Vibration, oscillation and Simple Harmonic Motion

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.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Vibration, oscillation and Simple Harmonic Motion

Post by bperet »

I've been researching the works of John Keely, and he makes an interesting point concerning the meaning of three terms that Larson uses interchangeably: vibration, oscillation and SHM. Common interpretation of all three usually means a back-and-forth, to-and-fro rhythmic motion. Since we are dealing with a Universe of Motion, it might be wise to adopt Keely's conventions, because they describe three different types of to-and-fro motion:

Vibration: rhythmic motion of a body within itself. In the RS, this would be the vibratory motion of a photon within the unit boundary. Philosophically, this can be considered the "yin" aspect, since it is contained within the sphere of the time or space region. In RS2, vibration will be a secondary motion (wave) resulting from birotation.

Oscillation: a rhythmic recurring translatory motion. In the RS, this would refer to the idea of "heat", where atoms or molecules are being pushed and pulled, to and fro from each other, in a linear fashion. Hence, this would be the "yang" aspect, occurring outside of the time or space region, between atoms and molecules.

Simple Harmonic Motion: "Physics. of, pertaining to, or noting a series of oscillations in which each oscillation has a frequency that is an integral multiple of the same basic frequency."

It is interesting to note that the basic photon vibration does not fit the description of SHM! Photon vibration is only odd-integrals, 3, 5, 7... and in RS2, is the product of birotation--not "direction reversals" of one aspect of unit motion, which means the photon frequency is a combination of the two rotational "turns" involved, not a simple multiple of unity.

Keely has some very interesting concepts on vibration and oscillation and their interactions. I'll probably start a topic on it in the "other systems of theory" forum after I get a better understanding of his world view. Keely seems to sit as an inverse to Larson, defining the Universe as a continuum of rhythm and waves, which from Larson's perspective would be a cosmic or "energy" view. Looks like a lot can be learned from integrating the two systems.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply