RS2 Tutorial Book

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.
duane
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

hi Bruce,

Post by duane » Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:23 am

hi Bruce,

I was going to say "why don't you write it for someone who graduated from a decent high school 40 yrs ago"

but I got to thinking

maybe instead of a "book" why not a "game" like Call of Duty" (Call of RS2)

where ,in order to advance, players have to discover "secret texts" that give clues as to how to advance through the universe

"Want to build a flying car in order to escape the ogre's den?" read about what gravity really is so you can overcome it

just a thought :)

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

RS game

Post by bperet » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:48 am

"Want to build a flying car in order to escape the ogre's den?" read about what gravity really is so you can overcome it
You know, that's actually a very clever idea. That's what I do with these obscure scientific claims to see if there is any truth to them. And since science has become more fantasy than reality... well, quite appropriate!

A couple of other guys are working on a video game idea based off the --daniel papers. I'll pass this on to them.
Every dogma has its day...

adam pogioli
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

average reader?

Post by adam pogioli » Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:02 pm

It all depends on how many people you want to reach. I definitely don't think you should assume you reader is a P.H.D. student. Science writers struggle with this question all the time. The joke is something like--with every equation you add to your text, you can subtract half of your audience.

Which is why my suggestion was to focus on conceptual context. You don't have to go into the detailed comparison with legacy physics that Gopi should definitely write a book on. But I think it is clear that most of us are going to really want some elaboration on the meaning of RS concepts in the context of modern physical theory. But that can be done succinctly without the reader needing to know much about quantum theory or relativity beyond the common tropes. RS theory's strength is that it can actually make much more sense out of modern physics than the current mainstream theories. I think people are really interested and intrigued by the implications of what they hear from scientists but tend to be let down when they do try to read some of these popular science books. They are told some of the concepts are helpful but that really the math is the only way to really understand it, which they are kind spared from. Its such a let down. There is a huge potential audience out there. So far you seem to have targeted the people least likely to be interested--those whose career depends on them not understanding it. I would love to know how Gopi got through a P.H.D. without getting hopelessly frustrated, knowing what he knows,

As for the New Agers, the Daniel papers are very interesting for some of us into esoteric lore, but there is more conspiracy speculation than science in most of them. They aren't even going to appeal to the average New Ager, who wants to know what quantum physics has to do with consciousness or why all this sacred geometry is so important.

I think your target audience should be the same as any popular science book. Your average educated person with an interest in science is going to need some refreshing of any prerequisites that they wouldn't use or remember after 20 years. Even if people have gotten a good education, most of us don't use or remember the details of most of what we learn. Especially the way it is taught nowadays. I know I was pretty good at Calculus in school but I didn't really understand it deeply. As Miles Mathis asks, who really does? The concepts in most education don't hang together. They just teach rules and formulas, so of course we are going to forget unless we are a working engineer or scientist. But given the right conceptual context, something you can provide, those rules can come back and have meaning with a little refresher, couched in the helpful light of your illuminating prose.

I think you write very well. You have so many metaphors and enough philosophical context to explain things from many angles. That is what people need. You just need to bring those clusters of concepts into an ordered path and fill in the gaps. If it is written in a compelling way, any smart person can and will look up a word or concept they are not familiar with. You just have to give us a reason. RS theory isn't just a way of doing things. It is a deeply meaningful web of ideas that can bring much of the mess of contemporary phenomenon into focus. Thank you for guiding us through the maze.

jpkira
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

MOTION AND SPACE AND TIME

Post by jpkira » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:59 pm

You need a good solid foundation to build anything worthwhile onto that you will wish to discus with others. If you assume I know what these terms mean we will likely reach a point where we are not on the same page. You can't just say they are and not define what you mean by saying that.

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

purpose of the book

Post by rossum » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:35 am

I guess the most urgent task for RS comunity is create more RS gurus who can then write a lightweight introduction for curious people, make games, documentaries etc. but right now, there is practically no way to study RS/RS2 and become such a guru. The main problem is that Larson's books are in many ways (quoting adam) "ancient", and from the pedagogical standpoint they are very problematic. It was very well sumarized in Gopi's paper.

Perhaps the best way to distribute ideas is to alow others to redistribute them once they properly understand them. (And also to give people the possibility to make their own mind obout them). As people have similar patterns of thinking one of the good ways to write a book is to write it in the form that would make understand it your younger self 25 years ago.

Here is an other idea: what about writing an opensource book (using latex for typeseting and git for version controll) that will be demanding enough for the reader to be as deep as possible and a branch that will be easy to read and tell the story without math etc. but informative.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Book updates

Post by bperet » Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:37 pm

I greatly appreciate everyone's comments (keep 'em coming!).

I have decided to target the gap between Senior High School and Freshman College, where people have gotten curious about science but have not yet been assimilated into the system, trying to make a career out of it. So I'm going to stick with 12th grade writing level and background information, namely algebra, trigonometry, basic geometry, and introductory physics and chemistry. Anything beyond that, like number theory, projective geometry, electronics or complex numbers I am going to add chapters for.

I am not targeting "mainstream" at all (as Larson did), because they are just deeply entrenched in their system and are happy there. As the Pythagorean Maxim states, "do not place your candle against the wall." Better to place the candle where it can light the room.

I plan to break the presentation into different parts, the first part being this introductory material so a reader can just skip the chapters that they already understand.

I did like the suggestion about treating Larson's RS as background material, showing how it was used to get where we are. RS2 actually follows Larson's rules closer than Larson did (perfect symmetry between space and time, for one), keeps the same reciprocal ratio, but is sufficiently different in expression that I think it is a good idea to make it an independent piece of research. (For example, full inclusion of the yin/angular aspect and integration of the cosmic sector.)

I will also include the other prominent authors as well, such as Nick Thomas (counterspace), Steiner (projective geometry) and some of Miles Mathis' ideas (the model he has developed is almost the same as RS2--he uses [a X Y Z] "spins," and I use [R iX jY kZ] quaternion rotations, in almost the same fashion. His "B-photon field" is just the progression of the natural reference system. But, being an artist, has stuck solely with the Material sector side of things as Larson did, so misses the temporal/cosmic connections. But it is encouraging to see an independent researcher coming from a radically different approach come to the same conclusions.)
I would love to know how Gopi got through a P.H.D. without getting hopelessly frustrated, knowing what he knows
Well, he did get hopelessly frustrated at times... that's what Skype chat is for! Particularly when he would use RS concepts to improve the results of an experiment--and his Prof could not understand what he did.

Most people don't realize what goes on in these international Ph.D. programs--and how they abuse the students in them. Gopi could write a book just on that. Some of his friends are still trapped in that system.
I guess the most urgent task for RS comunity is create more RS gurus who can then write a lightweight introduction for curious people
This is "in progress." Several people have moved here to Salt Lake City to work on RS2 to further develop and document the concepts, and a few more are on the way, as part of the Antiquatis Sanctuary Project. There were 19 people at our last "Science Night," aged from 24-87 and experience levels from hotel management to one of the original engineers that designed Disney's EPCOT, from High School dropouts to Ph.Ds. It is an amazing, diverse group of people getting together to share their ideas without any prejudice--and we do, freely.
Here is an other idea: what about writing an opensource book (using latex for typeseting and git for version controll) that will be demanding enough for the reader to be as deep as possible and a branch that will be easy to read and tell the story without math etc. but informative.
I had done that here on the main RS2 site (Drupal CMS), as anyone with "researcher" privs could edit/write new chapters for the books on the main page, but no one was really interested/able to contribute. I think we need more people familiar with RS2 to do that, and it looks like it may be up to me to do the initial document.

After I get some of the initial chapters done, I'll send it out to a few of the posters here to take a look for further suggestions. May be a while, as I'm working on a couple of RS2 experiments to test my improved atomic model in the real world. I'll post details as I get things built and running.
Every dogma has its day...

Nick
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:06 am

Book content & audience

Post by Nick » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:48 pm

IMO, we should strive to have clear, precise and compact presentation of the RS/RS2 concepts, using any tools we need.

Your target auditory choice is reasonable. But young scientists and engineers ("under 40" age group in your classification), with minds open to the new concepts and ideas, do exist around the globe. And the book we discussing now is for them too.

And it would be great to have a "stack" of books (something like "RS/RS2 university course") that would lead a reader from the basics to the advanced concepts, so he could understand most of the RS/RS2 material, collected in the form of books, papers, posts, apply this knowledge in his field of interest and then extend existing material with the new data, papers, etc.
"After I get some of the initial chapters done, I'll send it out to a few of the posters here to take a look for further suggestions. "
Good idea, please, do so!

User avatar
dave432
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:18 am
Location: Chicago suburbs

RS2 Tutorial Book

Post by dave432 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:32 pm

I'm definitely one of the daniel paper people you mentioned because I'm not a scientist but can usually handle the concepts if explained without too much tech-talk, but a certain amount of it is necessary to explain things. I keep trying to introduce into conversations the idea of a reciprocal Universe with responses ranging from "that makes sense" to "hmmm" and some more knowledge under my belt would really help me field questions. I'm particularly interested in how reciprocity shows up in areas not related to science per se, such as how myths can be read differently.

I have a strong interest in musical ratios and would really like to know more about how they relate to what Keely was doing. If part of the manual is too technical I can always skip over that part for the time being. You might consider two versions of the book (yeah, more work that's just what you wanted, right?) one for more scientific minds and the other for the more philosophical types like myself who relish in the concepts but reach a point where technical analysis isn't always required (or understood). Or begin with a conceptual framework and move on to more in depth discussions that a beginner could skip past but still feel like he is keeping up with the curriculum.

I would really like to be involved somehow in helping to produce some audio/video presentations involving the RS and RS2. I have quite a bit of audio editing experience but haven't learned to work with video yet. The learning curve would be a little steep for me at first but there is some help at my local library which has a new media lab available to patrons and instruction is available if you have questions.

The idea of a tutorial book is very exciting and I would dive into it without a floatation device, and I don't swim!
"just down the road a little way, turn left, cross the drawbridge, and you will be my guest tonight."
-- directions to the grail castle. We'll have some toast.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Bad choices by Larson

Post by bperet » Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Larson made a number of bad choices when presenting his material. The important ones are:
  • The time-space region is conventionally expressed as space/time and space-time is actually time/space. This causes a lot of confusion because people are accustomed to referring to our conventional realm as space/time (s3t). And if people are coming from the Ra Material or David Wilcock's stuff, the use of time/space to express a metaphysical realm is prevalent--and Larson's time-space region is the physical realm.
  • For convenience, as temporal displacements are used more with atoms than spatial ones, Larson considers the "time" displacement to be positive, and space negative (done with accounting practices, in parenthesis). As a direct consequence of this, the sign of electrical charge is backwards, resulting in his use of negative, negative*, positive and positive* in Basic Properties of Matter. The polarity with the asterisk is of the opposite space-time displacement as the one, without.
  • In electronics, Larson uses a device of different "reference points" to explain charge attraction and repulsion, ignoring the reciprocal relation between space and time and instead, using polarity. Nehru documented that the same results can be obtained by the fact that "inward" in one aspect is analogous to "outward" in the other, hence no need for inward and outward references within the same aspect. I would think that keeping to the reciprocal relation would be an easier way to understand the concept.
  • Larson got the units of capacitance wrong.
  • Larson's use of 1/2 units for the neutrinos and more importantly, specific rotations, are very confusing for a system based on discrete units--quanta. There should not be any "halfsies" in a theory with a minimum quantity of 1 unit.
Based on the other comments on this thread, I am thinking just to correct these choices and go with the corrected approaches, clearly documenting the "flip" when reading Larson's research. Thoughts?
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: RS2 Tutorial Book

Post by Horace » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:05 pm

Yes, straighten out all of the above.
Also, for me another bad thing was the choice to use the word "displacement" instead of "deviation".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest