Valence Zero Shift?

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
jdalton4
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Valence Zero Shift?

Post by jdalton4 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:41 pm

I have tried to visualize the 8 unit "zero-shift" that gives carbon, 2-2-(4), its positive 4 valence, 2-1-4. So far I'm pulling my hair out and my self esteem with it! Larson gives a lovely explanation (page 222 NBM) of a circle divided into 8 units and says that any clockwise angle x on the circle is equivalent to the CCW angle 8-x. But that sounds to me like a change of direction not a change of "orientation". Doesn't that transformation require energy? Are there a whole bunch of 2-1-4 carbon atoms running around the universe in addition to all the conventional 2-2-(4)'s. And just the 2-1-4's become carbon dioxide?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by bperet » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:23 pm

I find it easier to view as a staircase of several flights, where each Nobel gas is a landing. Carbon, for example, is half way UP from the lower level, and half way DOWN from the upper, right in the middle between two landings. The people working on the Helium level will see carbon as 4 steps up, whereas the Neonites will see carbon as 4 steps down. Who is right, and who is wrong? The are both right, because they are using different datums of measurement--one from Helium (positive electric displacements) and the other from Neon (negative electric displacements).

Note that EVERY ATOM has two, alternate forms... Larson uses the "KISS" principle--"Keep It Simple, Stupid," so he assumes that small numbers are more likely than larger ones, and picks the displacement that has the lowest electric magnitude. Works good--except for that middle step, where it can go either way.
RS Larsons Displacement Staircase--Understanding Atomic Rotation.png
Larson's Displacement Staircase
RS Larsons Displacement Staircase--Understanding Atomic Rotation.png (80.76 KiB) Viewed 168 times
There are not TWO carbon atoms... there is only ONE, but being looked at from two, different perspectives--the Helions on the 1st floor see 2-1-4, and the Neonites on the 2nd floor see 2-2-(4).

So, if you look at a clock, and the big hand is on the 9 and the little hand is past the 12, is it 12:45 or quarter-to-one? Same thing. There is only ONE clock, but two different ways to say the same thing. Rather than having 12 hour numbers on the clock, the electric displacement has 8 numbers on its dial.
Every dogma has its day...

jdalton4
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by jdalton4 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:13 am

Thank you. That is very very helpful. The problem I have is that I am trying to visualize how the two elements, oxygen and carbon, actually view each other as opposite polarities so that cancellation occurs and a cohesive bond is formed. How does this orientation shift physically happen? It almost feels like I am back in quantum physics where we just have to accept the mathematics without a mechanism. Could it be as simple as viewing a coin with one side, heads, being positive and the other, tails, being negative? Is that what Larson really meant to say?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by bperet » Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:46 pm

jdalton4 wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:13 am
Thank you. That is very very helpful. The problem I have is that I am trying to visualize how the two elements, oxygen and carbon, actually view each other as opposite polarities so that cancellation occurs and a cohesive bond is formed. How does this orientation shift physically happen?
Larry Denslow wrote a book on chemical bonding, free PDF is available here:
Fundamentals of Scalar Motion (reciprocalsystem.org)
jdalton4 wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:13 am
It almost feels like I am back in quantum physics where we just have to accept the mathematics without a mechanism. Could it be as simple as viewing a coin with one side, heads, being positive and the other, tails, being negative? Is that what Larson really meant to say?
The RS is a universe based on motion, not matter (things).

It helps if you think in terms of a treadmill (which I use often at the gym). If the belt on the treadmill is moving at 4mph, and you are running at 4mph, you aren't going anywhere--you stay in the same spot in the gym (the natural reference system), because the "motions" cancel each other out. If you change the speed of the treadmill, OR change how fast you are running, you're going to have a "net motion" that will make you fly off the treadmill.

Nehru liked "gear" analogies, with two, interlocked gears that are rotating in opposite directions at the same speed, giving no net, angular velocity--they just sit in the same geometric orientation and spin.

But if one of the speeds is different, then one gear will rotate around the other, based on that ratio of speeds. If you add a 3rd gear to that mix, turning at the speed difference, then you can make the system stationary again (no geometric change--just spinning gears).

This is what atoms do--think more of "spinning gears" than coins. Valence is how fast the net, angular speed of the atom is. If one gear/atom meets another gear/atom that is spinning at the same speed, and can flip its orientation such that when the gears lock and there is no net motion between the two, then you have a stable, chemical compound--no net, angular velocity.

If, when combining gear/atoms, there is still a net motion (some spin to it, an "ion"), then it will keep roaming around until it bumps in to a third atom that, with proper orientation and speed, will cancel the motion and give it no net, angular velocity--the geometry stays fixed as a molecule.

Atoms also have three dimensions, so there are three, spinning gears (A-B-C) to choose from, to try to cancel that net motion. When you see something like Larson's "x" or "8-x," he is just flipping the gear to the inverse aspect.

Also see: Epicyclic Gear Trains
Every dogma has its day...

jdalton4
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by jdalton4 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:48 am

The spinning gear explanation is a work of beauty. Thank you so much. I just want to say that I hope someday you put all these wonderful clarifications of Larson's work into a formal textbook. It wont be long before RS2 is mainstream and it needs a formal presentation complete with all the derivations, analogies and equations that RS2 researchers have out together since Larson died.

Alexis
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:42 am

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by Alexis » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:46 pm

Hi, good gear image... my tought was that negative electric displacement is what characterised electro-negative elements and allow them to acquire a negative charge, a tendency that fade away when counting down in the elements. As if the addition of cosmic components to the atom was limited to a half cycle in the periodic spiral and it would not be possible to go from a noble gas to the lower noble gas by adding negative electric displacement, or positive displacement in the other direction.

There are compounds in which rightmost elements in the periodic table seems to acquire negative oxidation state, but i dont think they can be considered the same as a negative ion, that is, an electric vibration. The same way i wonder if elements of the two possible combination co-exist, having almost similar property on a mass aspect but not in the electro/chemicals ones, as it would not be able to acquire negative charge.

What would be, in view of RS2, the mechanism for an atom to acquire an electric displacement and transmute to a lower or higher element?

That must involve magnetic charge and suchies... im going reread some larson's chapters.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by bperet » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:43 am

Alexis wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:46 pm
There are compounds in which rightmost elements in the periodic table seems to acquire negative oxidation state, but i dont think they can be considered the same as a negative ion, that is, an electric vibration. The same way i wonder if elements of the two possible combination co-exist, having almost similar property on a mass aspect but not in the electro/chemicals ones, as it would not be able to acquire negative charge.
You would want to read the latter part of Nothing But Motion concerning chemical bonds and Denslow's book. In the RS, charge does not play a role in chemical bonds--only geometry and speed do. In chemistry, what they are calling valence, oxidation state or charge is just an attempt to express speed in three dimensions. It takes some "mind work," but if you can get away from thinking in those terms and look at the rotational structures of the atoms involved, you will see how chemistry actually works. (And I was a chemistry whiz back in University... Larson's system makes a LOT more sense, and it becomes a matter of "unlearning" what was taught.)
Alexis wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:46 pm
What would be, in view of RS2, the mechanism for an atom to acquire an electric displacement and transmute to a lower or higher element?
Read Nehru's paper on the Relative Abundance of the Elements. He covers transmutation quite well--and even "does the math" to show the entire sequence of transmutation of elements and how it matches observation.
Every dogma has its day...

jdalton4
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by jdalton4 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:05 pm

I think that a minor clarfication of Larson is required to explain diatomic gases. The noble gases are the major monatomic gases, correct? The reason appears to be zero electric displacement of these elements. How are we to explain the diatomic gases of Division I,II and III since Larson claims that a true chemical compound must contain Div IV negative electric displacement? Are diatomic gas molecules not chemical compounds? I think they are.

The answer is contained in Bruce Peret's statement that all elements have a zero shift. Theses gases simply invert their orientation and cancel the net motion by forming a diatomic molecule.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Valence Zero Shift?

Post by bperet » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:08 pm

jdalton4 wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:05 pm
The noble gases are the major monatomic gases, correct? The reason appears to be zero electric displacement of these elements.
As we were taught to remember them...
Have No Fear Of Ice Cold Beer

The seven diatomic gases, in the halogen group:

2-1-(1) Hydrogen (H2), He-1
2-2-(3) Nitrogen (N2)
2-2-(2) Oxygen (O2)
2-2-(1) Fluorine (F2), Ne-1
3-2-(1) Chlorine (Cl2), Ar-1
3-3-(1) Bromine (Br2), Kr-1
4-3-(1) Iodine (I2), Xe-1

These would be diatomic, if we had them as a gas...
4-4-(1) Astatine (As2), Rn-1
5-4-(1) Tennessine (Ts2), Og-1

The trick to understanding the bond is to understand that it ONLY works in the gas state--which means you need to know what a "gas" is, in the RS.

Thermal motion (heat, see BPOM) is a vibration inside the time region that has the effective part of the in-out vibration acting inward in time, but outward in equivalent space. That outward push in space is in the same direction as the progression of the natural reference system, so it neutralizes the attractive bond in that dimension. Heat, like anything else, can extend into 3 dimensions, and when it does, we get the "states of matter." In the gas state, ALL THREE dimensions that would normally be locked together to hold material in the solid state are set free, so the atoms just want to bounce around and not do anything. The only time you can get an effective, inward motion going again is when the electric, C rotation, is at its strongest temporal displacement, and those are the elements just one short of the Noble gas series, where it becomes all "magnetic" rotation. Though the atoms are still gravitationally free to move about in 3 dimensions, you have that one electric pull that needs to be neutralized first. It does this by making a diatomic molecule.

This is what happens with all the x-x-(1) elements.

All the elements in the lower group of the Periodic table (see p. 132 of Nothing But Motion) will do the same thing--form diatomic molecules--because the electric displacement is almost the same magnitude as the magnetic (once a magnetic dimension reaches 3, it has a net effect in space, since ln(3) > 1, so starting with argon, 3-2-0, that tendency stops). But we only see it in nitrogen and oxygen because they are the only elements in a natural, gas state in that group (chlorine is covered by the x-x-(1) displacement, as well).
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply