Reciprocal System Research Society

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:43 pm**

RMohan wrote:

Folks on the list might really be provoked

and excited to read The Serial Universe

by J.W. Dunne.

It can be downloaded here... http://www.archive.org/details/serialuniverse032783mbp

Posted: **Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:41 am**

The Serial Universe is an excellent read.

Thin book. (But then again, so is "The Case Against the Nuclear Atom".)

Read slowly.

--- On Thu, 6/19/08, davelook (email removed) wrote:

Quote:

From: davelook (email removed)

Subject: [RS2] Re: J.W. Dunne

To: (email removed)

Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 11:43 PM

RMohan wrote:
Quote:
Folks on the list might really be provoked

and excited to read The Serial Universe

by J.W. Dunne.
It can be downloaded here...

http://www.archive.org/details/serialuniverse032783mbp

-------------------- m2f --------------------

Original Post

http://forum.rs2theory.org/viewtopic.php?p=5526#5526

-------------------- m2f --------------------

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:05 am**

davelook wrote:

Th following might be old news to you guys (the article is from 1997), but while I knew "high energy" experiments got values closer to 1/128, I hadn't ever read THIS!

From http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d ... 106-12.pdf...

From their data, the researchers obtained a value of the fine structure constant, a number

that characterizes the inherent strength of the electromagnetic force. As expected theoretically,

the newly obtained value of 1/128.5 is significantly larger than the 1/137 observed for a fully

screened electron.

“Ours is a clean measurement of the electromagnetic effect,” Koltick says. In higher-energy

experiments at other accelerators, the effect is swamped by additional factors, including the

strong force, which holds neutrons and protons together in an atomic nucleus and binds

quarks into protons and neutrons. Those factors make it difficult to distinguish the relative

contributions of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces.

From my post over at ISUS about Ionization Potentials, it looks like you need to take the SQRT of ratios to really compare them, at least for energy (or mass, freq, since there is always a linear conversion factor: c^2 for mass, h for freq.).

Taking the SQRT of m_p/m_e, you get 42.85, which is 128.55/3. Not sure what that means, but that's quite a coincidence.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:27 pm**

For awhile I thought that there was no way to get from Larson energy (as simply the reciprocal of c) to SI energy, without Larson's arbitrary "conversion" factor detailed in BPM.

We know that Planck's Constant over a "time period" gives energy, E=hf=h/t.

Since we also know that k*e²/r gives (potential) energy, how do we prove that k*e² is a time period, which would make energy t/s?

Let's see what we get when we put it under Planck's Constant (h-bar, actually): 1.0545716 E-34 / 2.307077 E-28 = 4.571029 E-07

1/c = 3.335640952 E-09 (Larson's Natural energy unit)

3.335640952 E-09 / 4.571029 E-07 = 0.00729735253 (the fine structure constant!)

Now, this is really just a reformulation of the units which define the FSC, but it shows clearly that Larson was definitely right about energy being t/s!

It also shows that k*e² is a real time period, much smaller than Larson time.

Reciprocal System Research Society

Electricity

Re: J.W. Dunne

J.W. Dunne

Re: Fine Stucture Constant really IS 1/128!

Electricity