" is exciting. One of my favorite Larson quotes is, "complexity is entertaining; simplicity is not."

Perhaps we should consider a different approach to presenting the Reciprocal System and RS2, one where we start with "entertaining" to catch the mind and interest, then move to the simplicity of the system?

I suggest that both reasoning processes be used for presentation. For example, we start with a well-known observation and a mystery, perhaps something like "gravity". Everyone experiences it, and nobody really understands it, so it meets both criteria -- well-known and a mystery. Gravity lends itself well because it is 3-dimensional and scalar, so that the "balloon" analogy can be used (another common reference) to deduce "scalar motion", which starts the process back to the fundamental postulates.

At least in Western civilization, humor is an excellent way to introduce new concepts "safely". Humor is based on making connections between concepts that would normally never be connected, which is exactly what expressing a new paradigm is trying to do. Humor is a type of inductive reasoning, but set up culturally to be a safe mode of expression, such that dangerous circumstances (aka "new ideas") can be brought into the mind for consideration, without having to take them seriously, by leaving them tentative ("oh, he's just kidding"). But once in the mind, it tends to stay in the mind, and the new idea will eventually percolate thru the system, introducing questions that the old system will not be able to answer, causing the person to start looking for a better understanding of things.

Gravity is also good subject to introduce humor on... "the gravity of the situation", or "there is no gravity--the Earth sucks."

I know this may sound a bit like "psychological warfare", but that is what teaching is--finding ways to get past the defenses of the mind to introduce new and unfamiliar ideas. It only differs in the fact that teaching gets one to voluntarily drop the defenses to learning.

The next question to presentation is "who do I present to?" Larson, after 50 years of professional attempts to Universities, failed to get the attention of academia. Nehru & Gopi's recent lecture at Kanpur again proved the same thing -- the degreed "professionals" are just not interested, and in my personal opinion, it is a waste of time to try to convince them. One would think that 50 years of failure might be a clue!

However, there is a new generation coming into power now, one that Ra refers to as "dually activated" people whom have a much better ability to grasp new ideas, and are well aware of the failings of the current system. From personal observation, most of them are in the 15-25 year age range, namely High School and University students. It is this group that should be targeted for presentation.

Granted, they are passionate about living and have the tendency to embrace things thoroughly--either accepting or rejecting them in an instant. Because of the ease of living our technological society has created, "entertainment" is usually the first priority of these students, since let's face it... life, without the demands of survival, is rather boring these days. So in presentation it is first important to catch the interest through curiousity--the mystery--and that mystery has to be presented in a context suitable to the audience. One would not give a presentation to physics students at a University by starting the talk with UFOs, just as you would not start talking about physics at a UFO convention.

Once you have the interest thru curiousity and mystery, then humor can be used to introduce the new concepts necessary for the deductive reasoning process to take it back to the fundamentals. Once they are reached, then one can switch to inductive reasoning, and start showing just how easy it is to derive the entire, observed Universe. And as I've always said, the mind is lazy... it will always take the easiest path to reach a goal. And if the inductive reasoning system becomes the "easiest" path, then they will take it, consciously or unconsciously, and start driving their peers crazy with questions and new answers to old questions that will eventually compel even their peers to take a look at this new paradigm.

I think that is how we can get a foot in the door, and keep the RS going into the future. If the focus remains on 60-year-old "professionals", it will probably die off with that generation, as we are already seeing within the membership of ISUS. The future is in the hands of the generation now coming into power... so they should at least be carrying a copy of "Nothing But Motion" with them!
Every dogma has its day...

lvx08
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: Reasoning and Presentation

Post by lvx08 » Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:18 pm

bperet wrote:

The next question to presentation is "who do I present to?" Larson, after 50 years of professional attempts to Universities, failed to get the attention of academia. Nehru & Gopi's recent lecture at Kanpur again proved the same thing -- the degreed "professionals" are just not interested, and in my personal opinion, it is a waste of time to try to convince them. One would think that 50 years of failure might be a clue!
a Larson for dummies would be a good way to go. Or a bio-pic, or documentary on his work. Both of which would take an enormous amount of work and/or money. A lot of people are interested in physics proivded it is made intelligible to the non-specialist

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

Re: Reasoning and Presentation

Post by bperet » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:10 am

lvx08 wrote:
a Larson for dummies would be a good way to go. Or a bio-pic, or documentary on his work. Both of which would take an enormous amount of work and/or money. A lot of people are interested in physics proivded it is made intelligible to the non-specialist
I agree. Perhaps Gopi's powerpoint presentation is a good place to start, then once the presentation is flushed out, move over to a Quicktime movie with animation and audio commentary? Could do it as a series of lectures, that way.

I have discovered with RS2 that the basics are not necessarily difficult concepts, as much as they are foreign concepts. It took me close to two years to figure out projective geometry, but once I did, it was very simple to understand.

So I think the #1 thing to look at for a presentation is, "what are the building blocks of the theory?" Larson got into problems because of his concept of "motion" being the constituent of the Universe, rather than "space". People are taught to call what they see as "spatial", even though what they are actually looking at IS "motion." So here we have a missing link... or should I say "linkage"? To make the presentation viable, about the only option is to start with the "known", in terms of the "known". I would see a presentation going like this:

1) Space, the Final Frontier...

A brief explanation of the "stage" on which the Universe is played out by actors (things). This is the way everyone understands it, so by pointing it out, one can also bring out all the assumptions that go along with it. This way, they are no longer unconscious assumptions, but conscious ideas that can be examined.

2) Every-thing, Some-thing, No-thing... what are "things"?

Challenge the "actors", the "things" in the Universe. What do we know about "things"? We see 3 spatial dimensions, and a segment of time from creation (birth) to destruction (death). Makes it look like "time" is a 4th "dimension", since it has a "length" (duration), just like space does. Now we have drawn a parallel between space and time -- they have similar characteristics!

Next step is to separate time from the spatial dimensions, so it looks the same, but can act differently. The only way I know how to do that is through "exclusion". Start with a point, extrude to a line, to a plane, to a cube, then to a hypercube. Does this 4th dimension of space act like time? No. Therefore, time cannot be a "4th dimension", but must be another kind of dimension, somehow linked to the spatial dimensions.

This opens the door to the reciprocal relationship, and giving time the properties of space.

3) The Universe is but a stage...

Now that we have defined "things" to have spatial and temporal dimensions, on what kind of stage can such things do their thing?

The most common understanding here is the "aether", a backdrop that can knot up to make the things we see. Therefore, the properties of the "aether" must be the same as the "things" we observe -- dimensions of space and time.

The "no-thing" must be a condition of space/time that we are taught to see as a "vacuum" -- some type of "zero" from which we measure the presence of "things". This opens the door to displacements, deviations that create some-thing from no-thing.

We have now set the stage for the next scene... where does the speed of light fit in?

4) I've seen the light!

Hop over to general relativity, and the idea that the speed of light, in vacuo, is constant in all reference frames. The only "thing" we have seen that is constant in all reference frames is the zero from which we measure... therefore, this "no-thing" must be the speed of light.

A secondary proof that can be used is the "Hubble expansion" of the galaxies.

5) Emergency... call the parametrics!

We all know, from base observation, that the speed of light is not zero. So, rather than assign an arbitrary value based on the names of some long-deceased scientist, let's put it in terms of a parametric equation, which bounds a concept between 0 and 1. We know the speed of light isn't zero, and it is the fastest thing we see, so therefore, it must be "1", in "natural units."

But, in parametrics, you cannot go over "1", so if "1" is no-thing, where is some-thing? Must be in the direction of zero, which makes common sense because we see everything as moving slower than the speed of light.

At this point, we now have a "stage" which is the speed of light (motion), using displacements downward from the speed of light (1-x speed range) that create "things" (other motions). Time to connect it up with more accurate terms.

6) Warp speed

We've already demonstrated that the stage is the "speed of light" -- a speed, more commonly known as "motion." We also demonstrated that the stuff in the Universe is the same stuff as the stage, therefore all "things" must also be "motions", and that the relationship between the spatial dimensions and the temporal dimensions must be one analogous to "speed" -- a reciprocal relationship between space and time.

In this brief outline, I have shown a process that takes commonly-understood concepts, and derives uncommon concepts, such as a universe of motion, instead of matter. This is the deductive process to get to the basis of the Reciprocal System--the idea of a universe of motion, where motion has two inverse aspects of space and time.

This is where I would stop a beginning tutorial, or take a break in a lecture, because it is a lot to digest. The next step would depend on the audience. Metaphysical audiences would be more interested in working towards the cosmic sector -- the conjugate of the material universe (the metaphysical). Physics students would prefer to see how one can derive atoms and particles, and their interactions.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there as an example. Gopi... might want to outline what you want to do in the PPT presentation, first, before putting all the effort in to creating it. I think everyone here would both benefit, and could also contribute, to such an outline.
Every dogma has its day...

Gopi
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

Powerpoint Presentation

Post by Gopi » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:37 am

Hi,

This was what I had originally written down as a guideline for developing RS2, for people with a background in Physics:

1. Requirements of a theory

2. Postulates

3. Projective geometry ideas.

4. Highlight the thinking pattern in modern science [omitted later, Larson has done enough of this!]

5. Developing the corollaries:

Reciprocity

Discrete unit

Dimensions and degrees of freedom

Kinds of motions allowed theoretically (translational, rotational, etc)

6. Idea of a reference point

7. Reversal mechanisms, deviations

8. Space/time and time/space, material and cosmic sectors

9. Motion development:

Rotation

Bi-rotation -> rotational vibration (till sub-atoms)

2 rotating systems (atoms)

Gravitation

Energy

“Nuclear Force”

Electricity and magnetism

10. Deducing some fundamental constants.

Around 50-60 slides.

bperet wrote:
For example, we start with a well-known observation and a mystery, perhaps something like "gravity". Everyone experiences it, and nobody really understands it, so it meets both criteria -- well-known and a mystery.
In my understanding, whenever Larson mentioned a rough analogy, like that of the expanding balloon in case of gravity, I got totally confused as to the development. A similar problem occurred while understanding co-ordinate space: the idea that gravitation nullifies the space progression. The analogies appeared vague and unconvincing, particularly in gravitation. Hence, I think, starting with something which has been such an enigma as gravitation, though causing curiosity, may lead to confusion. The satisfaction of the curiosity involves introduction of too many concepts, best left to deductive development.

Induction can be done thru any of the following points:

- Doppler shifts [over-unity speeds]

- Wave particle duality as changing of reference system

- EPR paradox

- Relativity

- E = mc2

However, what is lacking right now is a bit of graphics; animations of rotations, bi-rotations, and those required for the a-b-c notation are a must. After all the stuff about axes and rotations and reverse rotations, the first time I was left with a “HUH???” :)

However, I am having difficulty imagining how a person without a physics background would see this as i.e. what will interest or capture them. Need help for that.

I have re-attached the remade slides. I'll modify stuff further only after the feedback...

Cheers,

Gopi

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

Powerpoint Presentation

Post by bperet » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:35 am

Gopi wrote:
E = mc2
This is an interesting one, because IMHO, one of the MAJOR accomplishments of the RS is the ability to reduce all units of measure to terms of space and time, which are consistent across equations. Finding a way to start here satisfies both concept and mathematical views, more suitable to University students. And by reducing everything to terms of space and time, rather than meters, seconds, ohms, ergs, coulombs, etc., it defines--and proves--the basic reciprocal relationship between space a time. Perhaps a "foot in the door" for development.

Gopi wrote:
However, what is lacking right now is a bit of graphics; animations of rotations, bi-rotations, and those required for the a-b-c notation are a must. After all the stuff about axes and rotations and reverse rotations, the first time I was left with a “HUH???” :)
You're not alone there... EVERYONE I've ever spoken to about the RS says the same thing--need figures, pictures and diagrams.

Nehru and I did some of this a while back, where I was using animated GIF files to show rotations, and Nehru came up with his "gear trains" to explain rotational interaction.

The trick is to find the mechanical concepts that map to the "unexpressable" ones, such that the idea can be related graphically.

Gopi wrote:
However, I am having difficulty imagining how a person without a physics background would see this as i.e. what will interest or capture them. Need help for that.
Theories don't appeal to everyone. Back when Frank Meyer and I built ISUS up to a couple hundred people, the breakdown was mainly arm-chair physicists, a lot of Sci-Fi bufs, some UFO and anti-gravity people, and a good deal of people interested in metaphysics.

What catches their interest is when a theory is able to provide some validation for what they feel is correct, since legacy science just calls them idiots. "Interest" is seldom a mental thing, it is more a "feeling" thing, and when you connect the two--the mind can justify the feelings, then you get a person who will jump right into it, and gets involved.

That is, in essence, what Larson did for me. You get the feeling that there is something basically wrong with the Universe, as explained. Things look backwards and upside down, and scientists just tell you to accept it on "faith", because it is "unknownable." Then Larson came along, and said, "what if light was still, and everything else was moving?" Whoa! Interesting idea... then he went on to explain what he meant, and I found his view much more in line with my personal feelings and observations. Now I'm hooked!

You can't expect to get everyone interested. May 1% if you're lucky. Most of them will be from your generation, because they know that something isn't right with what they are being told, and they are out actively searching for an answer. Look at yourself for the first example. Why did you get interested in Larson and the RS? Many people walk that same path.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply