Complex Motion representation of Atoms and Isotopes

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:

Complex Motion representation of Atoms and Isotopes

Post by bperet »

We had a brainstorming session last weekend here in Salt Lake City, regarding some problems I ran across trying to create a "complex motion" model of atomic structures. The problem occurred with isotopes. In Larson's system, atomic mass is calculated as "2Z + G", where Z is the atomic number and G is the gravitational charge, a 2D rotational vibration left over from a passing neutrino. The problem with the formula is that the isotopic mass for any atom can never be LESS than 2Z, which does not match observation:

3-He (2Z = 4)

5-Li (2Z = 6)

...

There are hundreds of them. I found this interesting table of nuclides in Wikipedia that documents the problem. The 2Z+G line would run down the middle of the isotopes, and Larson's RS can only account for half of them.

I've always accepted Larson's isotope calculations, which has a mass range of 2Z to 4Z-1, where the upper bound of gravitational charge would destroy the atom through radioactivity. But, it could have been erroneous thinking. Roy Curtain pointed out that Larson's approach was still the "actors on the stage" concept, that he was trying to avoid with the Reciprocal System. Take a thing, and add blocks of things, giving a new thing. Motion needed to be viewed as a transformation, not a thing. So there seems to be a basic, conceptual error.

Using what we have learned about treating motion in the complex plane, the Argand diagram, it became apparent that there were three factors involved, that had properties similar to the conventional model of protons, neutrons and electrons.

In the complex plane, polar coordinates can be used (which would be logical for a polar geometry, like the time region). There are two factors involved, the angle and radius. The angle represents a phase velocity, a motion. The radius represents the amplitude of that motion. Using the RS concepts with a unit datum, that radius is divided into two halves, the half greater than unity (outside the time region) and the half less than unity (inside the time region), where the "unit space" (or time) is basically a unit circle in the complex plane.

When looking at the conventional atomic concepts, the proton count determines the atomic number, and remains the same regardless of isotopic mass (neutron count), which can run from one neutron, like Deuterium, to many hundreds a the upper end of the Periodic Table. (Note that RS2 considers Deuterium to be Z=1, since it is the first of the double, double-rotating systems, whereas 1-Hydrogen is subatomic).

Interpreted as a complex, polar system, the phase velocity equates to the protons, and the radius equates to the neutrons. Thus, the radius can be changed (isotopic mass) without affecting the chemical properties (phase velocity). Also note that because of the UNIT datum, you cannot have an atom with ZERO "neutrons", which would equate to ZERO radius. There must be at least ONE.

So where are the orbital electrons? In the RS, any orbital electrons are just captured particles and do not have any chemical properties associated with the atom. BUT, as Larson uses, there IS an "electric rotation" in the atomic system. But as you may note, there is no place to plot it on the Argand diagram, which only has two variables. Consider that the atom contains TWO double-rotating systems, which means "shear" occurs between the two. Two solid rotations, forming a birotation, would go through dimensional reduction to a single rotation--the electric rotation. What I believe the "C" is, in Larson's notation, is the shear between the magnetic rotations, interpreted as a 1-dimensional rotation.

In Counterspatial terms, the phase velocity is the "Turn" and the shear between the Turns (distance) is called the "Shift." So we actually have THREE variables in the atomic system, Turn, Amplitude and Shift, or as conventional science calls them, protons, neutrons and electrons.

Consider the attached Argand diagram, that defines the 8 possible regions of complex motion. There are 4 regions INSIDE the unit boundary, and 4 OUTSIDE it. The right-hand side is "particle" oriented, the left-hand side is "wave" (RS distributed scalar motion) oriented. I know the idea of "negative space" may be foreign, but it is the basis of the study of Counterspace.

The complex relationships on the diagram are mathematically correct. For any given coordinate motion in space, its inverse puts it in the time region; the basic reciprocal relationship. If you take the CONJUGATE of a material motion, the motion becomes COSMIC, as Nehru had defined elsewhere in this form, during a discussion of Prana.

The various relations of inverse, conjugate and negation, with two possible ranges (inside and outside unit boundary) results in the 8 regions on the chart.
Attachments
RS2 Complex Motion relational model
RS2 Complex Motion relational model
Complex-Motion-Model.gif (8.86 KiB) Viewed 7434 times
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply