Larson's program of research is radically different. It assumes that everything in the physical universe stems from the reciprocal relation between space and time, which it assumes exists in discrete units of three dimensions. This has led us to deduce that, instead of adding time as a fourth dimension to the Pythagorean theorem equation, which is the basis for the LST community's concept of spacetime, we conceive of two separate Pythagorean equations, one for space and one for time, each with three dimensions. which are reciprocals.

The equation of space, √(1

^{2}+ 1

^{2}+ 1

^{2}) = √3, is calculated from the LC in units of space, while the equation of time is the inverse of this, 1/√(1

^{2}+ 1

^{2}+ 1

^{2}) = 1/√3, calculated from the LC in units of time. The respective volumes of space and time associated with each of these equations for their respective radii are inverse, and the space volume is calculated to be 27 times smaller than the time volume.

For unknown reasons, this value coincides with the value of the number of poles in the 3d space calculated from the tetraktys:

0d = 3

^{0}= 1

1d = 3

^{1}= 3

2d = 3

^{2}= 9

3d = 3

^{3}= 27

when the coefficients of the binomial expansion equation of the tetraktys (see Pascal's triangle) are taken into account, which, for three dimensions, are 1, 3, 3, and 1. Now, the question is, how do we calculate the number of poles for the inverse tetraktys, the tetraktys of time, we might say? Do we just invert the numbers:

1/0d = 1/3

^{0}= 1/1

1/1d = 1/3

^{1}= 1/3

1/2d = 1/3

^{2}= 1/9

1/3d = 1/3

^{3}= 1/27

This seems logical, but who has ever heard of inverse dimensions? Nevertheless, when we calculate the number of poles in our revised "Bott clock" we get:

0d = 3

^{4}= 81

1d = 3

^{5}= 243

2d = 3

^{6}= 729

3d = 3

^{7}= 2187

which numbers, at first glance, look nothing like the inverse dimensional numbers. However, notice that, if we take the 3

^{4}= 81 value of poles as the new unit, as indicated should be the case in our "clock," and make it the inverse of the first tetraktys, as also indicated in our "clock," we get the exact inverse of the number of poles in the first tetraktys:

1/0d = 81/81 = 1/1

1/1d = 81/243 = 1/3

1/2d = 81/729 = 1/9

1/3d = 81/2187 = 1/27

The question is now, of course, is this just a little mathematical sleight of hand on our part? Is the logic twisted to suit our objective? The reader will have to make that decision, but I find it hard to believe that we could continue to make these observations by virtue of mere coincidence.