Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

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:

Re: Why scalar motions do not need to come in pairs?

Post by bperet »

SoverT wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:51 am I thought you had moved to only an increase in RS2, eschewing the "backwards" of Larson
When you rotate forward, you end up going backward. i2 = -1.

What I eschew from Larson (aside from eschewing obfuscatory surfeit of sesquipedalian verbiage), is the concept of the linear "direction reversal," because it is an accelerated motion and cannot be continuous (linear and angular velocity are the only observed, continuous motions).
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply