h-space theory

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
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

h-space theory

Post by silvio.caggia »

I am reading about a theory called h-space theory:
www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=866
It seems to me very similar to RS2theory, but my knowledge of both is so little that I could be wrong...
I suggest to both guru a cross check, maybe they can cooperate in some way...
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

A paper about the theory:

Post by silvio.caggia »

A paper about the theory:
h-theory.narod.ru/h-space_theory_v2.pdf
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

h-theory

Post by bperet »

I glanced at the site; I see some similarities based on the concept of a unity (1) datum. It will take me some time to go over the details, as the metaphysical format stuffed full of abstract math is not very easy to read and conceptualize for me. If you spot anything of interest that connects to the RS, please reply and let me know.
Every dogma has its day...
silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

I am still reading... But I

Post by silvio.caggia »

I am still reading... But I can list:
1) The philosophical concepts of being and not-being mathematically rendered as A and 1/A is the same concept of reciprocity
2) It seems to me that the 0-dimension space is equivalent to the natural outward progression of universe
3) some reasonings on energy unit of measure are the same

4) apparently the author points on space, but in some phrases it seems to me he have clear the importance of motion... At the beginning it seemed to me a plagiarism of RS2theory hidden by a word (space) more acceptable then motion by mainstream science

5) in some points I remember he says something like that motion creates space...
I have more problems than you in understanding all the math, and I am still having the first reading of the document, but my instict says that it's interesting... I am curious about the concept of dimension evolution, something that is not present in RS2theory (I suppose), and the coesixtance of objects with different phisical dimensions, from 0 to 3 (and more!) while RS2theory seems to be sticked to 3 dimensions...
User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Hmmm...

Post by Djchrismac »

I've gone through a bit of this, mainly the end and comments as the math part is beyond me, being more of an "arty english" type. It seems to me like a combination of RS theory, Miles Mathis's Charge Field, Classical Physics and Quantum Physics.

The h-space theory on the evolution of stars and planets didn't make much sense at all along with most of the pdf... I'll stick with RS2 thanks, not long after learning about it I got the ultimate personal confirmation that it is the key to understanding who I am, where I am from, and where I am going! Image

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

h-space correlations

Post by bperet »

I can help with these statements in the RS:
1) The philosophical concepts of being and not-being mathematically rendered as A and 1/A is the same concept of reciprocity
I can see that because we can only observe and measure space (A); whereas time (1/A) is nonlocal to space and can only be measured by how "time changes space" through field effects. We cannot see the field, only how things in coordinate space are affected by them.
2) It seems to me that the 0-dimension space is equivalent to the natural outward progression of universe
Yes, that's very similar. In the RS, the progression (unit speed) is the "end of the tape measure" from which speed displacements are measured. Hence, it is the "0" for the scalar dimensions of motion.
3) some reasonings on energy unit of measure are the same
As I recall, they have not discovered the dimensional relations of energy, for example, that "mass" is just 3-dimensional energy and as such, you really don't need "mass" as a separate unit of measure.
4) apparently the author points on space, but in some phrases it seems to me he have clear the importance of motion... At the beginning it seemed to me a plagiarism of RS2theory hidden by a word (space) more acceptable then motion by mainstream science
I tend to stick with the term "ratio" in RS2, and though I understand why Larson used "motion," it is too confusing for the newbie to the RS... the first question that always pops up is "how can you have motion without anything moving?" That's why I prefer ratio--it is easy to understand "ratio without any rationing." I haven't read enough yet, but I've seen other systems like this where they'll have "r-space" (reciprocal space) instead of "time." Usually the correlation of that 1/A aspect as "time" is missed, because we are so trained to think of time as 1-dimensional clock time, which is why 3D time is such a shocker to most people.
5) in some points I remember he says something like that motion creates space...
Technically, it does. Scalar motion has to be projected into a coordinate reference system (3D space or 3D time) to be observed and measured, so you can see how "motion creates space" by normalizing (reducing to unity) the temporal aspect, giving the sense of "distance" versus "velocity."
I have more problems than you in understanding all the math, and I am still having the first reading of the document, but my instict says that it's interesting... I am curious about the concept of dimension evolution, something that is not present in RS2theory (I suppose), and the coesixtance of objects with different phisical dimensions, from 0 to 3 (and more!) while RS2theory seems to be sticked to 3 dimensions...
Actually, 3 dimensions is pretty rare in the RS outside of the 3D coordinate reference system. The progression is technically "no dimensions" (0-dimension) because it is the equivalent of "nothing at all" and has no coordinate representation. Electrons and positrons are a 1-dimensional rotations. Photons are 2-dimensional. Protons and neutrinos are your 3-dimensional particles that act as a building block for atoms. Atoms, themselves, are "two double-rotating systems" where each double-rotating system is 3D, hence atoms are 6-dimensional (it's kind of a dimensional recursion). Life units, composed of m-atoms and c-atoms are 12-dimensional. Then you have all the "compound motion" stuff in the middle, where 1D electrons are captured by 3D particles and 6D atoms, so you end up with all sorts of dimensional relationships.

But what is fundamental to the RS is that motion is based on 3-dimensional "triplets," Larson's A-B-C atomic notation, much like the triplets used by John W. Keely. Not all the dimensions need to be used and default to "unit speed" (the progression), as in the electron with displacements 0-0-(1). A and B in this case are unit speed (0 displacement from unity) and the only effective dimension is the C, the electric speed. These "unused" dimensions in the triplet determine if a particle is free to roam on its own, or be carried outward in the free dimension at the speed of light.

And then each dimension of motion has it "sub-dimensions" that Larson calls "Units of motion." Again, he defines them as a triplet of speed ranges, 1-x, 2-x and 3-x. So there's plenty of dimensional relationships floating around the RS. It will be interesting to see how "dimensional evolution" matches up with it.
Every dogma has its day...
Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

space

Post by Lou »

Space and time are inseparable. Einstein and Minkoweski were correct in relating them orthogoanlly. They problem was that time was linear and space was three dimensional.

There is no way to make space-time orthogonal in these dimensions except to add the trickery of the 'imaginary".

Space must be hyperbolic and time must be circular. Geometrically the only true way to make space and time orthogonal, and therefore, describe motion, is hyperbolic space and circular time. Of the apollonian conic sections, circles are orthogonal only to hyperbolas.

Hyperbolic space is 4 dimensional and circles are dynamically 3 dimensional. Space-time is 7 dimensional.

Space expands but then contracts. All motion is cyclic. The cubic expands and contracts (Tesseact) as time rotates. All motion is orthogonal. All motion is the same.

A rotating sphere inside a cube that expands and contracts cyclically. This is spiral motion and note that the sphere is at all times orthogonal to cube.

From the cube, all other platonic solids are constructed by the truncating sphere.
Valeriy Tarasov
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:05 am

New website for h-space theory

Post by Valeriy Tarasov »

New website for the h-space theory - https://hspacetheory.wordpress.com/2018/?order=asc
In case someone is interested I am ready to answer the questions about the theory.
Post Reply