Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

Post Reply
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by dbundy » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:39 pm

As students of the RST know, the most salient feature of Larson's new system of physical theory is that it divides the universe into two, reciprocal, sectors; the low-speed sector, called the material sector, and the high-speed sector, called the cosmic sector.

The high-speed sector, which is a realm of higher than c-speed entities we call c-entites, is consistent with special relativity because it is the inverse of the low-speed sector, where motion is measured in units of time per unit of space (v = t/s), rather than in units of space per unit of time (v = s/t), as we are accustomed to experiencing it.

It's fascinating to understand how easily this reciprocity of space and time can explain so much physical phenomena in elegant, yet simple terms. Larson was able to hold his audiences spell-bound with the vision he had, based on reciprocity.

However, the students of Larson have always been challenged to come up with a "crucial experiment," that would prove the physical veracity of the reciprocity of space and time, but this is not easy to do, and we have had to settle for offering alternative explanations to the results of well-known LST experiments, where space and time are not treated as reciprocal quantities in the equation of motion, but something called spacetime, in the equations of general relativity.

This situation is very embarrassing and inhibiting for many of us, driving us to constantly be on the look out for the elusive "crucial experiment." Well, I suspect it may have been discovered accidentally by Randell Mills, when he was looking for a new fundamental structure of the electron, so that he could use classical physics to describe atomic phenomena, rather than the accepted QM description that has a mathematical, but not a physical basis.

The model he came up with makes little sense to us (see previous posts), but incredibly enough, it seems to have inadvertently unveiled the cosmic sector of the universe! Of course, few people in the LST community believe his work to be sound at this point, but he is confounding them with experimental evidence.

Fortunately, the controversy goes to the heart of the mathematics of the RST. Critics of his work view the Hydrino energy states as violations of known quantum physics, because they view them as "fractions" of the ground state of Hydrogen.

However, it turns out that it is the well-known excited states of Hydrogen that are the fractional states, where the term 1/n2 in the Rydberg formula, quantifies the fraction of Hydrogen's ionization energy, 13.6 Ev, attributed to the energy of the atom's electron.

The real quantum turns out to be the ionization energy of Hydrogen. The set of line spectra called the Lyman series actually contains the fractions of the true quantum unit of 13.6 Ev, and the Rydberg formula only has to be inverted to calculate the quantum values of the Hydrinos.

This is a phenomenal breakthrough (no pun intended), because it demonstrates conclusively that the inverse sector of the universe, the cosmic sector, is real, and it does it in a fundamental manner that is unprecedented. To be sure, Mills would not agree, because he does not understand the RST and its fundamental unit of scalar motion. His theory is a theory of the LST and its fundamental unit of vector motion.

But it's the simple truth of the integer number line,

1/n, ...1/3, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, ...n/1,

that reveals the reality of the reciprocal universe.

We can summarize it very succinctly with Rydberg's equation:

Low-Speed (< c-speed) --- c-speed --- High-Speed (> c-speed)

s/t = R(1/n12 - 1/n22) --- c-speed --- t/s = 1/R(n12 - n22)

Here, I've substituted a "s/t" term for the usual "1/λ" term and the inverse of "s/t," or "t/s" for the expected "λ/1" term, in the inverted equation, but the idea conveyed is that the Rydberg formula for the Hydrogen spectra on the low-speed side, is inverted for the Hydrino energy on the high-speed side of c-speed.

That's straightforward enough on it's face, because we can think of wavelength (cycle length) as the magnitude of space that light travels in one cycle of its undulation, and the inverse of that value, whatever we call it (cycle time?), is the magnitude of time that is required for light to complete one cycle of its undulation.

But the confusion between the dimensions of energy (t/s) and the dimensions of velocity (s/t), as defined in the LST community, is considerable, because that community does not regard motion in time as the inverse of motion in space. Nevertheless, when we regard energy, t/s, as motion in time, we can convert it to motion in space, using the Planck equation,

ν = E/h,

even though we normally express ν in terms of cycles per second, or 1/t.

Larson explained that this normal practice introduces confusion regarding the true dimensions of the h (t2/s) constant, which should be the dimensions of energy squared (t2/s2), because the actual dimensions of ν are those of velocity. Therefore, the correct dimensions of Planck's equation, E = hν, are,

t/s = t2/s2 x s/t

and thus, ν = E/h, or

s/t = (t/s)/(t2/s2),

makes sense, and we can say that energy squared is the conversion factor between energy and velocity, just as velocity squared is the conversion factor between energy and mass, in Einstein's equation, E = mc2.

The point is that the work of Mills is proving that there is an inverse to physical phenomena, and on one side of unity, the low-speed side, the phenomena are understood in terms of line spectra (motion in space), while on the other side of unity, the high-speed side, the phenomena are understood in terms of energy (motion in time).

Wow!

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by dbundy » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:48 am

Given that Randell Mills is proving that there is a reciprocal sector of the physical universe (although unbeknownst to him), it behooves the RST community to understand his work, inasmuch as it is the first venture of the LST community into the reciprocal sector, the sector of the universe we call the cosmic sector, where all motion is in time, instead of in space, as it is in our sector, the material sector.

Of course, one of the hardest things to grasp for students of the RST is that inhabitants of the cosmic sector, c-beings we could call them, would view their sector as the low-speed side of unity and likely call it their material sector, while viewing the sector we inhabit as the high-speed side of unity, their cosmic sector.

Not understanding this aspect of reciprocity limits the science and mathematics of the LST community to the sector we inhabit, where the limit of vector motion magnitudes is c-speed, the effect of which is to isolate the thinking of its members to our sector only and keeps them from regarding the reciprocal sector.

But the breakthrough of Mills changes all that. As the author of the upcoming book, Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy, puts it: "...the claims of Mills, his team, and his collaborators, may be grounded in genuine experimental realities that will force us to learn something new about the hydrogen atom." He says this in the context of the controversy surrounding the dishonest efforts of scientists in promoting hidden agendas (see here).

Those "genuine experimental realities" are considerable, as Mills' commercial SunCell is about to enter field tests this year, but, while those realities may force the LST community to "learn something new about the hydrogen atom," it goes without saying for us that the lesson to be learned goes way beyond the Hydrogen atom: It goes into "infinity and beyond," as they say.

Image

Yet, as the graphic above, taken from the header of the article, shows, the inverse states of the Hydrino have a theoretical limit of n=1/137. This is because, without recognizing the reciprocity of the physical universe, the new model of the electron, which Mills employs, is seen as simply contracting towards the nucleus of the model, in discrete and necessarily fractional steps.

Clearly, this process is limited, as the theoretical radius of the shrinking Mills electron is headed toward zero. The n states of quantum energy in our RSt model of c-hydrogen, on the other hand, can be no more limited than the n states of quantum energy of our RSt model of m-hydrogen. The reason for this is that the c-electron is not an electron, but a positron, in our theory, and it is not external to a negative nucleus, surrounding it, but is an integral part of it, balancing it out, just as the negative electron balances out the positive nucleus in the m-hydrogen atom.

In LST-based theories, negative charges cancel positive charges, as in the case of electron and positron, or pair annihilation. However, in our RST-based theory, the S|T imbalance of the proton (10/13 = 3), which gives it its positive charge, does not annihilate the negative charge of the electron (6/3 = -3), but simply balances the combination ((10/13) + (6/3) = 16/16 = 0).

Thus, photon absorption/emission changes the energy of the S|T combo, without affecting the charge, and the n states of c-hydrogen are just the inverse of the n states of the m-hydrogen, in their natural habitation of the cosmic sector. However, when c-hydrogen is created on the low-speed side of the material sector, by increasing the energy of the environment enough, the laws of normal physics changes to what we might call the laws of inverse physics, where space becomes time and time becomes space.

The fundamental difference is that what's known as the positive charges of normal physics, become negative charges and vice-versa, negative charges become positive charges. Of course, it can only make sense, when the true nature of electrical "charge" is understood. The LST community is at a disadvantage in this respect, because they have no idea what charge is.

On the other hand, the RST community knows exactly what charge is. It's a one-dimensional scalar motion. In the RSt of the LRC, positive charge is an imbalance in the number of Ts relative to the number of Ss in the S|T units that make up the motion combinations in our version of the standard model of particles, as explained in the Introductory topic of this discussion.

Negative charge is a label for more Ss in the S|T combinations of the particles. In m-hydrogen, there are three more Ss than Ts in the electron S|T combo, making it negative relative to the proton, where there are three more Ts than Ss, making its S|T combo positive relative to the electron, balancing the combination of the two entities, in terms of the two opposite charges.

However, the situation is exactly reversed in the c-hydrogen atom, as seen from the material sector perspective. The c-proton's Ss outnumber its Ts, making it negative, by the same amount as the c-electron's Ts outnumber its Ss, making it positive, leaving the c-hydrogen atom in a balanced, or stable, condition.

Image

Now, under normal, surface-of-the-earth conditions, we do not observe c-hydrogen, because it doesn't form in the normal environment of the low-speed side of unity, the material sector. However, where the environmental conditions are raised to high-speed (high-energy), the c-hydrogen atoms can form in the material sector.

In the theoretical work of Mills, hydrinos form from high-energy "resonant collisions," with the atoms of a catalyst, it is argued, because the energy of the hydrinos is nonradiative and thus only transferred mechanically. Whether this is truly the case or not, is anybody's guess, at this point, but what we can understand from this is that the inverted Rydberg equation should be equal to λ, which is related to a number of waves per unit length, the inverse of 1/λ, which is related to the number of waves per unit time.

This inversion, from cycles per unit space (1/λ), to cycles per unit time (λ/1), as relates to the Rydberg expression, parallels the physical inversion of the material sector (s/t) to the cosmic sector (t/s), as shown in the previous post above. What this seems to imply, among other things, is that waves in space, s/t, radiate, or propagate, while waves of time, t/s, do not.

If this is true, and it seems reasonable, since the material sector is the realm of motion in space, while the cosmic sector is the realm of motion in time, then the transformation constitutes a 180 degree rotation in the symmetry of the system. Such a transformation of our standard model of particles can be represented by a left-right exchange of the red and blue colors of our schematic symbols.

I think what this means is that the cosmic sector, as viewed from the material sector, can be represented by a 180 degree rotation of the chart. This is true for the world line chart as well. Of course, physically rotating the standard model chart won't change the colors, but what was on the left, before the rotation, should be on the right, after the rotation, meaning the horizontal S|T units that are balanced will have the S units on the right side of the barbell symbol and the T units on the left side.

In other words, a transformation from this symbology,

red<---green--->blue,

to this,

blue<---green--->red,

represents a transformation of the low-speed side of unity, viewed from the low-side, to the high-speed side of unity, viewed from the low-side.

Those S|T units that are not on the horizontal line or are not balanced (green in the middle) will have to be changed manually, but the end result will illustrate a 180 degree rotation, from the material sector view of the material S|T combos, to the material sector view of the cosmic sector combos.

Image

Image

Happily, this rotational symmetry must be associated with a conservation law, as per the Noether theorem, but more on that later.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by bperet » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:28 pm

dbundy wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:39 pm
Larson explained that this normal practice introduces confusion regarding the true dimensions of the h (t2/s) constant, which should be the dimensions of energy squared (t2/s2), because the actual dimensions of ν are those of velocity. Therefore, the correct dimensions of Planck's equation, E = hν, are,

t/s = t2/s2 x s/t

and thus, ν = E/h, or

s/t = (t/s)/(t2/s2),
Larson had to fudge the units for Planck's constant because he did not recognize angular relationships. You are correct in assuming that the equation deals with the conversion of momentum (ρ, t2/s2) to energy as E = ρv, but it is the conversion of angular momentum to energy--not linear.

The conventional units for angular momentum (or "action" in old usage) are Newton-meter-second, or in natural units:

Newton (force, t/s2) × meter (s) × second (t) = t2/s

So E = hf works just fine (t/s = t2/s × 1/t), as it is just the angular form of E = ρv.
Every dogma has its day...

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by dbundy » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:23 am

Bruce wrote:
So E = hf works just fine (t/s = t2/s × 1/t), as it is just the angular form of E = ρv.
That's true, it's just E = h x c/λ, but the idea of velocity (s/t) per unit space (s), when expressed as 1/t, or frequency, hides the parallel between

E = mc2 and
E = hv,

as far as dimensions with physical significance are concerned.

Larson pointed out in NBM, chapter 12, that the dimensions of "action" (angular momentum) have no physical significance:
...the so-called “frequency” is actually a speed. It can be expressed as a frequency only because the space that is involved is always a unit magnitude. In reality, the space dimension belongs with the frequency, not with the Planck constant. When it is thus transferred, the remaining dimensions of the constant are t²/s², which are the dimensions of momentum, and are the reversing dimensions that are required to convert speed s/t to energy t/s. In space-time terms, the equation for the energy of radiation is

t/s = t²/s² x s/t
The qualifier "in space-time terms" is the kicker. The LST is founded on vector motion, the fundamentals of which are space (distance), time and mass. On the other hand, the RST is founded on nothing but space and time, which makes all the difference in the world. With mass and velocity comes momentum and all the other mechanical derivatives, which makes the world of vector motion go around, and has for many centuries.

But we are convinced that Larson has discovered what has always been hidden in plain sight, but which is so hard to see: Time is the reciprocal of space! Thus, t²/s² is not only momentum, but the inverse of s²/t², which, at the magnitude of the unit boundary squared, is the conversion constant between mass and energy, or between motion in space and motion in time, measured from 0:

MS <------- 0 -------> CS
2c <-- c <-- 0 --> c --> 2c and

But, since mass,

t3/s3,

is only the three-dimensional resistance to the unrecognized motion of matter,

s3/t3,

the confusion is compounded.considerably.

The significant and only consistent equations, "in space-time terns," are

s/t = s3/t3 x t2/s2, or motion in space, and

t/s = t3/s3 x s2/t2, or motion in time,

but who can handle it? In order to communicate effectively, we have to hide the truth!

In the meantime, a genius like Randell Mills comes along and manages to use the confused system to revolutionize the world, while those of us with the key to the mystery look on dazed.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by bperet » Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:09 pm

dbundy wrote:
Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:23 am
That's true, it's just E = h x c/λ, but the idea of velocity (s/t) per unit space (s), when expressed as 1/t, or frequency, hides the parallel between

E = mc2 and
E = hv,

as far as dimensions with physical significance are concerned.
Actually, it is the other way around... E = mc2 is hiding the momentum relationship. Per Gustave LeBon (The Evolution of Matter, 1907), mass = momentum / velocity, t3/s3 = t2/s2 / s/t, which makes more sense in the RS because the inverse of magnetic rotation IS momentum and we get our concept of "mass" from the magnetic rotation of atoms. So what you really have is:

E = ρ/v v2 = ρv

Which plainly shows that h is linear momentum when 'v' is a linear speed, and angular momentum when 'v' is a frequency, since linear motion does not have the concept of periodicity (f = v/λ, where λ is the wavelength that determines the period). All angular velocity has a period; linear does not. It is the same thing from two different perspectives.
dbundy wrote:
Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:23 am
Larson pointed out in NBM, chapter 12, that the dimensions of "action" (angular momentum) have no physical significance:
That's what Larson was forced to conclude for trying to pound a round peg into a square hole--Larson had no concept of a round hole, so given his "linear" premise (like conventional science), he had to whittle the round peg to a square one to make it fit his linear assumptions. I prefer to stick a round peg into a round hole; it is a lot less work.
Every dogma has its day...

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by dbundy » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:56 am

Bruce wrote:
...the inverse of magnetic rotation IS momentum and we get our concept of "mass" from the magnetic rotation of atoms.
It is true that when t/s motion in time is non-linear (i.e. a rotation), then t²/s², or rotation in two dimensions, would constitute magnetic rotation (or an analog of angular momentum) and that is the foundation of Larson's atomic model.

However, that takes us back to Nehru's assertion that Larson had deluded himself into believing that rotation of a linear vibration was a legitimate concept in the first place, and he introduced us to his preferred concept of bi-rotation, which we have to admit was a compelling solution, especially when considered in the context of projective geometry.

Nevertheless, it seemed to me, perhaps naively, that rotation, even apparent rotation, wasn't the only feasible approach to obtaining multi-dimensional scalar motion, which is so fundamental to an RST-based theory, and so I decided to pursue another course, built on a non-rotation concept of motion, the oscillating volume.

I have no idea if it's going to be worthwhile or not, but the progress to this point is startling to me. It seems as if I have only scratched the surface. Maybe the Peter Principle is kicking in. I don't know, but when I see what Randell Mills has done with a somewhat similar concept (similar only in the sense of his 3D approach), I am really energized, but with a rub.

A key component of Mills' theory is angular momentum, which he envisions in a rotating photon and rotating currents in his orbitsphere! Grrr! It seems we can't get away from rotation!!!

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by dbundy » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:48 pm

Of the three extant RST-based theories (RSts), only one, the LRC RSt, follows the LST's standard model (sm) of particle physics to any degree. The reason is not because the sm is based on empirical observations, although it is, but because it emerged as consequences of the basic postulates of the RST, when the definition of scalar motion (motion based on change of size, or scale) was taken seriously, avoiding the controversy of rotational motion, by excluding it as a scalar motion, by definition.

An axiom of the RST is that all physical phenomena are either motions, combinations of motions or relation between motions. The emergence of observed entities such as photons, neutrinos, quarks (postulated) and electrons, and their anti-particles, with one, two and three dimensional properties, from the fundamental definition of motion, as discrete, units, existing in three-dimensions, with two, reciprocal, aspects, space and time, would be a phenomenal achievement for any physical theory, but when it emerges in the form of motions, combinations of motions and relations between motions, it goes way beyond what the words "phenomenal achievement" can convey.

Clearly, however, the development of the LRC's RSt is not complete. It has not fully emerged, as yet. The first family of the sm particles are there, as combinations of 3D discrete motions, but only the 1D property of charge has emerged quantitatively from the model so far. Nothing has been recognized in terms of the quantitative 2D, magnetic, and 3D, mass, properties of these motion combinations, to date.

To say that this is a source of considerable angst is an understatement, especially now that Randell Mills, has managed to develop a consistent, non-RST, theory to such a remarkable degree, based on his new model of a non-radiating electron.

With his new electron model, consisting of rings of rotating currents, forming the surface of a sphere, he has revitalized Newton's program of scientific research, which RST-based physical theory was supposed to supersede (see Larson's Beyond Newton.)

By assuming that all matter was built on the same model as his electron, extended membranes of charge, he went on to not only connect charge to mass, but to unify the fundamental electrical, magnetic and mass quantities of his particle model, in terms of their respective energies, precisely at the limit of light-speed, where the energy of each property reaches the same value of 511 keV.

This happens when his orbitsphere contracts to the alpha limit radius (1/137.035) and the speed of the current rings reaches light-speed. It reaches a state of transition between energy and matter at this point, called the transition state orbital (TSO), in which the permittivity and permeability of space is attuned to absorb the energy of the TSO, just as a tuned LC circuit responds to a given frequency.

In pair production, this condition facilitates the creation of a particle and its anti-particle, when the energy of the photon is at or above the necessary level. Gravitation results because there is a relativistic expansion/contraction of Einstein's spacetime continuum, according to Lorentz transformation calculations.

Of course, this is an over-simplified description of the process, but the bottom line is that it enables Mills to calculate the masses of particles from fundamental particle constants, predicting which particles are possible in the universe.

To say that such a theory grates on the sensibilities of students of the RST is a whopping understatement, as it incorporates almost all the misconceptions of the legacy system that the reciprocal system so elegantly clarifies. So, much so that one hardly knows where to begin to explain the details of it to newcomers.

Nevertheless, Mills' theory is iconoclastic to the theory of quantum mechanics, which may help to break-up the ground for acceptance of the RST, especially if we can use Mills' model to advantage.

More on that later.

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by dbundy » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:19 am

In the previous post, I discussed somewhat how the success of Randell Mills GUT (grand unified theory) is iconoclastic to the LST community's cherished notions of quantum mechanics. He regards QM as a purely mathematical solution to the problem of the electron in the Hydrogen atom, a solution with no physical basis that has been disastrous for the progress of modern science.

I have been writing about this "Trouble with Physics," for quite a while, ever since Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, was published, in 2006.

However, I knew nothing about Randy Mills GUT, until recently. I don't know how I missed the fact that he had been working on a classical solution to the GUT problem, ever since the passing of Dewey, really. His book, an 1800 page treatise based on the LST community's non-QM program of research, is available online free of charge, but as far as I know it was never brought up in the discussions of the trouble with physics in the LST community, or even in the RST community, where we regularly met for discussions of new energy solutions, with Moray King, the late David Faust, and even an Australian friend of his once (I can't recall his name,) who was paid to ferret out non-traditional energy claims and test them.

And all the while, here was Mills, not only trying to commercialize a new, incredibly powerful new source of energy, but developing a non-QM theory to explain it at the same time! The trouble is, of course, none of us would have been able to understand, let alone evaluate his GUT, because he uses that esoteric mathematics that is so maddeningly inaccessible to most of us.

Larson was criticized constantly for not formulating the RST in traditional mathematics, although I believe he could have done so, had he felt the need to do it, but he didn't, and those of us that are so challenged, and intimidated, by the prolific mathematics of the LST community, were very thankful for it.

But Mills seems to be at a genius level, with his command of mathematics and the vector motion based equations of the LST. Yet, it has led him to a model of the universe based on that motion, a concept of a physical universe devoid of the beautiful symmetry of scalar motion, one where rotation dominates the physical concepts as well as the mathematics, and leads to a cyclic cosmology, where the universe alternately expands and collapses, over trillions of years.

The ideas of Mills wouldn't matter to the world so much, if it weren't for the fact that no one can dispute his theoretical findings or his experimental results. His model of the electron, as an extended charge, works, as verified over and over again by specialized members of the LST community.

Meanwhile, some of us in the RST community look on with the rest of the world, wondering where and how to engage this theoretical development that is so challenging and intimidating. To my mind, at least, there is no way an LST-based theory can explain the physical universe better than an RST-based theory, which possesses the key of knowledge that the LST community rejects, the reciprocity of space and time.

Larson was a genius all right, but like Copernicus, he needs a Kepler to apply his ideas to good effect, as Paul deLespinasse, pointed out years ago. I am under no delusion that I could ever fill those shoes, but in trying to understand Larson, I've discovered that his ideas are so fundamental that the really competent experts never address them.

Take mathematics for instance. What genius like Mills, whose mathematical calculations are so elaborate, would ever consider that the foundations of modern mathematics, like those of modern physics, need to be re-examined? It takes an incompetent fool like me to question the role of imaginary numbers in the equations of physical theory, and to compare Larson's concept of scalar motion, and the neglect of science to the fact of its existence and its implications, to the development of the field of mathematics.

But its out there, for what it's worth. I call it "scalar mathematics," which sounds crazy to the uninitiated. However, the angel is in the details, if you will. The fact is, when we speak of scalar motion and its concepts, we speak of fundamental magnitudes, dimensions and "directions" of scalar numbers, but the very definitions of these simple, but fundamentally significant words can get in our way.

I want to talk about it in the next post.

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Exploring the Cosmos (The Cosmic Sector, That Is)

Post by dbundy » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:58 am

The difference between the set of fractions of the number 1, and the set of inverse rationals, is found in the datum of the number system. We can see it in two ways: One way to see it is from the standpoint of displacement, we might say. There is zero displacement between the numerator and denominator of the unit integer, 1/1 (i.e. 1-1 = 0), but while this is true, the fact remains that, with respect to the algebraic operation of inverse multiplication (i.e. division) the unit integer, 1/1, is equal to 1, not zero.

We can see the vital importance of understanding this fundamental distinction, when we contrast the physical theory of Randell Mills with that of Dewey Larson. In the theory of Mills, his new model of the electron in the Hydrogen atom, a sphere of extended charge, surrounding the tiny nucleus, the radius of the orbitsphere, as he calls it, shrinks, contracts toward zero.

In other words, if we take the traditional ground state of Hydrogen, in the Bohr atom, where the energy of the orbit of the electron is as low as it can get, where n = 1 in the Rydberg equation, the orbitsphere is equal to 1 and the Hydrino atom is created, when the orbitsphere contracts to an integral fraction of that unit magnitude: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...1/137.

The limit of the fraction is reached, when the velocity of the charge currents in the orbitsphere reach light speed, at the radius of 1/137. Otherwise, the limit would never be reached, as the fraction of the unit magnitude approaches zero, but it can never reach it.

On the other hand, in Larson's RST, the rational inverse not only has no end, but each inverse integer's increase is of equal magnitude. Just as the value of each integer, x/1, is (n+1)/1, where n is the preceding integer, so too each inverse integer, 1/x, is equal to 1/(n+1), on the same basis.

This is a simple, but huge difference, between the two systems of numbers, upon which the two systems of physical theory are founded. One number system is not more correct than the other, but the different consequences of the two, as they are applied to physical theory, are vast, leading to either a finite, cycling cosmology of spacetime expand/crush, matter-physics, or to an infinite cosmology of one eternal round of space/time exchange, motion physics.

The concept of the unit orbitsphere contracting toward zero, until it reaches a new, 1/137, ground state of Hydrogen, is not the only fundamental difference between the mathematical concepts of the two systems of theory. The immediate mathematical foundation of the LST, upon which Mills builds his GUT, are Maxwell's equations, where the phenomena of electrical and magnetic properties of matter are formulated, using vector motion concepts.

These equations, using the version worked out by Heaviside, Gibbs and Hertz, based on an algebra of multi-dimensional magnitudes, became the basis of electromagnetic technology that changed the world, and it's about to happen again.

Obviously, not many are going to listen to the theoretical protests of those saying that physicists should recognize that force is a quantity of acceleration, by definition, and its incorrect conception as an autonomous entity will exact a heavy theoretical penalty eventually, or that the mathematicians should recognize that the dimensions of numbers, used in algebra, ought to match the dimensions of geometry, if confusion down the road is to be avoided, when the pace of technological progress, incorporating these misconceptions, is so doggone breathtaking.

Who cares, when the science that neglects these arguments is able to produce the wide array of technology that has transformed society so marvelously? These are such tiny blips on the radar screen of the experts that they naturally think they can safely be dismissed, but, as it turns out, they are "flies in the ointment" of theoretical physics and the reason the theoretical physicists are "stuck" in their journey toward a GUT.

At least that seemed to be the situation, until Randell Mills came along. Now, they have a GUT that works, at least it appears to be the case. But, again, Mills does not recognize the traditional misconception of force. He does not recognize the disconnect between the dimensions of geometry and those of algebra. His equations are based on the "ratio of the absolute electromagnetic unit of charge to the absolute electrostatic unit of charge (in modern language, the value 1/√μ0ε0), [which Weber and Kohlrausch] determined should have units of velocity" (see Wikipedia article here.)

Well, the units of velocity, including those of c-speed, are units of space and units of time, and instead of integrating or differentiating magnitudes of electrical and magnetic charge (whatever that is), as did Maxwell, to obtain that velocity, Larson formulated the observed speed of light in terms of discrete units of space and time, without the advantage of knowing what those units are.

However, he posited that, based on the Rydberg constant for Hydrogen, the units of space and time can be calculated, and he calculated them accordingly (see here.) Admittedly, Maxwell's formulation, showing that electromagnetic magnitudes travel as an undulating field at light speed, was much more useful, yet, truth-be-told, Larson's formulation is much more fundamental.

Given this, then, one would think that c = s/t = 1/1 = 1/√μ0ε0, would lead to a correct understanding of force and the correct correlation of mathematical and physical dimensions, and all the clarifications of physical theory that it would lead to, but, alas, it hasn't happened.

Why is that? Well, there are many reasons one could find, I suppose, but one of the most important reasons is the confusion that the lack of understanding and accepting the concept of scalar motion causes. We can understand and accept vector motion, because it is all around us. It is the motion of things. Examples of things changing position in space over time, be it a rotation, as in a magnetic field, or a linear vibration, as in an electric field, is as ubiquitous as water in our experience.

Scalar motion, on the other hand, is difficult to conceive. How can we have motion when nothing moves? It's easy to dismiss the idea outright and people do, but the truth of it is so profound that lovers of truth cannot dismiss it, and they soon come to realize that a change in size, in scale, is just as viable as a change in position over time, with one very important exception: things can only change position in one direction, defined by three dimensions, at any moment in time, no matter how small that moment.

Any simultaneous change in more than one 3D direction, has to be a change in scale. Thus, a point grows in two, opposite directions into a line. A line grows in two opposite directions into a plane, and a plane grows in two opposite directions into a volume, but where is this truth incorporated into LST's mathematics?

It's not. Generally speaking, in the equations of force, acceleration never occurs in more than one direction simultaneously. In the electromagnetic equations, force acts in more than one direction, but it always results in a vector, a magnitude with motion in only one direction, at any given moment in time.

Geometry is different than algebra in this respect: A line can be drawn in two, opposite, directions from a point, chosen out of an infinite set of opposite directions in three dimensions. Likewise, a plane can be drawn from any of these lines in two, opposite, directions and a volume can be drawn from any of these planes, in two, opposite directions, but where is the algebra that corresponds to these operations? Where is the calculus?

If they're out there, none of the students of the RST has indicated that fact, as far as I know. What I have done, in my feeble attempts to contribute to Larson's work is to suggest that it is possible to construct a multi-dimensional scalar algebra on the basis of the Pythagorean Theorem, where each of the three (four counting zero) dimensions of the tetraktys are included:

We can do this by writing one system equation, with three values of n: n1, n2, n3, in the 3D equation of the Pythagorean theorem, as follows:

((n12 + n22 + n32)1/2)/(1/((n12 + n22 + n32)1/2),

where n2 and n3 = 0, for the 1D system,

and n3 = 0, for the 2D system.

In other words, if we use the square root of 1, of 2 and of 3, for the units of a one, two and three dimensional number system, then we don't need to cope with the complications of trying to use the imaginary square root of -1 for all three dimensions, which has proven to be such a challenge for QM, and which Mills circumvents by limiting himself to the vector algebra of Heaviside's version of Maxwell's equations.

But the question is, can we use it to advantage?

Post Reply