Predictions for conventional physics fields

This forum is dedicated to the student just starting out with the concepts of the Reciprocal System, or RS2. Questions and clarifications for the RS/RS2 concepts go here; please place new ideas and commentary in the appropriate RS2 fora.
Post Reply
blaine
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by blaine » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:52 am

Hello all,

I recently was introduced to Larson's reciprocal systems research through the Ra material, which I have been subsequently trying to understand in hopes that I can eventually contribute to the research being done here at RS2. I recently completed a nuclear physics Masters and decided not to continue with my PhD due to the highly politicized nature of the funding climate that currently exists in the natural sciences - which I believe to be a large factor behind the lack of progress in Physics in the last 30+ years. Of course, if the Ra material is somewhat accurate it would imply that technologies have been deliberately withheld from the public ( such as "electrogravitic" tech), which if properly disclosed would be a major catalyst for advancement of the physical (and metaphysical) sciences. While I do believe that tech has been withheld, I also wonder if any theoretical developments that would shed light on the interactions between gravity and the other standard model forces have been actively suppressed so as to maintain the coverup, or if the funding climate has successfully precluded such developments. Perhaps the answer is both. In any case, it seems to me that expanding Larson's research as RS2 is currently working to do could be fruitful in understanding phenomena ranging from the current "mainstream" scientific mysteries (dark matter, expansion, origin of physical constants, consciousness, etc) to things that science doesnt even acknowledge (psychic abilities, "chi" or "prana", astral planes, UFO tech, teleportation, etc). My hope is that such a theoretical understanding of the metaphysical could help bridge ancient traditions with modern sciences, bringing the spirit back into the collective Western consciousness and help pave the way for a more focused societal effort on our collective spiritual evolution.

Naive optimism aside, in order for the scientific community to want to look into RS2, predictions must be made to demonstrate its worth. To this aim, I set about trying to understand Larson's predictions of the interatomic distances, hoping that this could help springboard into further theoretical work. So far I've had a difficult time understanding this part of his work, I think it coming from my inability to understand the 3 quantities used to make up the elements (btw I was working through this document: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/spu/index.htm ). My goal was to get to the chapter on radioactive decay to see if measurable quantities could be calculated for beta decay using RS. Clearly I will have to spend more time understanding the theory to get to that point but my hope is that I could write a script that would be capable of calculating measurable quantities of the beta decay for a given isotope such as the transition strengths and end-point energies.

My particular motivation for choosing beta decay to study is simply because that is part of what I was studying for my Masters, as there are currently large uncertainties in the databases for beta decays of isotopes that are far from stability (large neutron to proton ratio or proton to neutron ratio relative to the stable isotopes for a given proton number). These uncertainties originate in the experiments performed to measure such decays, often relying on germanium detectors to measure the outgoing gammas from the decay daughter nucleus which run into efficiency issues when you have large numbers of gammas in coincidence (due to a large density of possible excited states by which it can decay to and the multitude of possible paths to decay to the ground state). This is known as the "pandemonium effect" and is being addressed by experiments using large NaI detectors that almost completely surround the decaying nucleus to get close to 100% detection efficiency for the outgoing gammas (called "Total Absorptions Spectrometers"). This allows for much more accurate decay schemes for beta decays of isotopes far from stability.

If RS theory could predict the decay schemes to close to the newly updated values from the total absorption spectrometers, then it would draw considerable attention because most of these isotopes that are far from stability have a large enough mass number to where directly using the standard model to calculate observable quantities becomes intractable due to the factorial scaling of the problem's computational complexity as you add elementary constituents. To get around this, several models have been developed by the nuclear physics community to calculate various decay quantities to varying degrees of success. These are still difficult computationally and often fall wide of the experimental predictions, especially as you look at nuclei farther from stability. I think using RS for these sorts of computations could potentially be both simpler and more accurate and may be a useful avenue for validating its explanatory power.

Given that I'll have to do this research in my free time I think it could take several years before getting any useful results (if its actually possible of course), but I thought before I started an intensive effort feedback from the experts in the community would be of great value. To that end I have a few questions:

1. What efforts have already been made to make theoretical predictions for observable physical phenomena beyond Larson's calculations of inter-atomic distances?
2. Where can I find more complete transcripts of Larson's works? (I've noticed that most of the papers listed on http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/ have many chapters missing)
3. Has any work been done to understand excited nuclear states of matter in terms of the reciprocal system?

Thanks for reading, and I look forward to learning more about RS2!

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by bperet » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:13 pm

blaine wrote:While I do believe that tech has been withheld, I also wonder if any theoretical developments that would shed light on the interactions between gravity and the other standard model forces have been actively suppressed so as to maintain the coverup, or if the funding climate has successfully precluded such developments.
Lots of tech is being withheld... but they cannot make sense of it because they do not have a proper, conceptual background for the physics driving it. Conventional science considers the universe to be basically 1-dimensional, spatial "connect-a-dot." Because of that, they have to fudge dimensional relationships and the "other half" of the Universe that Larson calls the Cosmic Sector--the sector where time is 3-dimensional and space acts like a clock. Gravity is a 3-dimensional function, not a 1-dimensional one, so no mystery in the RS! Larson even wrote an entire book on it, Beyond Newton: An Explanation of Gravitation.

IMHO, what is being "suppressed" is that the standard model is wrong. (Look into the history of Einstein and you'll find that out pretty quick.)

The official website, where you can find tons of PDFs and videos is: http://reciprocalsystem.org (ORG not .com). (The site you are looking at is ancient, back from the 1990s, and has not been maintained.)

The old website is: http://rstheory.org, where you can read books online. (I have not had the time to move everything over to the new site yet.)
blaine wrote:Perhaps the answer is both. In any case, it seems to me that expanding Larson's research as RS2 is currently working to do could be fruitful in understanding phenomena ranging from the current "mainstream" scientific mysteries (dark matter, expansion, origin of physical constants, consciousness, etc) to things that science doesnt even acknowledge (psychic abilities, "chi" or "prana", astral planes, UFO tech, teleportation, etc). My hope is that such a theoretical understanding of the metaphysical could help bridge ancient traditions with modern sciences, bringing the spirit back into the collective Western consciousness and help pave the way for a more focused societal effort on our collective spiritual evolution.
Since you are interested in this kind of material, you may want to look at the "--daniel" papers, a summary of which is here: The --daniel Papers. They address many of the metaphysical aspects of the Reciprocal System, from gods, UFOs and the nature of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Mainstream science has its mysteries because they missed the point... just as they claim the aboriginal people invented gods to explain function of Nature, scientists invent words to explain what their system cannot explain: dark matter (motion in time), expansion (speed of progression), physical constants (none in the RS--things "add up" on their own without fudge factors), consciousness (ethical control units), psychic abilities (communication through 3D time), chi/prana (bioenergy), astral planes (cosmic sector), UFO tech (3-x, ultra-high speed motion), teleportation (temporal adjacency)... these "mysteries" are not mysteries, once you realize it is a universe of motion, not matter, and the only concept is the ratio of space to time.
blaine wrote:Naive optimism aside, in order for the scientific community to want to look into RS2, predictions must be made to demonstrate its worth. To this aim, I set about trying to understand Larson's predictions of the interatomic distances, hoping that this could help springboard into further theoretical work.
Structure of the Physical Universe was superseded by the 3-volume set: Nothing But Motion, Basic Properties of Matter and Universe of Motion. You would be interested in Basic Properties of Matter, Chapter 2, "Inter-atomic Distances," where Larson goes in to a LOT more detail.

It is currently out of print, but you can download it for free, here: Basic Properties of Matter
blaine wrote:So far I've had a difficult time understanding this part of his work, I think it coming from my inability to understand the 3 quantities used to make up the elements.
Warning: Larson changed his notation scheme after SPU was published, so you would want to use NBM instead.

See this post: Atomic Displacements in the RS.
My goal was to get to the chapter on radioactive decay to see if measurable quantities could be calculated for beta decay using RS. Clearly I will have to spend more time understanding the theory to get to that point but my hope is that I could write a script that would be capable of calculating measurable quantities of the beta decay for a given isotope such as the transition strengths and end-point energies.

This is also a long-time interest of mine. Prof. Nehru and I attempted it back in 1996, but only had limited success because of the large number of environmental influences that influence decay rates--and the fact that conventional science has most of the lifetimes wrong. What we found was that solar flares change radioactive decay rates and methods--something that has now been observed by conventional science.

If you have Java available on your computer, I wrote a program (on Github) that displays isotope data based on RS constraints. See the topic: GitHub Java Project. It will produce an interactive graph of known isotopes and the RS calculations of the zone of isotopic stability and limits.
blaine wrote:My particular motivation for choosing beta decay to study is simply because that is part of what I was studying for my Masters, as there are currently large uncertainties in the databases for beta decays of isotopes that are far from stability (large neutron to proton ratio or proton to neutron ratio relative to the stable isotopes for a given proton number).
Gopi suffered through a PhD in physics... he can tell you what a disaster that system has become.

A paper you might want to read is Larson's "Astronomical X-Ray Sources." Granted, it is about astronomy but gives an important clue to isotopic stability--namely that if an aggregate exceeds the speed of light (and starts shrinking, instead of expanding), the zone of isotopic stability inverts about its rotational mass. For example, Moscovium (115) is completely unstable in our normal environment, having an atomic weight of 290 (max stability in the RS is 236). But, if it were accelerated past the speed of light (moving in 3D time--not clock time), the mass drops to meager 170 and the element becomes stable. How... normal, 2z+G, 2*115+60=290. FTL, 2z-G, 2*115-60=170. (2z is the rotational mass, G is the isotopic mass.) And that's how a UFO can power an FTL engine without blowing up! :D
blaine wrote:1. What efforts have already been made to make theoretical predictions for observable physical phenomena beyond Larson's calculations of inter-atomic distances?
For physics, see: Basic Properties of Matter
For astronomy, see: Universe of Motion (Larson predicted the existence of quasars, years before one was observed.)
blaine wrote:2. Where can I find more complete transcripts of Larson's works? (I've noticed that most of the papers listed on http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/ have many chapters missing)
http://reciprocalsystem.org

Those "missing" chapters are missing from the printed book as well, but incorporated in the 3-volume set. Larson decided to go with multiple volumes, rather than one, huge book, to get the material out faster.

You can order books from: http://store.rstheory.org/ (or Amazon; I fill the orders for both, but the website is cheaper because there are no Amazon fees to pay.)
blaine wrote:3. Has any work been done to understand excited nuclear states of matter in terms of the reciprocal system?
Yes, browse through some of Prof. KVK Nehru's papers on quantum physics.

As I mentioned, isotopic research is an interest of mine, so I look forward to seeing what you come up with. We do have a better model with RS2 that was developed from atomic spectra, but it has not yet been documented. If you want to talk RS physics, Gopi has his PhD in it. I'm more of an EE/CS guy, but you have to understand atomic structure to understand the electron!
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by blaine » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:26 am

Thanks for all the resources. This gives me a lot to work though.

blaine
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by blaine » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:44 am

I've been reading through Nothing But Motion and The Basic Properties of Matter and I have to say I am stunned at the amount of accurate theoretical predictions. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that I am stunned that the scientific community didnt throw out the standard model as a whole after the publication of these volumes. The masses of most of the standard model particles, various resonances, elements, and chemical compounds calculated just from the fundamental postulates in combination with the three physical constants used to convert to our human measurement systems (speed of light, Rydberg frequency, Avogadro's number) is impressive. I forget how many experimentally determined constants are used in the standard model to come up with these predictions, and the calculation is exponentially more computationally intensive. Makes me wonder if P = NP after all :lol: . I am even more amazed at the fact that this theory has gone on largely ignored for over 50 years... How is this possible? It certainly doesn't seem like something organic (I suppose this is what I mean when I say it seems there have been suppressed theoretical developments that parallel the suppressed technology).

Kudos to everyone thats been studying this and developing it on their own time; I'm excited about doing the same!

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by bperet » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:50 pm

blaine wrote:I am even more amazed at the fact that this theory has gone on largely ignored for over 50 years... How is this possible? It certainly doesn't seem like something organic (I suppose this is what I mean when I say it seems there have been suppressed theoretical developments that parallel the suppressed technology).!
It is more than "ignored," it is actively suppressed because it has the potential to provide a measure to determine scientific truth--using RS principles, you cannot fake experimental results for grant money. This forum is full of me doing just that with "discoveries," such as the LIGO gravity wave detector, which is total nonsense. The --daniel papers use the RS to examine everything from life on other worlds to the history of life on Earth--again, not what you've been told, but both logical and intuitively correct when interpreted within the RS2 framework.

Once you understand the basics of the reciprocal relation between space and time, it gets very hard to "pull the wool over your eyes."
Every dogma has its day...

wsitze
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by wsitze » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:38 pm

I have a daughter who is convinced that she was denied acceptance to MIT because she mentioned Larson's work. However, there is is hope! I was talking to one of my sons a couple of nights ago, and he remarked that many of the students he went to school with were aware of Larson's work, and were very interested in pursuing it. BUT, it was something they were very careful to keep from their professors! His feeling was that, in time, the old would be out, and replaced by the new so far as Physics and other physical sciences are concerned.

The two predictions that caught my attention were 1) Larson's prediction of quasars, and 2) his prediction that the Moon would have a light core and heavy mantle. When NASA slammed one of the Lunar Modules back into the Moon's surface, it rang like a bell. Their explanation: the Moon has a light core and a heavy mantle. That on top of his deriving the table of elements in two or three pages, and then Plank's constant, etc.
Graybeard

blaine
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by blaine » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:03 pm

Thats great to hear! I had never heard of Larson while going through university, I only stumbled upon his work recently. Its funny, looking back at my time in college there were points in my physics education where the math and physical explanations just didnt make sense. This was particularly true when discussing angular momentum and circular motion in Mechanics. I always just assumed that I was just stupid for not grasping the math, but now after reading through some of Miles Mathis's papers on the subject (http://milesmathis.com/avr.html) it seems I had a good reason for my lack of understanding! Anyways, I think this relates to RS because as Bruce has mentioned elsewhere on the forum (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=400), Mathis's views on atomic structure actually looks very similar to Larson's atom. Its interesting because Mathis came to this view by going back to the basics and sort of "correcting" the current theory and inserting mechanical understanding whenever the gaps needed to be filled, whereas Larson seemed to use his own intuition and understanding and created a new system from the ground up. In this regard I've found Mathis's work to be a great way to bridge my understanding of the mainstream theories with Larson's work. I think your daughter might find his work interesting if she hasn't already heard of it.

I think until the old guard transitions out we will just have to publish stuff online and with Reciprocity and whatnot, once a critical mass of accurate theoretical predictions and explanations are published it will be impossible for mainstream scientists to ignore. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread I am dumbfounded that Larson's accomplishments alone were not enough to reach this point, but here we are. I was laughing the other day reading a wikipedia article about how a theory that can predict the elementary particle masses from first principles is something greatly desired by physics beyond the standard model.

wsitze
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by wsitze » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:09 pm

I'll date myself: I started as a Physics major nearly 60 years ago, and within a year or so became convinced that there was a fundamental problem with some of the theoretical constructs, particularly after studying the efforts toward using fusion as a viable power source on a commercial basis. After nearly 60 years, that effort is no closer to a solution than it was then, nor can it be solved. As Larson pointed out, if you create an environment where hydrogen will be fused into helium, you also have an energy environment where helium will degenerate back to hydrogen.
Graybeard

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Predictions for conventional physics fields

Post by bperet » Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:27 pm

Prof. Frank Meyer almost got booted out of the University of Wisconsin (Superior) for daring to spend a class talking about the Reciprocal System! Good thing he had tenure, or they would have fired him.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest