## Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Sun
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

### Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

20 = progression = real number <R>
21 = electric = complex number <R, iX>
22 = magnetic = quaternion <R, iX, jY, kZ> (real + 3D vector)
23= life unit = octonion <R, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6, e7> (real + 7D vector)
But dimension is meaningless when applies to unit motion, because 11=12=13=20. However, it does not mean that unit motion is 1D. The first postulate: "I.The universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time." A universe with only unit motion still be a RS universe, why unit motion can not be pan-dimensional? Dimensionless is not 1D. Why unit motion can not be an octonion(1+7D), since real number is just a special case of octonion. Motions are built up from 1D to 3D in RS, from atoms to life unit, but why not backward. The difference is when the deviation from an unit octonion occurred, it may have a remnant or counterpart, where one is broken into two. Motions would come in pairs, reciprocally related, positron/bioenergy for example?

bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

Sun wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:35 am
But dimension is meaningless when applies to unit motion, because 11=12=13=20. However, it does not mean that unit motion is 1D.
Unit motion (the progression of the natural reference system) is equivalent to nothing (as unit speed is the datum of measurement), so no matter how many dimensions you apply to nothing, you still end up with nothing, so correct--for unit speed, the number of dimensions is meaningless.

But manifestation occurs with non-unit motion, namely Larson's "direction reversal." It is a confusing concept and Larson does not do well in explaining it clearly. It works like this:
• In a scalar system, there are only TWO options for a change in magnitude: bigger (outward) or smaller (inward).
• Since motion beyond unit speed is not possible, that limits the options for the progression (moving at unit speed) to "smaller" (inward).
• Motion only occurs in discrete units, which means the smallest possible change is 1 unit.
• To make 1/1 smaller, one must shrink an aspect by 1 unit of speed, -1/1 or 1/-1.
• This is the concept of the "direction reversal."
As an example, change the speed of the progression by 1 unit of speed, in the spatial aspect of an s/t ratio:

Code: Select all

``````s +1 -1 +1
- -- -- --
t +1 +1 +1``````
The resulting change of speed for the numerator (space) is +1 -1 +1 = +1 unit.
The resulting change of speed for the denominator (time) is +1 +1 +1 = +3 units.

This results in a net speed of 1/3 (1 unit of space per 3 units of time)--but if you notice, we never exceeded a value of +1. What this says is that "for every unit of space the system progresses, three units of time progress." This combination has a displacement of 2. The displacement is used in dimensional analysis--not the speed--so now you have: 21 = 2, 22 = 4, 23 = 8... dimension has meaning.
Sun wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:35 am
A universe with only unit motion still be a RS universe, why unit motion can not be pan-dimensional?
Unit motion (nothing) is pan-dimensional; non-unit motion (something) is not.
Sun wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:35 am
Motions are built up from 1D to 3D in RS, from atoms to life unit, but why not backward. The difference is when the deviation from an unit octonion occurred, it may have a remnant or counterpart, where one is broken into two. Motions would come in pairs, reciprocally related, positron/bioenergy for example?
It is a matter of perspective (the sector where the observer stands, and the sector that contains what they are looking at). A "material" observer (us) sees space as empty, in which we put things to fill it up. A "cosmic" observer would see time as empty, in which they fill it up. BUT... when a material observer looks at a cosmic structure, the system is inverted (yanked inside-out), so 3D time appears to be a solid, where bubbles (atoms) are formed to make structures.

Under conventional observation we see space building up from 1D to nD and time breaking down from nD to 1D.

The causality of motion was never addressed by Larson--he just assumes it happens, since we have a universe with stuff in it. Without "first cause," it is not possible to determine if motion does come in pairs or not. Logically, one would think it would bifurcate, as that is a principle of Nature (break a stick in half, and you get two pieces--no way to break it and just end up with ONE piece). Based on Nature, it is likely that things come in reciprocally-related pairs, but the derivation of that is beyond the RS postulates.
Every dogma has its day...

Sun
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

It is a matter of perspective
Yes, the structure of motion depends on your perspective. No difference between 1D and (n-1)D. What is not changed is the space/time ratio. But what we identify as a physical object is the effect of a motion, not a motion itself that deviated from unity i suspect. Motions can only be observed by another motion(Observer effect).
Without "first cause," it is not possible to determine if motion does come in pairs or not.
Without "first cause", how would you even identify the outward progression is an “expansion”? Larson's assumption does not make sense to me. Logically, in the case of positron, a material observer should see a 1D compression and a 2D expansion reciprocally（effect of an electron, 1D expansion, 2D compression）. No compression, no expansion, compression and expansion simultaneously, philosophy of reciprocal. Since Larson assumes that the background progression is expansion, there would be no effect on the other 2 dimensions. But the problem is, without "first cause", how could you identify expansion in the background? Progression is progression, not expansion without an observer. Perhaps locations in the natural reference system do not fly apart from each other(in spatial reference system), they are pushed away by an material object, where 3D expansion emitting from gravitate. The speed of expansion fix at "c", but more gravitate objects, more dense the expansion flux would be. If so, the 2D expansion caused by a positron should have some effects(RS and RS2 positron of different structures have the same effect).

bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

Sun wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:49 am
But what we identify as a physical object is the effect of a motion, not a motion itself that deviated from unity i suspect. Motions can only be observed by another motion(Observer effect).
Larson's displacement is just the shear that occurs between two, different speeds. For example, put your hands together and push out--nothing happens between your hands, they just move together. That is progression. Now rub your hands together--and the shear that occurs between those "speeds" moving back and forth produces HEAT--a "linear vibration," Larson's concept of the direction reversal. Close your eyes and you can feel the heat--but not see your hands moving, so what we term as a physical object is that shearing between different speeds.
Sun wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:49 am
Without "first cause", how would you even identify the outward progression is an “expansion”? Larson's assumption does not make sense to me.
It is only "outward" if you are observing from a motion that is slower than unity (the speed of light)... if you were moving faster than light, you would see the progression as a contraction. If you are moving AT the speed of light, you would not see the progression doing anything, at all--neither expanding nor contracting. Again, it is the difference between speeds that account for our sensory perception and observation.

Larson was trying to address conventional science of the 1960s, whom assume that we are still and light is moving really fast. They saw the universe expanding outward (Hubble expansion), so Larson took a conventional observer perspective in his writing: the progression being outward (away) at unit speed.
Sun wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:49 am
Logically, in the case of positron, a material observer should see a 1D compression and a 2D expansion reciprocally（effect of an electron, 1D expansion, 2D compression）. No compression, no expansion, compression and expansion simultaneously, philosophy of reciprocal.
That is correct; the temporal rotation is seen as a compression, occupying 1 dimension of the 3 dimensions available, with the remaining 2 "unused" dimensions expanding with the progression.
Sun wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:49 am
Since Larson assumes that the background progression is expansion, there would be no effect on the other 2 dimensions.
...
If so, the 2D expansion caused by a positron should have some effects(RS and RS2 positron of different structures have the same effect).
Though I had considered a "dimensional datum" in the past (from Nehru's work), this is actually an interesting concept... Larson was a 1D thinker, like conventional science. So if you were to displace the progression, it SHOULD result into an electron-positron pair, 2/1 × 1/2 = 1/1. BUT... if you think in 3D, then that split is different... the 1D electron of 1 unit of displacement, 0-0-(1), would be paired with the 2D muon neutrino, ½-½-0, and may solve one of the biggest mysteries in semiconductor physics--a strange particle called the exciton.

Gopi is the semiconductor guru where these things show up; I'll pass this link on to him.
Sun wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:49 am
The speed of expansion fix at "c", but more gravitate objects, more dense the expansion flux would be.
What I have found is that the speed of the expansion is at unity--which is not necessarily "c," because "c" is measured within the strong, gravitational field of the Earth--so "c" is most likely slower than unity, and dependent upon the mass of the planet.
Every dogma has its day...

Gopi
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

bperet wrote:
Sun wrote:Since Larson assumes that the background progression is expansion, there would be no effect on the other 2 dimensions.
...
If so, the 2D expansion caused by a positron should have some effects(RS and RS2 positron of different structures have the same effect).
Though I had considered a "dimensional datum" in the past (from Nehru's work), this is actually an interesting concept... Larson was a 1D thinker, like conventional science. So if you were to displace the progression, it SHOULD result into an electron-positron pair, 2/1 × 1/2 = 1/1. BUT... if you think in 3D, then that split is different... the 1D electron of 1 unit of displacement, 0-0-(1), would be paired with the 2D muon neutrino, ½-½-0, and may solve one of the biggest mysteries in semiconductor physics--a strange particle called the exciton.
I think this is exactly right. Good thinking, Sun and Bruce. The split is what is happening between 2D and 1D. It also makes more sense now why in matter, incident radiation generates electron(1D)-hole(2D) pairs, while in most high energy reactions, you have radiation giving electron-positron pair. Without the 3D structure to support, the split remains in 1D. And when the split is still "held" by a vibration -- instead of going through each other the two motions 0-0-(1) and ½-½-0 remain linked -- as an exciton.

It is also possible that the vibration of the photon, within matter, has both electric and magnetic components, which would make it "electromagnetic", only WITHIN a 3D system. Otherwise, it is one-dimensional vibration, and as such has only one plane. I always wondered why folks ignored the magnetic polarization and only focused on the plane of the electric wave for explaining polaroid glasses and such. It is because the original polarization is one dimensional and linear. When it passes through crystals, or through living systems where rotations become primary, you have circular polarization most likely arising.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_ ... #In_nature

Also further proof that most reactions of high energy physics must be visible in semiconductors or superconductors at low energies.

Sun
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

Very interesting! Sounds more like spliting aether. What about a 3D-3D split, like Atom/3D expansion pair for instance?

Gopi
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

Sun wrote:What about a 3D-3D split, like Atom/3D expansion pair for instance?
Radioactive decay is a start for that. You have the 3D expansion getting split further into alpha (2D), beta (1D) and gamma (vibration). Note that the split elements are not cosmic yet, but they ARE "radiated" in space linearly.

I think if there is a way of preventing the further splitting into alpha and beta, and somehow keep things harmonized and rotational inside the atom, it would have to lead to antigravity effects.

SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

bperet wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:43 pm

[*]Since motion beyond unit speed is not possible, that limits the options for the progression (moving at unit speed) to "smaller" (inward).
Where does this postulate come from? I just rechecked the various versions of the postulates, and I can't find any hints, or any immediate deductions resulting in this conclusion. I'm particularly interested because it keeps tripping up my theorizing

bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

SoverT wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:03 pm
Where does this postulate come from? I just rechecked the various versions of the postulates, and I can't find any hints, or any immediate deductions resulting in this conclusion. I'm particularly interested because it keeps tripping up my theorizing
It is a consequence of the "discrete unit" postulate, meaning the minimum quantity is "one" for both space and time, resulting in the unit-speed datum. The scalar speed region is multiplicative, so no matter now many times you multiply 1 by 1, you still cannot go faster than 1. But you can go backwards... -1.
Every dogma has its day...

SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

### Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

bperet wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:41 pm
SoverT wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:03 pm
Where does this postulate come from? I just rechecked the various versions of the postulates, and I can't find any hints, or any immediate deductions resulting in this conclusion. I'm particularly interested because it keeps tripping up my theorizing
It is a consequence of the "discrete unit" postulate, meaning the minimum quantity is "one" for both space and time, resulting in the unit-speed datum. The scalar speed region is multiplicative, so no matter now many times you multiply 1 by 1, you still cannot go faster than 1. But you can go backwards... -1.
I thought you had moved to only an increase in RS2, eschewing the "backwards" of Larson