## Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

Horace
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

dbundy wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:59 pm
The easiest way I've found to think about it is to plot it, as what I call a world line chart.
...
A continuous "direction" reversal in the space aspect, where the space/time ratio equals 1/2, is shown by the alternating green arrows zig-zagging upwards, as time progresses uniformly.
For brevity of notation, let's denote expanding space as +1Δs, contracting space as -1Δs, expanding time as +1Δt, contracting time as -1Δt.

In the scenario and graph quoted above, do you consider the sequence:
+1Δs, +1Δt
-1Δs, +1Δt

a 1 unit of motion or a sequence of 2 units of motion ?

dbundy
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Horace wrote:
...do you consider the sequence:
+1Δs, +1Δt
-1Δs, +1Δt

a 1 unit of motion or a sequence of 2 units of motion?
-1Δs, +1Δt
+1Δs, +1Δt
...

would constitute one cycle of a scalar oscillation, which I call a unit of scalar motion (space unit displacement ratio - SUDR, because it is an oscillating unit of motion, in which the space aspect is oscillating).

+1Δs, +1Δt
+1Δs, +1Δt
...

would constitute one unit of the space/time unit progression. In both cases, it is a sequence of 2 units of space and time, with the only difference being a change in "direction," in the former instance.

In the case you wrote,

+1Δs, +1Δt
-1Δs, +1Δt

the sequence of 2 units might be part of an ongoing oscillation, or the beginning of the first reversal to occur in the unit progression of an incipient oscillation. It's impossible to distinguish between them, in just a sequence of 2 units.

Horace
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

dbundy wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:33 pm
-1Δs, +1Δt
+1Δs, +1Δt
would constitute one cycle of a scalar oscillation, which I call a unit of scalar motion (space unit displacement ratio - SUDR, because it is an oscillating unit of motion, in which the space aspect is oscillating).
The main issue with that definition is that the "direction" changes within a "unit of scalar motion", which IMO is disallowed by FPs.
I thought that we've agreed that aspect's "direction" can change only at the boundary of the unit - not inside of it.

My definition of a "unit of scalar motion" is a change by one unit of space in one unit of time, thus the sequence:
-1Δs, +1Δt
+1Δs, +1Δt
in my paradigm, constitutes two such changes and thus - two units of motion, ...even if it constitutes only one cycle of oscillation.

Your definition seems to be different - what is it exactly?
In any case, until that difference is resolved, it will be impossible to proceed.

P.S.
When Larson was calculating the value of unit of time from the Rydberg frequency, he wrote that a full cycle consisted of two units of motion, going as far as expressing the Rydberg frequency in half-cycles per second.
Of course, I acknowledge that argumentum ad populum is not much of an argument...

bperet
Posts: 1496
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

I need to intervene here and point out that Bundy's System of theory (BS theory) has little to do with Larson's Reciprocal System of theory (RS theory). As pointed out in an earlier post by daniel, you will not find SUDRs, TUDRs, "Larson Cubes," etc., in ANY of the published works of Dewey Larson or the papers on the Reciprocal System. Please bear this in mind as you are discussing things, as it can cause a great deal of confusion for other students. The reason you are having difficulty in communication is that you are both operating from different premises, using the same words to mean different things.
Horace wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:10 pm
The main issue with that definition is that the "direction" changes within a "unit of scalar motion", which IMO is disallowed by FPs.
I thought that we've agreed that aspect's "direction" can change only at the boundary of the unit - not inside of it.
You are correct; Larson distinctly specifies that a change of direction can only occur at the end of a "unit" of motion. That being the case, vibrations are square waves, not sine waves. Sine waves only occur as the shear strain of opposite rotating systems--Nehru's birotation. (There are many articles in Reciprocity discussing this.)
Horace wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:10 pm
When Larson was calculating the value of unit of time from the Rydberg frequency, he wrote that a full cycle consisted of two units of motion, going as far as expressing the Rydberg frequency in half-cycles per second.
You may have misunderstood this... the outward motion of the progression is always present, constituting one "unit" of motion. A direction reversal constitutes the second. In this understanding (described in New Light on Space and Time), the minimum "unit" is always two "units" of motion.

I quote "unit" because I believe the "box of speed" concept is detrimental to understanding a universe of motion... you do not have blocks of 1 MPH that you stack together to make a car move. All it is, is a quantized increase/decrease of speed.
Every dogma has its day...

Horace
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

bperet wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:20 am
I need to intervene here and point out that Bundy's System of theory (BS theory) has little to do with Larson's Reciprocal System of theory (RS theory).
I think the "LRC Research" section has this big sign "Beware all, ye enter here".
I certainly am aware what I am getting into by posting here, but I find Doug to be a good debater, even if he answers a little too verbosely for my taste and not always directly. His different interpretation of Larson's works makes him a challenging opponent in the debate and allows me to hone my discourse skills. Coining clever derogatory terms like "BS theory" is not what I am striving at in this endeavor.
bperet wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:20 am
As pointed out in an earlier post by daniel, you will not find SUDRs, TUDRs, "Larson Cubes," etc., in ANY of the published works of Dewey Larson or the papers on the Reciprocal System.
Yes, but nonetheless it is still worth discussing these different interpretations. In the future, I am planning to ask him how many units of motion a SUDR consists of.
bperet wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:20 am
Please bear this in mind as you are discussing things, as it can cause a great deal of confusion for other students. The reason you are having difficulty in communication is that you are both operating from different premises, using the same words to mean different things.
Yes and it causes a great deal of confusion to me, too. But I find it a rewarding challenge to straighten out the meaning of these words.
bperet wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:20 am
You may have misunderstood this... the outward motion of the progression is always present, constituting one "unit" of motion. A direction reversal constitutes the second.
And how many units of motion are in a sequence of 128 consecutive reversals ?
bperet wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:20 am
I quote "unit" because I believe the "box of speed" concept is detrimental to understanding a universe of motion...
What is a "box of speed" ?

bperet
Posts: 1496
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

Horace wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:47 pm
Yes and it causes a great deal of confusion to me, too. But I find it a rewarding challenge to straighten out the meaning of these words.
As long as you know what you are getting yourself into... have fun.
Horace wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:47 pm
And how many units of motion are in a sequence of 128 consecutive reversals ?
127, because direction reversals as described by Larson (NBM, p. 50) requires an initial, inward motion to counter the progression. The last "unit," 128, would be concurrent with the progression and have no, net effect.

But then, to get a complete "wave," you would need two sets of 127, or 254, to maintain wave phase. Larson's sequence is described in detail in Nothing But Motion, p. 98. It gets worse when you try to convert Larson's direction reversals into a sine projection. I've seen a lot of conversation over this in the 22 years I've been running an RS discussion group and it has never made much sense to anyone:
Nehru, The Law of Conservation of Direction wrote:It may be seen that in the case of the translational situation the vectorial direction reverses in unison with the scalar direction. But in the case of the vectorial vibration it is not so: it is perplexing why the scalar and vectorial directions do not maintain a constant relationship in the case of the vibrational motion (compare, for example, the third and the fourth units in the tabulation).

Larson comes up with an explanation of a sort, which sounds more like an apology: “… in order to maintain continuity in the relation of the vectorial motion to the fixed reference system the vectorial direction continues the regular reversals at the points where the scalar motion advances to a new unit of space (or time).” On the principles of probability, the alternative possibility, namely, the vectorial directional reversals occurring in unison with the scalar directional reversals appears more logical.
Birotation is SO much simpler and gives better results.
Horace wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:47 pm
What is a "box of speed" ?
My point, exactly.
Every dogma has its day...

dbundy
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

I appreciate the discussion. Unfortunately, I'm on the road and only have my phone with me. I will respond when I get home next week.

dbundy
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

I can't sleep, so I'm going to try to write what I can with this phone in response to some of the comments that have been made here.

As Bruce pointed out this discussion has been ongoing for sometime. Nehru took issue with Larson's attempt to derive units of scalar motion from the uniform progression of space and time by means of direction reversals, because not only did it have the square wave problem, but it had a mathematical problem as well.

The mathematical problem first arose when it was necessary to explain units of uneven scalar speeds, such as 1/3, 1/5, 1/7, etc, in terms of direction reversals.

Nehru's approach was to introduce the idea of bi-rotation. My approach was to introduce the idea of no rotation.

Why my idea should be labeled "BS" is beyond me, since it is clearly based on sound principles of reciprocity, but that's life I guess.

What I did first was to enlist the aid of Wolfram's cellular automata to clarify the concept of eternal progression. His rule 254 is perfect for this.

It was easy to illustrate the direction reversals after that, both 1/n and n/1. I called them "progression algorithms" or PAs for short.

Larson never knew about them or spoke about them, of course, but that didn't mean they were BS.

Indeed, they provided the crucial insight needed to solve the mathematical problem of odd scalar speeds.

(More later)

dbundy
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

The PAs were a good way to show what I called, at the time, "net zero" motion. That is, given continuous "direction" reversals, the reversing aspect of the motion didn't progress. It was like a soldier marching in place. There was motion all right, but neither the soldier nor the space (time) aspect of the motion moves forward, or advances.

This was cucial to understand because it provides the 1/2, "unit," from which all other values of scalar motion are compounded.

However, the problems were still not solved. Only the ground work for solving them was laid. The next step was to find a scalar motion equation that could be used to algebraically combine units of net zero motion.

Larson didn't think this was necessary, but many of us disagreed. I first tried using Hestenes' geometric algebra (GA), but computer simulations soon showed it wasn't going to work.

In the meantime, plotting the PAs on a world line chart, I formulated the equation S|T = 1/2 + 1/1 + 2/1 = 4/4, along with some new algebraic rules for using it, based on Hestenes' explanation of the "operational" versus "quantitative" interpretation of number.

I realized this is nothing more than Larson's "speed displacement" concept, and the newly formulated equation was nothing less than a mathematical form of the three PAs combined together.

(More later)

dbundy
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Meeting a Terrific Challenge

While the mathematical picture was clearing up remarkably, the problem of the square wave remained. Larson just ignored it, but it was obviously too serious to ignore for long.

The solution turned out to solve much more than our square wave, though. It ended up taking the mystery out of quantum mechanics!

The reason is dramatically simple. Instead of assuming the reversals occur in one of three dimensions, if we assume it occurs in all three dimensions, which is the most simple and straightforward assumption, we get an oscillating unit of space (time).

Although I named these units of motion, they are logical consequences of the FPs, and there is no justification for mocking them, in my opinion.

They are perfectly consistent with the PAs and the world line charts and the new scalar motion equation, but more than that they require the equivalent of 4π revolution per cycle (quantum spin), and explain non-locality in a simple way.

It is challenging to explain the concepts of "direction" and "unit" and "dimension," but Larson had the same communication challenge. However, that fact doesn't warrant the dire warning that has been issued here, in my opinion.