Periodic Table of the Elements (Problem)

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.
Detrix
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Holland, MI

What an answer

Post by Detrix »

I love your in depth answer. Much better than my short reponse. I wish I had RS2 theory that well understood. I am rewatching the videos. My intuition says the RS2 theory is correct. No to get my brain to hold all this info. I will get there. Thanks for a great answer though Bruce.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

False premises

Post by bperet »

i) If 3d time, and clock space, are beyond our reality, no technology could ever be created to detect them.
The premise is false; they are not "beyond our realty," they comprise our reality and manifest as force fields (electric, magnetic and gravitational) and antimatter. There are not "two realities"; the material and cosmic sectors are two ways to express the SAME reality: one based on speed (s/t) and acceleration (s/t2, speed per unit clock time) and the other based on energy (t/s) and force (t/s2, energy per unit clock space). Conventional science does exactly the same thing, and in many cases, has resorted to the use of "imaginary numbers" to express temporal relationships (impedance, reactance) without understanding why they work. Time (as an aspect of motion, not clock time) is that "imaginary" aspect in mathematics, with the quaternion representing 3D time.

The same situation exists with the plethora of "physical constants," which become unnecessary in the RS because 3D time provides the missing information that is lumped together in those constants, and those "constants" reduce to common values, such as unity or PI (in natural units).

The RS simply provides a conceptual framework to understand why these invisible fields and imaginary values exist, and is able to use mathematics and projective geometry to describe and predict their behaviors. And the RS is excellent at prediction; Larson predicted the existence of quasars as a "natural consequence" of his theoretical system, 4 years before astronomers actually found one. Also, the RS is unified across all of science; the same relations that hold atoms together in a molecule, hold stars together in a globular cluster. The same set of rules, regardless of the scale of application. Can conventional science make that claim?
Therefore, it would be odd to call s/t speed, and t/s energy. (Or conversely, matter and antimatter, respectively.) All the best, Joe
E = mc2. In natural units, E (t/s) = m (t3/s3) c2 (s2/t2) ... so why does conventional science call s/t, "speed" (c, the speed of light) and t/s, "energy" (E)? Isn't that rather "odd," if they are the same thing? :-)

I would suggest reading Larson's paper on The Dimensions of Motion, available on http://reciprocalsystem.org, for a detailed description of how units of space and time relate to each other and how they associate with conventional units.
Every dogma has its day...
lunardom
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:18 am

 

Post by lunardom »

I'm still waiting for a reply from Joe, to your answer.
If I were a boxing judge would give you the victory.
I, like detrix intuitively know that this theory is right.
I need to look into.
lunardom
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:18 am

Joe finally responded. I like

Post by lunardom »

Joe finally responded. I like to convey the answers but
I think that you could discuss directly between you.
A great opportunity for us to learn.
the response of Joe:


  • Joe


    December 27th, 2013 at 9:51 PM

    lunardom,

    I thank you for posting the response by bperet.

    My reply:

    1. If 3d time, and clock space, are part of our reality, why are they alien to our senses, and invisible to our instruments? (The various forces are very well known and have never necessitated an alternate view of their dimensions. And antimatter has the same dimension as matter; only some of the signs of their properties differ.)

    2. The imaginary number, i=(-1)^0.5, has no dimension, so why implicate it with any type of time? (What is worse, i is an absurdity.)

    3. Science is not any less science just because some of its laws fail to scale up (or down) appropriately. Science is an activity after all, and not a pre-established goal.

    4. Is there a reference in standard physics that shows to us the dimension time/space as belonging to energy? (Likewise, time^3/space^3 as belonging to mass?)

    All the best,

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

Never teach a pig to sing; it's a lot of work and annoys the pig

Post by bperet »


I, like detrix intuitively know that this theory is right.

I need to look into.
I recommend you spend some time going through the papers on http://reciprocalsystem.org. A quick overview of the RS is given in the Outline of the Deductive Development of the Reciprocal System, and the dialogues between Larson and Nehru are quite helpful, once you've read a couple of the books. I do have a large number of papers on the RS by various authors to scan in and convert to PDF and will hopefully get time to add to the archive after the holidays.

Regarding Joe's responses; I do not see any need to follow up as I've already answered those questions, including a reference to a paper on dimensionality that he apparently did not bother to read. Obviously, he is not taking the time to even consider the responses, so I don't see the point of continuing a non-discussion. I have limited free time, and would rather devote my efforts to further research and documenting what we've already learned, to see where things go.

Back in 1959 when Larson published his first book, The Structure of the Physical Universe, he was all excited that he finally discovered the missing link that would unify all the sciences into a single theory, the reciprocal relation to 3d time. Scientists all over the world were looking for this "theory of everything," that this chemical engineer, sitting at a stoplight at an intersection, accidentally figured out when trying to get a better understanding of the Periodic Table. He thought they would be thrilled to see this new approach that so simplified the physical universe and wrote a book showing the extend of the theory, covering details from the smallest photon to the largest galaxy--with the same postulates--and published the book at his own expense, sending hundreds of free copies out to Universities and scientists, all over the world. And you know what? Not one even considered it. The concept of a universe of motion that included a perfect symmetry between space and time was just too far outside their acceptable world view--it was "absurd." Needless to say, Larson was quite disappointed at the lack of response, but then something happened that kept him going: he started getting letters from college students, engineers, other chemists, amateur astronomers... people from all over the world that had not yet been indoctrinated into the scientific dogma, saying they found his ideas fascinating, asking all sorts of questions and wanting to know more. And it is those people that have kept the Reciprocal System going for over 50 years now. And the really interesting bit is that over that half century, all the discoveries that have "rocked the scientific world," did not require any modifications to the RS theory... they were already there.
Every dogma has its day...
lunardom
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:18 am

really thanks for all your

Post by lunardom »

really thanks for all your information
wsitze
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico
Contact:

Periodic Table of the Elements

Post by wsitze »

I found that first book in the library of my local university, and bought my first copy of it directly from Larson (my second copy was from a local used book store). As a frustrated student of Physics, I had noted some strange holes in conventional therory. For example work on fusion technology as a general public power source was at a standstill, and fifty plus years later, still is. Larson explained exeactly why, then and now. He explained, in parallel with Fred Hoyle, why the Sun's corona, in seeming contradiction to the laws of Thermodynamics, was so much hotter that the surface. As Bruce pointed out, Dewey Larson predicted Quasars before astrononmers found them.

For me, as a minor member of the Apollo team to put man on the Moon, was Larson's prediction that the Moon would have a light core, and a heavy crust, in contradiction to the theorie of the time. When NASA slammed one of the Lunar Modules back into the Moon to test the way the Moon responded (with new sensors in place), the Moon rang like a bell. The subsequent official explanation: the Moon had a light core, and a heavy crust. Larson also nailed that one well before the public discovery.

From the derivation of the structure of the periodic table, to physical constants, to the facts mentioned above, and well beyond, nothing factual to date contradicts Larson's RS theory. So, no Big Bang, no Black Holes, and such nonsense, although it may be that our understanding of Quasars may contradict Bruce's work on the limitation of light being restricted to stellar/galactic systems.
Graybeard
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Calculating Atomic Numbers and Notation issues

Post by bperet »

Back to the problem of the Periodic Table, I found some of David Halprin's old articles in a stack of paper Rainer handed me, which included a formula on how to calculate the atomic number from Larson's A-B-C notation. I've made this, and some other papers, available on ReciprocalSystem.org:

Atomic Number Equation Based on Larson's Triplets

I did test Halprin's equation out on the entire Periodic Table, and it does work. It is based on the way Larson calculations atomic number as a recursion of temporal displacements. Motion in the time region works more like layers of an onion or atomic energy levels. So what you end up doing, is summing up all the rotations from 1 to where you are. For example, take copper, element #29, with displacements of 3-3-(7). Since atomic numbers were created arbitrarily, and in the RS the temporal displacement is actually mass, the numbers are off by 2, so one needs to subtract 2 from the total to get the atomic number.

