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.
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

There is scant regard to the

Post by Sun » Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:39 am

There is scant regard to the Source of the Motion...

"the universe IS motion, so it doesn't need a push"...
I still think the "PUSH" is condensing. Space and time are not the frame of universe, but two aspects of motion. In the scalar level, condensing is just condensing. After coupling to the spatial reference frame(SRF), and applying the observer principle, if i sit on a photon, i would see the Earth is condensing. If i stand on Earth, i see the space is extending.

Kvk.Nehru stated, "The primary displacement from the background condition of the space-time progression takes the form of a uniform birotation, the vector resultant of which manifests as a SHM. This is identified as the photon." So i think the photon is a one of the projection of scalar motion of condensing. In the SRF, scalar motion is represented as a bivector. The direction of bivector in SRF is actually a direction pointing out of SRF. So in the conventional view, the condensing is condensing out of space. (Due to my limited knowledge in RS/RS2, i may make mistakes.)

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

My mistake

Post by Ardavarz » Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:15 pm

Sorry, that's my mistake here - since I was quoting by memory (which is not so good already...) I mixed up the first two sentences:

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


Post by Ardavarz » Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:41 pm

Isn't it interesting that two rotations make one simple harmonic motion, while two simple harmonic motions (sine + cosine) make one rotation? This is like the duality between point and line or line and plane. Instead of thinking linearly that one thing begets another we may take them as mutually causing each other - a kind of "bootstrap" theory like the Chinese notion about Yin and Yang being roots of each other or the Buddhist "mutual origination" (pratītya-samutpāda).

I would guess that this is like a feedback loop that coordinates unfolding of the opposite and complementary aspects of space (linear) and time (circular) while the information being alternately transferred between them is coded in the irrational reminder of the proportion between their "units" (the "speed"). Thus the motion has always both physical and mental aspects.

User avatar
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

Mental Photons

Post by bperet » Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Thus the motion has always both physical and mental aspects.
I like that... and it fits perfectly. Yang space is the brain and yin time is the mind.
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

A new book explaining RS2 and computional chemistry

Post by rossum » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:08 am

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


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


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

Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico

A new book explaining RS2 and computational chemistry

Post by wsitze » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:09 am

You claim Larson did not use acceptable terms. I think he did, where appropriate. Where he varied from acceptable terms was where accepted theories fall short.

Larsen did not say, "space is composed entirely of motion". What he did say was, "The Universe is composed of motion." That difference is important. He also said," space and time are simply the two reciprocal aspects of motion and have no other significance." He postulated both space and time both have 3 dimensions, but those are not the same dimensions, i.e. a dimension in space does not represent a dimension in time, and vice versa .

Larson was a Chemical Engineer. Have you perused Volume II, Basic Properties of Matter, of the complete revision of The Strructure of the Physical Universe? I think we could all profit from paying more attention to that volume. It might also satisfy your need for a book to connect the Reciprical System and computational chemistry.

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

Constructive book

Post by rossum » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:48 am

I feel I wrote my first post a little confusing way, sorry for that, now I'll

try to make my self more clear:

I would like to co-work on book on Reciprocal System version 2 which will be

primarily targeted to readers which never studied physics or mathematics before.

Objectives and principles of the book will be:

1) Book will contain at least 2 parts:

a) Mathematical background

b) Physics

2) Book will build on axioms (postulates) and develop all the necessary


3) We will cite no one and go all the way from postulates to equations. This

will result to some redundant work - things that are described by ordinary

physics, but we will not require anyone to study anything else. The book should

also contain proof of each given statement.

4) We will use the terminology of mathematics which is used in this days (even

if we do not need to or other words would be more appropriate)

5) Development from postulates or axioms always results in to branches which

then may interact. So at the beginning of each chapter we will add numbers of

chapters you have to reach before reading further.

6) To make it more understandable we will use a lot of diagrams and at the end

of each chapter we can add some exercises where the student can attest that he

understand before further reading

7) We will ask for recension mathematicians (we will choose later) to check

consistency of proofs

I don't see any reason why not to do this. Reevaluation of given is of course

possible. As Bruce Peret showed some interest on writing a new book on RS2 (on

Wed, 11/28/2012) I would like to kindly ask for his help. If anyone can provide

me direct (e-mail) contact to Bruce Peret please do so. I didn't find it.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards


Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 am

Text Book - yes please

Post by Jameela » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:38 pm

If you could do this it would be of tremendous help! ...I have thought about attempting similar myself, but my own knowledge of orthodox science is just not good enough!

I really agree with you that the book must be self-contained and without requiring any references to be studied.

Where there are still contentions within RS2, perhaps it best to just briefly state all the current different opinions; so as to drive future experiments.

Updates of the 'RS2 Text Book' could be published annually?

In Peace, Jameela

User avatar
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

RS2 book initial hurdle

Post by bperet » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:07 pm

I'm all for someone else working on an RS2 book! Journalism is a struggle for me; I can do it, but I go kicking and scratching all the way. I do a fair job at answering questions, but when it comes to just sitting down and writing--well, might be physical proof of black holes, because all knowledge just vanishes without a trace and I end up staring at a blank page.

RS2 is not all that different from Larson's original research; it is primarily a refinement. As you may have noticed, Larson takes some large steps between concepts and it is often difficult to follow his stream of consciousness. For example, Larson did not have the Eastern concept of yin-yang, so he structured his system totally on the yang-linear approach. Since the universe needs yin as much as yang, he had to "fake" the yin with his "rotational base," in much the same way as the Greeks had to fake epicycles to explain how planets moved, when viewed from Earth. By recognizing the yin, we end up with motion being philosophically the same as yin-yang, which makes it easier for people to understand.

RS2 can appear confusing because it integrates concepts from different cultures into a singular theory, with the common factor of "motion." The biggest hurdle a student faces is learning to think in terms of speed or ratio, rather than "things." The first thing students try to do when coming to the RS is to "quantize it" and make "unit motion" or "units of motion," so they have a little blocks to build things with. But once you've done that, you've missed the point! Question to the new folks here... are you able to think in terms of speed, rather than "things on a stage?"

Motion is the first conceptual hurdle a book about RS/RS2 is going to have to overcome. The second is mathematics, because when you have a system built on "discrete units," you cannot do things like change direction or magnitude within a unit, only at a unit boundary (Larson explains this in detail in SPU and NBM). So that generates interesting results, as the smallest circle you can draw, a radius of 1 natural unit, is actually a square--because you cannot change direction until you reach a unit boundary. At zero degrees, the tangent is up, so you draw straight up to the unit boundary at 90 degrees, at which time you take a left turn, to 180, head down, 270, head right, then at zero, back up. Result: your 1-unit circle is a square, where PI, the ratio of the circumference (8) to the diameter (2) = 4.

Just some things to consider.
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Concept of position

Post by Horace » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:06 pm

Doesn't the concept of container and the position in it appear very much later later in the development of RS2 ?

It is difficult to talk about boundaries and shapes like the square before positions and observers can be defined.

Post Reply