Reciprocal System Research Society

Yes, his general meaning is understood.

The force concept arises out of a deep-seated need for a causal explanation of physical interactions. It's like a trap. The causal models are psychological and forms of reductionism. Larson was not immune to this trap either. In his version of scalar motion, space and time are indeed "causal" as well when space and time are considered seperately as aspects of motion. This reductionism expressed in the discrete unit postulate.

However, the universe is inherently less reduced, being both causal and acausal. Psychologically, the quality of space is causal, and the quality of time is acausal. But since space = time, both can also always be expressed in terms of each other. That is, time can be conceptualized as being causal. However, in order for us to conceptualize a causal aspect of motion (be it space or time), the other aspect, when considered simultaneously, then becomes conceptually acausal.

It should be kept in mind that I am talking about the psychological conceptualization of motion, not the pure mathematical abstraction of motion. But I think it bears some consideration because physical theories rely on conceptualizations to be understood and accepted.

Another way of expressing causality and acausality is with the concept of differentiation (or seperating) and integration (or connecting).

Mike

Horace wrote:

I'm glad you did not sweep the 3-body problem under the carpet.

It is an intriguing problem and I love a good mystery.

Horace wrote:

Am I correct in understanding that the motions of two gravitationally interacting objects actually come in contact (and interfere) in the time region, which affects their projections into our space region, in such a way that we perceive it as attraction ?

Yes. Just keep in mind a few points:

1) Gravity = s³/t³, which is MATERIAL and SPATIAL. It is Euclidean and referenced by points in space. Gravity is the measurement of SPATIAL change of bodies.

2) Mass = t³/s³, which is COSMIC and TEMPORAL. Make sure to carry the Reciprocal relationship all the way--mass is not just the inverse of gravity in the "direction" sense, but is literally "inside-out gravity". (See Larson's article The Density Gradient in White Dwarf Stars for the inverse density concept.)

3) The "time region" isn't a PLACE, it is a SPEED, where the spatial aspect of speed is at 1 -- "unit scale", the absolute scale of the Euclidean perspective.

4) The gravitational limit is where the net force has dropped below 1 unit of DISPLACEMENT, thus having no effect beyond that point (progression only). In other words, the spatial aspect of the speed is Unity--kind of like a macroscopic "time region". Kiril Chukanov's books have some interesting insights here in his ball lightning research, were he defines macroscopic molecules.

Atoms can gravitate together to form molecules. They usually do this because there is some net speed (valence) that causes them to keep moving in space, and thus colliding with other atoms or particles to make molecules and compounds. This chemical interaction works the same as the gravity situation.

When the atoms have formed molecules, there is no net motion, so they stop interacting at the atomic time region level, but their "mass fields" are still creating temporal pressures about them, so they "gravitate" to form aggregates. If the pressure in the environment is sufficient, they will "fuse", and thus we get stellar combustion.

Horace wrote:

On the other side - does the atomic motion of cosmic matter in SPACE, affect other spatial motions (including those of the material sector) ?

Of course. We don't notice it much in the atomic realm because all of our instruments are designed to measure changes in space, not in time. But we do see its effects. For example, the "memory" of iron when it is worked. It is most prominent in Larson's "level 2 - biologic" where material and cosmic structures are strongly linked.

Horace wrote:

I wouldn't call it a pressure but I think I understand what Bruce means: ...

Perfect! You got it. It's nice to actually have someone understand me!

MWells wrote:

The force concept arises out of a deep-seated need for a causal explanation of physical interactions.

One of the tough concepts to overcome is that Force is an illusion. It is just "conjugate" acceleration (not "inverse" acceleration).

Force = t/s². Acceleration = s/t². Acceleration is the change of speed with respect to time. Force is the change of energy with respect to space. It is neither causal nor acausal, but just a way we measure change.

MWells wrote:

However, the universe is inherently less reduced, being both causal and acausal. Psychologically, the quality of space is causal, and the quality of time is acausal. But since space = time, both can also always be expressed in terms of each other. That is, time can be conceptualized as being causal. However, in order for us to conceptualize a causal aspect of motion (be it space or time), the other aspect, when considered simultaneously, then becomes conceptually acausal.

Good observation. I find the difficult part not to be the acausal, but the application of causality to the cosmic side of things. Cause and effect are separated by time. We see this with all kinetic interactions. But try separating cause and effect by SPACE, rather than time. When you do that, the nature of "fields", the old concept of aether, and the modern concept of "dark energy" make a lot more sense.

Horace wrote:

The superposition in time region is more likely to happen when the masses are close to each other, due to the probabilistic distribution of their motions. This is the origin of the inverse square law.

Although I know it is correct, I have a hard time justifying my own statement. I remeber that Larson wrote in NBM:

Larson wrote:

The rotating photon, on the other hand is continually moving from one absolute location to another as it travels back along the line of the progression of the natural reference system, and each time it enters a new absolute location the vectorial direction is redetermined by the chance process."

Larson's passage nicely explains the inverse square relationship of two gravitating masses, but I am having problems with the word "redetermined" and concept of moving "from one absolute location to another". Especially in the light of Bruce's statment "The time region isn't a PLACE, it is a SPEED". If it's not a "place" then how can there be an "absolute location" in it? Aaarrrrgh

If "time region" is not a place, then why does bringing two masses closer together IN SPACE increase the chances that these "continually redetermined directions" will align and destructively oppose each other IN TIME. Separation in space should not influence separation in time, shouldn't it?

I always imagined that opposition of motion in "time region" destructively interferes and decreases the rate of time - and when time slows down around a point in space, we get an illusion of attraction to that point.

Conversely when time speeds up - we get an illusion of repulsion (e.g. repelling magnets).

Could somebody clear this up?

Bruce wrote:

Atoms can gravitate together to form molecules. They usually do this because there is some net speed (valence) that causes them to keep moving in space,

Can you elaborate what net speed? What is continously "redetermined" : Their direction in space or their direction in time? ... or maybe the projection of their temporal direction into spatial direction. Does arresting their motion in space happen at the expense of increasing their temporal motion?

Do atoms with valence, exhibit Brownian Motion, because their direction is continously "redetermined" by the chance process ?

Larson wrote:

The rotating photon, on the other hand is continually moving from one absolute location to another as it travels back along the line of the progression of the natural reference system, and each time it enters a new absolute location the vectorial direction is redetermined by the chance process."

Horace wrote:

Larson's passage nicely explains the inverse square relationship of two gravitating masses, but I am having problems with the word "redetermined" and concept of moving "from one absolute location to another".

I think Larson went too far with this abstraction in the sense that there can't really be a "chance" (fully nondeterministic) process in reality. This is because there are too many interactions that influence an entity's direction at that level. In the NRS, one could imagine a grid progressing and a motion existing on a spot on that grid independent of all other motions. However, I think in reality, each NRS location is co-dependent with another occupied NRS location. So one could imagine there to always be a mutual "balancing" of motion providing a type of homeostasis or thermodynamic balance. In other words, I would not assume that there are NRS "islands" of motion.

There is a connecting principle with time that, on the psychological level, is perceived as a meaningful event synchronicity. On the physical level, however, the connection reprents some qualitative association between two or more interacting NRS locations.

Horace wrote:

but I am having problems with the word "redetermined" and concept of moving "from one absolute location to another". Especially in the light of Bruce's statment "The time region isn't a PLACE, it is a SPEED". If it's not a "place" then how can there be an "absolute location" in it?

Just a matter of getting the horse out of the cart and back up front, so you can see the "motive force" (scalar speeds) separate from the contents of the cart (extension space). Break out the projection from the projector.

Absolute locations are a metric stratum projection (the cart).

The Time Region is a pure scalar speed, no locations (the horse).

The two are separated by several layers of assumptions. Larson's natural reference system, which is the reference system with the absolute locations, changes scale at a constant rate (1) in all dimensions. Thus, it looks like an expanding grid. Some of the assumptions built it to it are: direction (in or out), relative measure along a line, relative measure between lines; the latter two giving the concepts of separation (distance) and angle.

The time region is just speed. But when we try to map it to the absolute location, we have to apply the same assumptions to it. Since the NRS changes at a constant, uniform rate, the only way to "attach" a time region to an absolute location is for it to have the SAME uniform rate (1) in one aspect -- hence, the spatial aspect MUST BE UNITY for the projection to work. By the same logic, the time aspect must be unit for the space region of cosmic matter. Once this is done, the other projective assumptions can be placed on the time region, so visually it would look like a bubble attached to a spatial grid point.

This gives the concept of separation between locations; that separation being modified by the speeds within the time region (inter-atomic distances) since we always have to normalize back to an absolute scale for our senses to work properly.

If you understand computer programming, just take a look at how a computer creates a 3D model. It starts with an array of numbers--magnitudes only--and can create realistic scenes though the application of assumptions. To see the underlying motions in the RS, just run it backwards... identify and peel away the assumptions used to get back to that array of numbers. Then you'll see it clearly.

Horace wrote:

Aaarrrrgh

I think we've all been there.

Horace wrote:

If "time region" is not a place, then why does bringing two masses closer together IN SPACE increase the chances that these "continually redetermined directions" will align and destructively oppose each other IN TIME. Separation in space should not influence separation in time, shouldn't it?

Motion links space and time; one will always affect the other. Since the premise is "nothing but motion", then everything looks like a seesaw, with space on one side and time on the other.

I agree with Mike in that there is no randomness, since it is all the illusion of projection anyway! This is why certain phenomenon don't have an orientation until observed--there is no inherent orientation, it is provided by the observer.

Horace wrote:

I always imagined that opposition of motion in "time region" destructively interferes and decreases the rate of time - and when time slows down around a point in space, we get an illusion of attraction to that point.

Conversely when time speeds up - we get an illusion of repulsion (e.g. repelling magnets).

It's the other way around... when time slows down (less pressure) we get repulsion because the progression has a stronger effect and separates things in space. When time speeds up (more pressure), we get attraction.

The best thing I can recommend is to look at how a computer generates a picture from a model--they've basically reverse-engineered the RS with that technique, and much understanding can be gained from it.

Horace wrote:

Can you elaborate what net speed?

See Nothing But Motion, Chapter 18.

Horace wrote:

What is continously "redetermined" : Their direction in space or their direction in time?

In space, if using a material sector perspective; in time if using a cosmic sector perspective.

Horace wrote:

... or maybe the projection of their temporal direction into spatial direction. Does arresting their motion in space happen at the expense of increasing their temporal motion?

Yes. That is why Larson needed a rotational base--he had to find a way to arrest the progression on which the photon was being carried, so that further temporal rotation would cause inward motion (gravitation).

Horace wrote:

Do atoms with valence, exhibit Brownian Motion, because their direction is continously "redetermined" by the chance process ?

I doubt it is random motion; if you had enough detail about the surrounding environment, you could calculate the course precisely. It will just respond to the attraction and repulsion of various fields and adjust location accordingly.

Bruce,

I am an accomplished low level programer (I am disgusted by the new bloated languages like Java), however the 3D graphics transforms do not help me in understanding moving reference systems even one bit.

Horace