Reciprocal System Research Society

While doing some animations for the RS2 presentations, I ran in to a bit of a quandry, trying to define the meaning of the word "rotation."

Rotation, as we commonly understand it as "spinning", is technically a rotational vibration, that is, a vibration that takes place in 2 dimensions. Consider that a spinning object moves from its initial orientation to its opposite (at 180 degrees), then rotates back to the original position. A vibration, like a bouncing spring, does exactly the same thing--from original position, to its extremity, then back to its original position. Therefore, rotation, as a "motion" is technically a 2-dimensional vibration.

Rotation, as a fixed angle however, is simply a displacement like a linear displacement, that measures a difference between to fixed amounts. I guess it would be easier just to refer to that as an "angle" rather than a "rotation."

The other problem that occurs is that a rotational vibration has two possible paths to traverse:

1) The normal rotation, 0-90-180-270-0

2) The reflected rotation, 0-90-180-90-0

In a scalar sense, both appear the same because they both amount to a "direction reversal" back to the origin.

But in a transformational sense, the outcome is different: the former creates a spinning object, and the latter an accelerated motion, shaking back and forth.

I'm trying to figure out what words to use with the various concepts, to try to keep the descriptive text as consistent as possible.

Any suggestions?

How about this kind of nomenclature:

Translation: Primary motion with a variation in length

Rotation: Primary motion with a variation in turn

Angular vibration: Secondary motion with a variation in angle.

1. Circular angular vibration

2. Semicircular angular vibration

Linear vibration: Secondary motion with a variation in shift.

Displacements:

1. Linear

2. Angular

Hope that covers all of it..

Gopi

Gopi wrote:

Translation: Primary motion with a variation in length

Rotation: Primary motion with a variation in turn

Mike may have come up with a good term in the Reciprocal Philosophy forum, as two different types of translation:

Primary motions:

1. Linear translation: linear movement, as commonly understood.

2. Rotational translation: the Turn.

Gopi wrote:

Angular vibration: Secondary motion with a variation in angle.

1. Circular angular vibration

2. Semicircular angular vibration

Linear vibration: Secondary motion with a variation in shift.

I took a look at Larson's definitions for rotational vibration (RV) as electric charge, magnetic charge and gravitational charge. I cannot find any difference between a RV and a regular 0-180-0 rotation. The 0->180 leg is outward, and coincident with the progression of the natural reference system and therefore has no effect. The 180->0 leg is "inward", and is responsible for the oscillatory motion applied to the atomic motion. His RV is actually a result of plain 'ole rotation, but he is observing it from the context of atomic motion, not the rotation motion of whatever causes the RV.

So I'm thinking we can just stick with "rotation" as secondary rotation (shear), and "shift" to represent the concept of linear vibration. I think avoiding the "vibration" terms might help understanding a bit, since they can later be applied to compound motion, where one type of motion modifies another to get a LV or RV.

Gopi wrote:

Displacements:

1. Linear

2. Angular

I like this... goes well with the 'translation' concept, to represent a speed displacement of a primary motion.

Two others that I think need to be considered that Mike also came up with in regards to perspective: subject and object:

MWells wrote:

It appears that each identifiable part of "reality" has intrinsic "subjective" and "objective" aspects regardless of the notion of an observer. The "subjective" aspect (or the qualities of time) provides orientation, whereas the "objective" aspect (or the qualities of space) provides proportion. This subjective property of orientation (a temporal aspect) may provide a clue to a more workable means to couple scalar motion with a "direction" in extension space.

Where:

Objective = spatial

Subjective = temporal

You can see where the problems between legacy science and the RS occur, since Larson took a subjective viewpoint (from the atomic configuration, hence calling space/time, "time-space"), and legacy science takes an objective view, examinging the spatial proportions.

"Rotation, as we commonly understand it as "spinning", is technically a rotational vibration, that is, a vibration that takes place in 2 dimensions. Consider that a spinning object moves from its initial orientation to its opposite (at 180 degrees), then rotates back to the original position. A vibration, like a bouncing spring, does exactly the same thing--from original position, to its extremity, then back to its original position. Therefore, rotation, as a "motion" is technically a 2-dimensional vibration."

This comment is really confusing me. The photon is osculating back and forth and stationary in the natural reference system, while an ordinary spining object is moving because of its three-dimensional scalar inward rotation. That's why we see the light travel away from us. I assume your statmen of rotation is in the view of three-dimensional spatial reference system. This point of view bring in the arbitary reference system and a mass point in a spining object should travel in line spiraling in natural reference system. I don't know whether it should be a vibration in the scalar sense. I am thinking a spining object moving in light speed should be vibrational, which we do not see in our ordinary life. However, this observation also bings in the spatial reference system. Therefore, i think the right statement should be: a pining object moving scalar outward in light speed is vibrational. If this moving is one-dimensional, we will see electricity flow across this object, then this object both have electromagnetism and magnetic charge. Here, i get completely confused.

Rotation in three-dimensional spatial reference system have some unique properties. There are NON - NEWTONIAN GRAVITATIONAL FORCES arising from this kind of motion according to general theory of relativity. When looking into this type of motion in three-dimensional spatial reference system, the most difficult part is to analysis how they affect their scalar motion of their selves. There must be some ways.

This comment is really confusing me.

When I reread that, it confused me, too! I actually remember that animation I was working on back then. The reference to two vibrations are basically sine and cosine--mix together on a 2-dimensional diagram and you end up with a circular path--rotation.

The problem was, that as a scalar magnitude was projected into the yin (time), the result was an angle that went from zero to infinity. We call it a "turn" these days. If one were to plot it out, zero would be on the +X axis and infinity would be at the -X axis, looping around through +Y as an angular progression. The expansion phase of the spring goes 0-90-180, then bounces back as 180-270-360, whereas Larson's "rotational vibration" doubles back upon itself--0-90-180 then 180-90-0. If you look at the projection on the X axis, both are the SAME simple harmonic motion. No way to tell the difference--in space.

What I was looking for was a clear distinction between regular "rotation" and what this infinite-angle rotation, that is a natural consequence of polar geometry. The regular rotation is sine and cosine; the infinite-angle rotation has no trigonometry, at all--just an angular distance.

Though I should have probably called it "vibrational rotation", rather than "rotational vibration", as it is rotation created by vibration.

That's why we see the light travel away from us.

Actually, light does not travel away from us, we travel away from it. Photons are stationary in the natural reference system. Gravitating systems are moving inward, with respect to the natural reference system.

If you sit on the couch between two lamps, photons from each bulb appear to be hitting you from opposite sides. But that is NOT the case... with respect to the natural reference system, the photons are stationary--but the bulbs are moving away from the photons and you are moving towards the photons. (This was actually the paradox that got me interested in the RS, years ago). If you can understand how this works, then you understand the Reciprocal System.

So how do you explain my hairy head moving towards the two photons from the opposite sides? Head is inflating and getting bigger...?

Head is inflating and getting bigger...?

Yep, you got it. Called "scalar motion"--a constant change of SCALE, not linear nor angular distance.

Make the photons, your head, and your measuring stick expand at the same rate... the photons will run into opposite sides of your head, as your head is expanding to run into the photons, and according to your measuring stick--nothing would have changed size since it expands at the same rate.

So my hairy head is exploding and so are the light bulbs on the opposie sides of the couch, the couch itself, measuring sticks...but not the photons.

Thus by the same token the photons should be shrinking relative to my head, couch, etc.... But we don't observe that in reality, do we?

Also, why does my exploding head eventually run into the photons but both of the exploding light-bulbs do not? ...only one of them does

... with respect to the natural reference system, the photons are stationary--but the bulbs are moving away from the photons and you are moving towards the photons.



So how do you explain my hairy head moving towards the two photons from the opposite sides? Head is inflating and getting bigger...?

It may be explained by "bi-vector". I don't really understand it intuitively, but i think understand it mathematically. The bulbs are also moving away and towards photons. The "hairy head" have two reference points, but the bulbs only have one in this case. It seems that it only moves away because it misses another reference point of photons. When you map motions of "conventianal reference system" into "natural reference system", you always find they have two opposite directions toward photons if you use more reference points. The unique of photons being used as reference points in the "natural reference system" is their "absolute speed". The speed of light "c" is the only one do not need any reference system in conventional science. The "absolute speed" of the bulbs is 1/³√mass, because mass=(t/s)³, but i don't know how to deal with the units.

It may be more essentially explained by "a constant change of SCALE". It just simply depend on how you think about it, then you choose a way to solve it. Knowing how your thought affects the way you describe it is always important.

By the way, i always wondering does the scarlar outward rotational motions conteract inward rotational motions, because it seems that it is the rotation of charged particals(outward motion) affects the gravity. It has been reproted very briefly by the ESA, and this effect is thought to be underlying the levitation of TR-3B.

I understand the concept of the bivector albeit not intuitively, too.

However even if we invoke this concept it still does not explain, why the photon appears to move away from the light bulb yet move towards the hairy head, ...or why the hairy head "expands towards" the photon but the light bulb "expands away" from the photon.

Is this asymmetry caused by the motion of the light bulb, or the hairy head, or the motion of the photon itself?