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

Periodic Table of the Elements (Problem)

Post by bperet »

Some of the most confusing paragraphs in Nothing But Motion are at the bottom of page 128 and the top of 129, where Larson describes how he derives the Periodic Table. I was trying to write a short paper to explain it, and ran into some problems--namely, it does not actually "add up." So let me explain, and hopefully somebody can spot what I am doing wrong. Here is my interpretation:
The possible rotating combinations therefore constitute a series, successive members of which differ by two of the natural one-dimensional units of displacement. Since we will not encounter single units in these atomic structures, it will simplify our calculations if we work with double units rather than the single natural units. We will therefore define the unit of electric displacement in the atomic structures as the equivalent of two natural one-dimensional displacement units.
Larson defines two units here, D, the one-dimensional displacement units (aka speed displacements, direction reversals, "natural (single) units" or natural unit), and E, the 1D electric rotation. He then defines the relation between them: E = 2D. (I don't know why he uses so many terms for the same concept; it's very confusing.)
On this basis, the position of each element in the series of combinations, as determined by its net total equivalent electric displacement, is its atomic number. For reasons that will be brought out later, half of the unit of atomic number has been taken as the unit of atomic weight.
This just says that we measure atomic weight as "D" (net displacement) and the atomic number as "E" (net electric rotation). Fractional atomic weights are isotopic mass, addressed in Basic Properties of Matter. Since we are not dealing with weights yet, weights can be ignored.
At the unit level dimensional differences have no numerical effect; that is, 13 = 12 = 1. But where the rotation extends to greater displacement values a two-dimensional displacement n is equivalent to n2 one-dimensional units.
He now introduces a two-dimensional displacement, the magnetic displacement, as described earlier on the page. We'll call this M. So, M = E2, since the only one-dimensional rotation we have is the electric displacement. So far, so good.
If we let n represent the number of units of electric displacement, as defined above, the corresponding number of natural (single) units is 2n, and the natural unit equivalent of a magnetic (two-dimensional) displacement n is 4n2,
This is just a simple substitution. Since E = 2D, then: M = E2 = (2D)2 = 4D2; this works fine.
Inasmuch as we have defined the electric displacement unit as two natural units, it then follows that a magnetic displacement n is equivalent to 2n2 electric displacement units.
Now here's where it falls apart... he correctly states that E = 2D, or D = E/2. He then takes M = 4D2, and attempts to solve for E by substitution: M = 4(E/2)2 = 2E2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to "square" first, with the result being M = 4(E/2)2 = 4(E2/4) = E2, NOT 2E2?

Larson then goes to build the Periodic Table, based in this 2E2 relationship... which my RS2 artificial reality did not like, since you end up with E2 = 2E2, or 1=2.

So, have I misinterpreted something here, or is there a math error, or did Larson make a mistake?
Every dogma has its day...
Alexis
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:42 am

maybe the other way round

Post by Alexis »

i'd say it make more sens if the equivalent natural units is higher than electric units wich are higher than magnetic unit:

D = 2E

D = 4M2

E = 2M2

been a long time since i read those chapters... haven't checked if its consistent with the table. Hope this help.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Solved

Post by bperet »

D = 2E

D = 4M2

E = 2M2
Yes, I concur. You basically need to reverse the relations from what Larson describes in writing and look at it in magnetic units rather than displacement units, so you end up with 2E = 4M2 giving E = 2M2.

Though in the process of fiddling with it, I did come up with a better way to explain it in RS2 context, where you don't need to rotate a vibrating photon to get a rotational base--you can start with rotation as primary, and it is a lot easier to understand. I'll make up some diagrams and post that later on.

Thanks!
Every dogma has its day...
lunardom
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:18 am

comment

Post by lunardom »






  • I recently met this theory and I was fascinated. I hope to deepen it by reading the forum.
    I want to warn you that in the forum by Andrea Rossi (the inventor of the e-cat)
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833
    appeared this comment:









    Joe


    December 25th, 2013 at 8:43 AM

    Silvio,

    In the Reciprocal System of physical theory created by Dewey B. Larson, there exists

    i) 3-dimensional time (in contradistinction to 1-dimensional time)

    ii) clock space (in contradistinction to clock time).

    My question is

    i) How can we feel a 3d time since we only sense time as a linear course of events?

    ii) Since a clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of time, what kind of clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of space?

    All the best,

    Joe










I would like a response to this comment, if possible.
thanks
Detrix
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Holland, MI

3D Time

Post by Detrix »

I will try to answer this, but I am not as involved as Bruce is, so Bruce may need to correct what I say here.

Space and Time in the Reciprocal System(RS) are two sides of a single coin. Space is the material sector that we preceive. 3D time is what is being termed "Counter Space" or anti-space. We do not feel 3D time because we are in the material sector, not in counter space. Because the RS is all about motion, perspective is very important -- from what side of the coin are you looking. The RS is also all about scaler motion. In the material sector or space, time is the scaler that is expanding, while in counter space, space or distance is the scaler that is expanding. Scaler expansion is not something we can feel, or sense. As a sentient person, I am only "aware" of the passage of time, if don't feel the passage of time.

Also remember that Dewey's RS is just a theory/model. Even though Dewey has explained why he believed that the model of the atom is incorrect, that model was still able to produce what we have today in chemistry. Dewey's RS is only a theory/Model. It is not necessarily what is actually happening, but it is a model that seems to explain a whole lot more that any other model. This model includes counter space as a part of how things work, and is the only theory that does (though Eric Dollard is aware of it in his works).

Please do correct me if I stated any part of this incorrectly, Bruce.
lunardom
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:18 am

detrix thanks for the reply.

Post by lunardom »

detrix thanks for the reply. I can share it?
Detrix
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Holland, MI

Sure but wait

Post by Detrix »

I don't mind you share what I have said, but I would like a second opinion on this. I would like to know if I am thinking correctly about this. This is how I understand the RS. Let's see if Bruce agrees or not.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Recpirocal System Basics

Post by bperet »

In the Reciprocal System of physical theory created by Dewey B. Larson, there exists

i) 3-dimensional time (in contradistinction to 1-dimensional time)

ii) clock space (in contradistinction to clock time).

My question is

i) How can we feel a 3d time since we only sense time as a linear course of events?

ii) Since a clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of time, what kind of clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of space?
To understand the Reciprocal System, you have to think in terms of motion, the ratio of space to time, not the individual aspects. Motion is the "rate of change" of space to time (speed) or time to space (energy). As a ratio, space and time are inseparable; you cannot have space without time, nor time without space. The Reciprocal System starts with three dimensions of motion, with each dimension of motion having aspects of space and time.

In order to measure a rate of change, you need to specify a datum, the origin of the system of measurement. Because the ratio is a multiplicative inverse, it's identity is unity, not zero, so the datum of motion in the RS is the ratio of unity, 1/1. In the RS, this is the concept of the "clock"--not an independent entity, but a specific magnitude of motion in which to take measurements from.

With three dimensions of motion to "build in" and a fixed reference from which to make measurements from, you can start to construct a Universe as a theoretical model. Because a ratio has two aspects, a numerator and denominator, we can measure "change" in either aspect (or both). But which aspect is space, and which is time? Larson's solution was BOTH: one sector of the universe is based on s/t and the other based on t/s, since s/t x t/s = 1/1. Measurements can be made in either direction. He refers to the s/t basis as the "material sector," our conventional frame of measurement and the t/s basis as the "cosmic sector," the "universe of antimatter" as it has been commonly described (though it is technically "conjugate matter").

Our consciousness, in order to be effective as observers and able to communicate with each other, creates another datum of measurement that is uniform for all observers--it normalizes all the dimensions of motion so they have t=1, matching the corresponding aspect of our "clock datum." For example, I can have a ratio of motion as 4/2, which means time is "flowing" twice as fast, as compared to my clock reference of 1/1, and normalize it to 2/1. (Because we are comparing two ratios--a cross-ratio--it remains "projectively invariant.") So what we end up with is 4/2 (scalar motion) --> 2/1 (normalized for the same "flow of time") --> 2 (a length). This is how we end up with 3D space and clock time.

The cosmic sector is the same, with the aspects reversed. There, you normalize space and extract coordinate dimensions for 3D time and clock space.
i) How can we feel a 3d time since we only sense time as a linear course of events?
In our material reference frame, clock time is a scalar--just a magnitude from which we take measurements from. It does not have a geometry, so it is not "linear." Space (what Larson calls "extension space") is linear, and linear divided by a scalar = linear: the ratio of motion, s/t, appears to us as linear. With all the denominators of motion set ot unity, it appears we have a 3D spatial reference system, with a constant "flow" of clock time, measuring how things change. (This is the Euclidean stratum of projective geometry.)

The same situation occurs with clock space--it is a scalar that is used to normalize the dimensions of motion to give us the equivalent of a length or distance in time. This is NOT clock time, it is coordinate time, 3D time with the "flow" of clock space.

There are two answers to your question. The first involves the "outside world" and what Larson terms "equivalent space," how temporal motion alters space. The material and cosmic sectors exist 90 degrees out of phase with each other, like the sine and cosine relationships. When one is at its maximum or minimum, the other is at zero. As a consequence of the way our consciousness measures spatial structures, temporal structures appear between spatial locations as forces and force fields, determined by the number of dimensions involved with the temporal aspect of motion: 1D = electric, 2D = magnetic, 3D = gravitational. So any time there is a "rate of change" in the temporal aspects of the three dimensions of motion, field effects are observed--and these field effects include two components: orientation and magnitude. Equivalent space is a 2nd power "space" in coordinate space--rotational--so the effects of equivalent space cause things to orient (as in the case of ferromagnetism) or spin. The magnitude determines how strong the effect is, as in interatomic distances. (Equivalent space = integral (temporal displacement), so we see it as t2/2.)

The second answer is the "inside world." Biological life, Larson's "life units," are composed of a stable combination of material and cosmic atoms, and therefore have existence in BOTH sectors. We recognize this in psychology as the split between sensation and intuition, sensation being how we detect spatial change that is valued by thinking (the material half), and intuition, how we detect temporal change, valued by feelings (the cosmic half). (Concepts from Carl G. Jung.) Your intuition is providing you with 3D temporal data, but you've probably never been taught how to use that temporal geometry (the study of psionics).
ii) Since a clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of time, what kind of clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of space?
The speed of light in a vacuum, which is the "clock" in the Reciprocal System--unit motion. All measurements in the RS are taken from the speed of light, which is 1/1 in natural units. So the speed of light works as a clock for both clock time and clock space.
Every dogma has its day...
lunardom
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:18 am

 

Post by lunardom »

bperet I really appreciated your availability and your lucid explanation
I will read with great care. I hope to bring someone to this great theory.
There is a great debate taking place on the low-energy transmutations LENR. RS2 can make a contribution in this field?
lunardom
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:18 am

bperet and detrix.seems to be

Post by lunardom »

seems to be turning a debate on JONP on RS2. Joe's reply to
Your comments:

Joe
December 26th, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Silvio,

I thank bperet and detrix for their response.

A follow-up:

i) If 3d time, and clock space, are beyond our reality, no technology could ever be created to detect them. And if that were so, these two propositions could never be falsified. And being unfalsifiable, they could never form a valid scientific argument. They would just be fantastical speculation.

On the other hand, if a technology could be created to detect these two other realities, it should already exist amongst our present technologies, and should have already given sign of these two alternate realities. But such is not the case.

ii) The RS Universe seems to be a bicameral one, with one sector being space/time, and the other sector being time/space. The problem here is that these two ratios are neither qualitatively nor quantitatively different from each other, and therefore have no need to distinguish themselves by way of two separate universes. For example,
the same object can be described as moving with a speed of 2 m/s, or with a speed of 1s/2m (0.5 s/m). Both are equally valid within the same universe.

Therefore, it would be odd to call s/t speed, and t/s energy. (Or conversely, matter and antimatter, respectively.)

All the best,
Joe
Post Reply