A=3, B=3, C=-7

First, sum up to one less than A, using the 2n2 relationship:

2 *12 + 2*22 = 10

Then sum up B, all the way:

2*12 + 2*22 + 2*32 = 28

Then add C

10+28+(-7) = 31

Then subtract 2:

31 - 2 = 29

Halprin's equation works equally well, without having to resort to summation. But it does point out another issue with the Periodic Table: why aren't the actual displacements used in the calculation, why 1 less for the principle rotation? That would mean copper is actually 2-3-(7).

One of the big issues with working with Larson's triplets is that they don't all mean the same thing. And this is not obvious in his books. For example, one sees hydrogen listed as 1½-1½-(2) and also as 2-1-(1). Which is right? The answer is both, since the former is in subatomic notation, and the latter in atomic notation. Yep, he uses two, different notational systems for particles and atoms. And it gets worse, because the photon is done as displacement, not subatomic notation. So that's three. And when calculating atomic number, the 1-less notation is used, so that's 4. And if you get into Basic Properties of Matter, he then introduces "vibration 2" and another half-unit based notation. So that's 5. And don't forget the original units are speed, not displacement, so that's 6 different notational systems!

It all comes down to problems created by the rotational base, that "rotational equivalent of nothing," that we did away with in RS2 by using angular velocity (0-180 is a unit of angular motion, which does a direction reversal from 180-0, creating a rotation).

The 1D rotational base is 1-0-0. If we add an electric rotation to that, we get the positron, 1-0-1, which is how Larson originally expressed it. Then he revised the notation to make the rotational base 0-0-0 so the positron became 0-0-1, hiding the underlying rotational base, which did nothing because it was the rotational equivalent of nothing.

When it came to atoms, there were two rotational bases involved, originally 1-1-0, but that got knocked down to 0-0-0 as well. So the atomic notation hides 2 rotational bases. That's why you end up with two, different ways to view hydrogen and 6 different notational systems. I find it very confusing!

Right now, I'm looking at a way to standardize notation, so it would be the same "across the board" for computer simulations. Since all measurement is taken relative to the progression, displacement seems to be the logical point of standardization. But that gives rise to other problems, as the resulting notation no longer provides the values necessary for chemical interaction, as described in NBM. So there is something wrong, here.

I also found, which Halprin hints at in his paper, that there are some problems at the start of the Periodic Table. I've looked at this before in RS2, and concluded that Atomic Number 1 is deuterium, NOT hydrogen, and that does seem to be the case as it is a more logical fit. Deuterium can be expressed doubly as 2-1-(1) or 1-1-1, the latter being a structure that Larson tends to avoid, along with 1-1-0. I agree with Halprin that the 1-1-0 particle is the deuteron, atomic number 0.

But remember how we had to subtract 2, simply because of convention? If we add that back in for a more realistic atomic number, that makes helium #4, deuterium #3, the deuteron #2, and at the top of the periodic table... the proton as #1. Since hydrogen is a compound particle of proton + electron neutrino, and as discussed in BPOM, the electron neutrino is responsible for isotopic mass, it turns out that hydrogen is an isotope of the proton, in the RS.

So this essentially rewrites the Periodic Table to be:

1: proton, 1-0-1 or 1-1-(1); with an isotope of hydrogen 1½-1½-(2)

2: deuteron, 1-1-0

3: deuterium, 1-1-1 or 2-1-(1)

4. helium, 2-1-0

... etc...
Every dogma has its day...
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Notations

Post by bperet »

I made a table of the various forms of notation that Larson uses to describe particles and atoms, which points out why people have trouble following his logic, at times. Larson likes to keep removing rotations after the initial displacement, in order to recreate a new, zero reference. The result is that you end up with a unity speed datum, a zero displacement datum, a zero particle datum and a zero atomic datum, all represented as 0-0-0. It gets confusing, so I hope this table might help to clarify the different stages Larson goes through in his notational system.
Attachments
Notation Table.pdf
Tables of particle and atomic notations
(163.4 KiB) Downloaded 553 times
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply