Newbie Comments – Text Book? & Motion Source?

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.
User avatar
Horace
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Ad. 1) 6km/h is the same

Post by Horace » Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:37 am

Ad. 1) 6km/h is the same velocity as 3km/30min

What experiment do you know of that demonstrates mass increase without acceleration of charged mass by electric or magnetic fields?

Newtons 2nd law: a=F/m

Thus if acceleration of mass decreases with velocity then there are 3 explanations of this:
  1. F decreases with velocity
  2. m increases with velovity
  3. Both of the above
Why has Einstein rejected 2 or 3 ? Why do you?

P.S.

God, damn it, Bruce!

This stupid RichEditor is inserting 2 line feeds when I press Enter once !

Screen's verical real-estate is a precious resource. Arrrrgghhhh!

The editor is CKeditor; I've removed the blank lines, but I cannot reproduce the double-line problem with Firefox, Safari or IE. What is the device you are using, and which browser? It may be you are sending CRLF rather than just CR. You can also SHIFT-ENTER to break to a new line, without making a new paragraph to save vertical space. --Bruce

Johnny Boston
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:33 pm

we need a Grossman

Post by Johnny Boston » Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:42 pm

E=mc2 is not really Einstein's theory. It is as much Fitzgerald's and Lorentz's as it is his. Throw in Maxwell for good measure. Einstein only took the theory and was able to apply it to phenomenon in ways no one had ever done before. However, Marcel Grossman and Hilbert did much of the "heavy lifting" required to actually arrive at an answer. Their genius wasn't in the development of new maths, it was in the application of existing maths to the problem at hand. Given the technology of the time, what they accomplished was nothing short of incredible. Perhaps what is first needed would be identifiable goals to be reached, then a discussion as to how they would be reached. You would think with the latest CERN drama that now would that time. The point of all this is that relativity was a group effort. Trial and error and probably a lot of error, but at the end of the day, what kept them going was their belief in the theory itself. I guess Larson just some how sold me on the RST and that's what keeps me going.

brevity=veracity

Peace all,

Johnny Boston

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

The Ins and Outs

Post by bperet » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:17 pm

If the scalar direction can be either inward or outward (I prefer to think about it as "hither" and "thither" instead - "in" and "out"
That is actually a bit of a misconception that we corrected with RS2--they are not two, separate concepts, because everywhere you have an out, you have an in, due to the reciprocal relation between space and time. When you go hither in space, you go thither in time. Hither in time, is thither in space. Like yin-yang, they cannot be separated. As a result, when you increase speed in the spatial aspect, "go out", you MUST also "go in" in the temporal aspect; 1 ⇒ 2/1 x 1/2. You both double and half the speed.

The trigram is an interest analog, essentially 3D of yin-yang that matches quite well with Larson's depiction.
Also I think that our habit of considering space (and by extension - time) as coordinate grid of orthogonal cells (squares or cubes) is a result of cultural conditioning. It seems to us "natural" because we have been taught so and we are accustomed to it, but if space is really isotropic there can be no privileged directions of the axes and thus every orientation of the cubes (or squares) should be equally right.
In a gravitationally-bound system, there IS a privileged direction, the "vertical" axis, and when a magnetic field is also introduced, like the planetary one, the remaining axes become oriented. Even within the solar system, the same conditions exist from the sun.
So maybe a better representation would be to consider space like expanding circles (resp. spheres) and thinking in terms of polar (resp. spherical) coordinates (or maybe bipolar with variable parameter of distance between every two points, thus the fundamental notion behind "spatially" would be not the abstract "point", but rather the interval - distance, i.e. extension).
I use both approaches with projective geometry. I treat coordinate space as an orthogonal grid of locations, and each location has a spherical/polar projection of the underlying temporal motion (force fields).
But there is also another way of indicating locations in space that is more peculiar to nomadic or sailing societies and it actually uses terms of motion. Thus to define the position of one location in respect to another is to describe the path of travel from one to the other, like f.e. so-and-so time units (hours, days etc.) of travel (walking, riding or sailing) in such-and-such direction.
I live in cowboy country... "it's a 3-day ride," not "100 miles away," so I know the concept. The basic difference is treating a motion as speed (distance) or energy (duration). With a speed, you normalize time to create distance. With energy, you normalize space to create duration. It is two projections of the same motion, and I'm not sure which would be more understandable to the new student.
Every dogma has its day...

Ardavarz
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:59 pm

Chinese elements and motions

Post by Ardavarz » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:45 pm

I see. I guess this is an example of the "general conservation law" - the spacial aspect of the motion is offset by the temporal one and vice versa so that the ratio between them always remain 1/1. (I'd rather see this as "compensation" than "conservation" since all existences are just deviation from nothingness and they should compensate each other).

Still, gravitation is central-symmetric, so its direction would suggest a spherical coordinate system rather than an orthogonal grid (except maybe if it is considered as a kind of distortion of that grid - I guess here the projective geometry comes into play, but being unfamiliar with it I cannot say). Thus motion toward a central direction ("hither" rather than vertical) plus rotation indeed determine 3D coordinates - longtitude, latitude and radial distance. The first two give polarization in east-west and north-south and the latter - up-down. We can define northern and southern direction for every rotation perpendicular to its plane using the right-hand rule and these directions can be considered also as linear (axial instead of angular as in the latitude) in which case we'll have cylindrical coordinates. East-west from the other hand is circular (angular = longtitude) direction. (Indeed the north and south pole of the magnet are determined this way, but nobody speaks about eastern or western current for instance - the electrical poles are traditionally defined in "vertical" terms: "anode" and "cathode" are derived from the Greek words for "upward way" and "downward way" respectively).

It is indeed very interesting how those ideas have analogues in the ancient Chinese philosophy. I actually borrowed the notion about "hither" direction from there - the Chinese consider a fifth direction in addition to the four cardinal points of the compass and it is usually interpreted as "central" and associated with the earth element. The Chinese theory of the five "elements" (u xing) relates every one of then with one of those five directions. But the Chinese "elements" are not substances as in other traditions - they are more like motions or forces. Thus the modern philosopher Chen Li Fu (1948) has interpreted them as primary motions in such manner: water - downward motion, fire - upward motion, wood - centrifugal motion, metal - centripetal motion, and earth - left-right motion. So he thinks that the earth "element" is vibrational motion, but since it is associated with the central direction ("hither") I'd rather consider it to be the gravitational motion. Even more interesting then is that in some alternative models the earth "element" is related to the four intermediate directions of the horizon (north-east, south-east, south-west and north-west) thus being in the same time a "thither" motion (it is said in the texts that earth "supports" everything which can be seen as corresponding to the reversal of gravitation inside the unit region). Maybe this is a way in which the ancient Chinese thinkers have tried to represent symbolically the temporal motion because of the lack of perspective - that is the cardinal points of the compass (east, south, west and north) represent the (scalar) directions of the spatial motion, while the intermediate points - those of the temporal motion. (The circle of horizon itself is traditionally put in correspondence with the phases of the temporal cycles: east corresponds to morning and spring, south to noon and summer etc.). Every one of the five "elements" has its Yang and Yin phase corresponding to the ten so-called "Heavenly Stems" of the Chinese calendar - thus we have reciprocal aspects of the five motions in both sectors. (It is nteresting also that the Chinese tradition considers Earth as square and Heaven as circular which we may interpret as the material and the cosmic sectors and indeed the Chinese word for "universe" or "cosmos" is either tian-di - "Heaven-Earth" or yu-zhou - "Space-Time"). Still the ancient Chinese notions were designed to fit the flat earth model from geocentric point of view, so we should probably make some modifications (well, our modern notions about the "atoms" for instance are not the same as those of the ancient Greek philosophers too, but still they are derived from them). Thus the Chinese consider primary rotation as clockwise - from east to west following the apparent motion of the sky and so opposite to our modern notions (I guess they would use a left-hand rule). But many of the conventions in modern mathematics and physics are also arbitrary and remaining by virtue of habit or tradition (like the assumed direction of the direct current which is opposite to the actual movement of the electrons). I am not sure if we could find complete correspondence with the Reciprocal system, but similar interpretations are quite possible and this is very fascinating.

Coder
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:39 am

Grandfather Clock

Post by Coder » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:52 pm

Bruce,

Just for a sanity check, please let me know how would a grandfather clock appear to me (a material obsever) if suddenly all of the atoms of this clock arrested their expansion in time (e.g. by starting back and forth temporal direction reversals) ?

My atoms (the observer) would be still expand in time like before.

Let's assume the grandfather clock is 2m high, 50cm wide and 25cm deep and 5m away from me and its pendullum is swinging at 1Hz, before its temporal motion is arrested.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Flash in the pan

Post by bperet » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:38 pm

Just for a sanity check, please let me know how would a grandfather clock appear to me (a material obsever) if suddenly all of the atoms of this clock arrested their expansion in time (e.g. by starting back and forth temporal direction reversals) ?
If you were to do that, the rotational motion comprising the atoms of the clock would revert to linear status (SHM). The atomic rotation that gave the atoms its properties and gravity would disappear, and the resulting photons would be carried away by the progression of the natural reference system.

There would be a bright flash of light aroun the uV band (including radio and X-rays), then no clock remaining TO observe.
Every dogma has its day...

Coder
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:39 am

Grandfather Clock

Post by Coder » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:59 pm

This is not what I expected at all ! Such sudden matter to photon conversion would create helluva flash that would destroy a whole city and irradiate some more... :/

I thought that material atoms rotate in space thus cancelling the progression of space by looping, while the time aspect of their atomic motions progresses unimpeded.

I based my assumption on the observation, that atoms appear not to expand in space from the point of view of other atoms and they remain stationary in space relative to each other, thus the space aspects of their atomic motions must be frozen by reversals or looping and they appear not to progress in space.

Why does arresting the atomic progression in time, disappears the atomic rotation in space?

I know that those rotations give atoms their properties.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Atomic structure

Post by bperet » Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:38 am

This is not what I expected at all ! Such sudden matter to photon conversion would create helluva flash that would destroy a whole city and irradiate some more... :/
Yes, it is basically equivalent to what happens in a supernova--the atomic rotation reverts to linear status.
I thought that material atoms rotate in space thus cancelling the progression of space by looping, while the time aspect of their atomic motions progresses unimpeded.
Let me try a simpler explanation than Larson, because it is hard to visualize scalar rotation.

What happens is that the basic motion, what Larson calls a "direction reversal," is that one aspect reverses, while the other does not. So a 1/3 motion would be out-in-out / out-out-out. The first pair of out/out is the progression of the natural reference system, to which you can add in-out/out-out pairs (or out-out/in-out for n/1 motion).

For a material atom, all the "outs" are in time, but INSIDE the "in" of space, the unit space boundary. So all the temporal motion is bent around inside a unit space sphere, creating a rotationally distributed scalar motion in time. This is known as the temporal rotation, the net speed of which becomes the atomic number.

The effect in space is defined by the unit space boundary, the "in" portion, and it is the net motion. So 1/3 = 0.333 which means you are moving slower than the unit speed progression, and that drag is interpreted as gravity.
Why does arresting the atomic progression in time, disappears the atomic rotation in space?

I know that those rotations give atoms their properties.
Because the atomic progression in time IS the rotation. If you make time an in-out (arresting it), what was a rotationally distributed scalar motion is no longer rotating, as you changed it into a cosine function--linear--and it is no longer contained within the unit of space and explodes.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply