I am still a newbie in RS2 but I am a quantum chemist (and have studied also

quantum field theory etc.) and I really think it's vital to write a good book on

RS2 for the scientific community and I also maybe want to do it but first I need

to fully understand everything, study a little more RS2, algebra and even

conventional physics. In my humble opinion there are 2 main reasons why Larson

failed to provide his findings to scientific community.

1) did not use acceptable terms to describe what he found

2) rotational basis

In modern physics we still use are many strange concepts which are accepted. In

quantum chemistry we calculate properties of atoms, molecules and solid state Ab

Initio - so we have a theory how generally universe works and we calculate

everything in "atomic units" i.e. all physical constants are by definition 1

and then you just convert the result to regular units. The method my group uses

is solving Dirac equation (one of possible incorporations of relativity in to

quantum mechanics) which btw says that vacuum is fully occupied by "electrons

and positrons" (but these are here not any particles - it's a quantized function

of pseudocartesian space) So why not RS? It's not more strange then Dirac

equation. I think it's because if you want to talk to an ordinary scientist you

have to talk in strictly mathematical terms. e.g.

I want to describe what is universe from the non-relativistic quantum physics

view (and limit it for now to mass only):

Universe is a complex function of 3 Cartesian dimensions and time = 4

dimensions and it's square is observable as mass.

This means universe has in each point of its space and time has some complex

value (the square of integral through this function is mass).

Sentence "space is composed entirely of motion" is (for me) rather difficult to

understand because it does not say which mathematical structure I should use to

describe space. The previous example clearly says: "To create your universe you

have to create a function in 4 dimensions. If you give me a vector containing 4

real numbers, I will give you a complex number" In the Larson's way my sentence

would sound like:

"Space is entirely composed from wavefunction existing in 4 dimensions and it's

values are complex"

The rotational basis is an other problem solved by RS2 - no need to discus

anymore.

In quantum chemistry we use both equations completely rigorous and also

completely empirical fictive... simply what ever you want just to get correct

numbers. Using RS2 (which seems to be holly grail of theoretical physics) should

be able to derive a way how to predict molecular properties and if so in this

field of science they will be accepted despite of way you get them. Then it will

be a short fight to get this in to other parts of science.

Now to Bruce Peret: If you mean it seriously that if somebody makes an

comprehensive outline you will fill in the contents, I will gladly write the

outline so that the reader will be able to reproduce the whole process and also

be able to continue. No white spaces, no hypothesis only logical development

from previous assumptions (physical axioms).

Best regards

Jan

PS: I do not guarantee that my opinions are correct...