"Fundamental" Problems

[bperet]

In a strict interpretation, Larson's postulates are "fundamentally" incorrect, since they actually prohibit the Universe from existing.

Postulate 2: "...and its geometry is Euclidean".

The Euclidean stratum of geometry defines only 6 degrees of freedom: three translational and three rotational. "Scale" is invariant (unchanging), because it is fixed at Unity. It is the scale factor of 1.0 that gives Euclidean geometry its abililty for measuring absolute distances. No deviation in scale is allowed in the Euclidean stratum of geometry.

Therefore, by positing "Euclidean" geometry, Larson explicitly denies all forms of "scalar motion" that are not Unity. As a natural consequence of this, the only thing that CAN exist in the RS universe is the unit outward motion of the progression of the natural reference system.

Due to scale invariance, all other forms of "scalar motion" are NOT a natural consequence of the postulates. Displacements from Unity CANNOT exist, therefore photons cannot exist, rotation of photons cannot exist, and atoms cannot exist. Without atoms, the Universe cannot exist.

The "natural consequences" that Larson predicts in his books and outlines are NOT a consequence of Euclidean geometry, but of two other strata of geometry. A "direction reversal" requires scale variance from +1 to -1, which places photons in the realm of "Metric geometry", where measurement is only "relative", no longer absolute. The Metric stratum of geometry only allows for ONE degree of freedom in scale, so all dimensions must have the same scalar speed. This, of course, does not work in a 3-dimensional universe.

By positing scalar motion in 3 dimensions, Larson has moved well off the realm of Euclidean geometry and into "Affine geometry", which defines 12 degrees of freedom; 3 translational, 3 rotational, 3 scalar-translation, 3 scalar-rotation. It is from the Affine stratum of geometry that Larson actually derives his "Universe of Motion." But, Affine geometry also limits the Universe to the PHYSICAL, since only the Material and Cosmic sectors (speed and inverse speed) can exist within the constraints imposed by this stratum.

The solution for "Beyond Space and Time" and the 3rd, "Ethical" sector therefore requires more degrees of freedom than allowed for by Affine geometry, and that brings us into the realm of "Projective geometry", which has a full 15 degrees of freedom.

This is the basis from which RS2 -- the re-evaluation of the RS -- has been proceeding:

Quote:

The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary, commutative mathematics, its magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Projective.

Correction of the 2nd Postulate allows the theory to agree with the observed Universe. However, many of the "natural consequences" change from Larson's original conclusions because "geometry" also becomes subject to the same reciprocal relation as speed.

[bperet]

I thought it might be wise to identify potential problem areas in Larson's orginal development, to make sure the problems are addressed in RS2. I will be using the "Fundamental Problems" topic to track these. Please feel free to add any quirks that I miss.

Most of these problems arise when attempting to model RS behaviors on a computer, where the results must be "forced" thru conditional tests, rather than occuring as a natural consequence of the rules.

The muon neutrino, which Larson initially identified as the "massless neutron", has displacements of 1/2-1/2-0. This, in essence, is a single temporal displacement in two dimensions, leaving one free dimension for the muon neutrino to be carried by the progression of the natural reference system at the speed of light. So far, so good.

Enter "observation", namely the experiments being run at the Super-Kamiokande detector concerning electron and muon neutrinos, and we find a few flaws in Larson's logic:

1) The muon neutrino, being a temporal displacement, cannot pass thru the time displacements of atoms, since the relation of time to time does not constitute motion. However, the detector shows enormous quantities of muon neutrinos passing right thru the Earth, without even slowing down.

2) Muon neutrinos are observed to be neutral particles. The temporal displacement, unbalanced by a spatial displacement, would give the muon neutrino a +1 "charge".

3) Capture of muon neutrinos increases atomic number in elements. If they are being captured by the atoms of Earth, the abundance of heavy elements should be enormous, and growing with each second (considering something like 10¹⁵ neutrinos pass thru your body each second). This is not observed.

4) Electron neutrinos, which are muon neutrinos with an electric, spatial displacement added, cannot interact with ANYTHING, since they have zero net motion in EITHER space or time. This means they will pass thru EVERYTHING.

5) Electron neutrinos cannot obtain a charge to become trapped in atomic rotation (thus increasing isotope), because they cannot interact with anything. Therefore, "isotopic mass" cannot exist in Larson's system thru this mechanism.

[bperet]

Phil forwarded this message from rstheory from Jacques, which reminded me of the computer modeling work I did 7-8 years on radioactive decay with Nehru.

jacques wrote:

When uranium 238 decay it emit an alpha particule and thorium 234.

So we start with one atom and end up with two.

In the uranium atom there is 2 rotationnals bases like all other atoms.

After the decay we end up with 2 atoms who needs 4 rotational bases.

Where does the 2 extra rotatiional bases came from ?

Jacques makes an excellent point, since in the RS, the rotational base would require two additional HF photons to form the cores of the rotational bases. The simplest photon has a speed of 3, which would require 2 units of displacement for each, 4 total. That is the motion equivalent of an muon neutrino, which is a substantial loss of energy to the atom--considering the muon neutrino is what they call a "nuclear neutron". This is not observed in decay measurements, and is substantial enough that it should be noted.

This is not a problem in RS2, since the "rotational base" is the counterspace (polar) progression of the natural reference system. Therefore, every location already HAS a "rotational base", used or not, because there is nothing underlying it (RS has a photon in there).

Another problem that occured during the modeling attempt was that we were never able to exactly reproduce the observed decay sequences. They would be close, but the order of emission events differed. We never did figure that one out, so it is one for the "to do" list.

[bperet]

Since I've been digging thru my old "model" problem notes... here is the "biggie", right at the beginning of Larson's RS, the photon.

1) Scalar reversal problems

a) As described by Larson, occur instanteously at the "end" of the unit of motion. This is easy enough to model: A = -A; assuming + is out, and - is inward for each step. This results in a SQUARE WAVE.

b) But then he says that there is no preferred direction; it is RANDOM. Therefore, at the end of each step of motion, the scalar direction is determined by: A = rand(0,1) ? -A : A;

This does not produce a regular wave pattern, but an irregular square wave with thousands of imbedded frequencies and harmonics.

2) Continuous Motion within the Time Region

Larson does say that the scalar motion is "continuous" (in the Euclidean projection). The projection of a square wave into a continuous motion is a TRIANGLE wave, with the peaks at the transition points.

Sine/Cosine wave nowhere to be found.

3) Integration for motion in the time region into equivalent space

Even if the triangle wave occurs within the time region, its projection outside the time region into equivalent space is thru integration of 1/t dt (BPOM), which results in the waveform of the natural logarithm, not a sine or cosine function.

Based on Larson's photon model, you cannot logically extract the sinusoidal waveform for photon motion, unless you force the output by using a trig function.

RS2: two interacting rotations, no problem. Euler equations posted elsewhere in the forum show the details.

[Sarada Kesiraju]

Dear Mr. Bruce,

Prof. Nehru requested me to pose the following questions on your posting on "Fundamental" Problems.

1.

Where do the dimensions of Time come in?

2.

What do you mean by reciprocal of geometry?

3.

Is it magnetic or electric charge?

4.

Why not?

Regarding your posting on Leptons: Could you please give a table listing the displacement of the subatomic particles as per your latest thinking?

Prof. Nehru is unable to access the net as he is still attending to his wife in the Nursing home, and advised me to send this mail to you. As you are aware I am pursuing my research under Prof. Nehru's guidance and am meeting him regularly for my study.

I request you to please send your reply to the points raised.

Thanks & regards

Sarada Kesiraju

[bperet]

Nehru wrote:

1.

Where do the dimensions of Time come in?

In the projective stratum, the only invariant is the cross-ratio (a scalar speed). But since there is nothing to measure that speed from, concepts like s/t or t/s cannot exist (relationships between scalar speeds are not defined in this stratum).

Once you apply the assumption of an "origin" to the projective stratum (unit speed), you move to an affine transformation and have a place in which to take measurements from, which result aspects of space (1) -- the "scalar dimensions".

To obtain the coordinate dimensions, more assumptions must be introduced (which are created by our perception). In the affine stratum, relative distances along a line are defined. In other words, you can measure "displacements". The next step is to create the assumption of a distance between lines thru the use of the absolute conic -- angles. When this assumption is added, it is referred to as the "Metric" stratum, which allows relative measurements along and between lines.

The final assumption is the plane at infinity (parallelism), coupled with the origin and relative measurement results in the final stratum of "absolute measurement", Euclidean geometry. It is thru the layering of projective assumptions that we get the coordinate dimensions of space and time -- distinguished only by the net spped being below or above unity.

See the article "Scalar Motion" posted elsewhere on this forum for additional info.

Nehru wrote:

2.

What do you mean by reciprocal of geometry?

Geometry can be viewed two ways: linear or polar. They are the geometric inverses of each other. The reciprocal of Euclidean geometry (real numbers) is polar-Euclidean (imaginary numbers). Linkage between the two geometries -- where one affects the other -- are complex numbers.

Inverses of geometric objects:

Points Planes

Lines (defined by points) Lines (defined by intersecting planes)

Origin (point at center) Counterspace origin (plane at infinity)

Plane at infinity CSI (counterspace infinity; point at infinity)

Enclosed area Exposed area

Inside volume Outside volume

Nehru wrote:

3.

Is it magnetic or electric charge?

In Larson's RS it would be either, since his system of chemical interaction treats all temporal motion as a positive valence, and all spatial motion as a negative valence (regardless of electric or magnetic). Therefore, the muon neutrino with its temporal displacement would have a +1 valence and could, for example, bond with hydrogen in its -1 state, or form a bizarre type of water, u₂O.

Like much of Larson's RS it looks good on the surface, but when you encode the rules into a computer model, many strange things occur that do not match the observed, physical universe. By the time you "fine tune" the rules enough to get the desired outcome, you don't have Larson's system anymore.

However in RS2, neutrinos, due to the solid bi-rotation, ARE magnetic charges (rotational vibrations). Now if you could circularly polarize the solid bi-rotation, then it would become a magnetic monopole.

Nehru wrote:

4.

Why not?

The neutrinos cannot "take" a magnetic charge, because the "are" a magnetic charge.

They cannot be electrically charged because in my current understanding, they would have to capture a single bi-rotation to induce the electric vibration, and already being composed of a solid bi-rotation (two double-rotations), there are not enough free dimensions for the electric charge to exist as an addition to the motion -- the displacements would be absorbed or simply pass thru.

Nehru wrote:

Regarding your posting on Leptons: Could you please give a table listing the displacement of the subatomic particles as per your latest thinking?

I have a problem with finding an appropriate notational system. Simple displacements, as Larson uses, do not work because it does not represent the bi-rotating states (speeds of each "half" and polarization), nor does it account for the additional interactions due to dimensional reduction from bi-rotating.

In my computer models, I store everything internally as scalar speed, then apply projective transforms to do the interaction. The format is not very human-readable, being an array of 4x4 matricies.

Suggestions?

Bruce

[Sarada Kesiraju]

Dear Bruce,

I have passed on to Prof. Nehru your reply. Prof. Nehru has asked me to convey the following to you.

Bruce wrote:
[quote][/quote]
Is there any relevance to quarternions also?

After studying the points raised in your posting and your reply Prof. Nehru would offer some more comments.

Thank s and regards

Sarada

[bperet]

Sarada Kesiraju wrote:

Bruce wrote:

Is there any relevance to quarternions also?

Yes.

The homogeneous coordinates [ x y z 1 ] have a polar inverse as a quaternion [1 ix jy kz].

The problem arises that though they are geometric inverses, the crossing of the unit boundary between the geometries only allow for net scalar motion, so all orientation and structure is lost in the conversion process. Thus, [10 20 30 1] does not directly coorelate to [1 i10 j20 k30].

This brings in the concept of Nick Thomas' "linkage points" between space and counterspace, and the resulting stress and shear that occurs when the two geometries are linked.

In my opinion, the universe is nothing but a very simple machine, gears (counterspace) and connecting rods (Euclidean space). Once we can find the mechanical analogies, the system should be very easy to understand.

[jacques]

Hi Bruce

I am new to this forum and I would like to have a link where I could find an outline of the RS2. Also you spoke of a computer model you developped: is it finished our is it a work in progress ? What is the purpose of this computer model (does it apply to the universe in general or does it address a particular problem) ?

Thanks

[bperet]

Hi Jacques,

jacques wrote:

I am new to this forum and I would like to have a link where I could find an outline of the RS2.

It does not yet exist in one place. If you browse the forum, you will find a bunch of older topics that define the basic parts of RS2 (Part I thru Part V). The entire chain of development between Nehru and myself is in the topic "Time Region Speeds".

I started a formal presentation of RS2 in the "Scalar Motion" topic, beginning with how scalar motion is derived. Perhaps that is a good starting point.

jacques wrote:

Also you spoke of a computer model you developped: is it finished our is it a work in progress ?

It is a work in progress, on it's 217th revision! I started it almost 10 years ago, and it has turned out to be a remarkable tool for finding logic problems in the RS and RS2 system. I spend the last month learning the new ISO standards and Java so I can hopefully have some interactive graphic models on the site in the future.

jacques wrote:

What is the purpose of this computer model (does it apply to the universe in general or does it address a particular problem) ?

It has several "layers" to it. The base layer is a class library that allows you to create particles and elements, and determine atomic properties.

The next layer uses the base layer to create molecules, and handles chemical interactions. (When I get this worked out, the computer should be able to simulate any chemical interaction.)

The third layer handles aggregate functions, where a statistical distribution of atoms and molecules can be handled, rather than each individual atom or molecule. I haven't gotten very far with this layer yet, but eventually hope to use it to simulate things like electronic and electrical behavior, semiconductors, etc.

The fourth layer is not directly connected to the other three, except for sharing some base rule sets. It is the 'astronomy' layer, where massive aggregates can be modeled and interacted. The only thing I've done on this layer is to model small globular clusters -- without much success, I might add! They keep flying apart. Larson's rules on globular clusters look good on paper, but fail under simulation (highly unstable). I suspect there is some type of non-local interaction going on that I haven't quite figured out yet and accounted for.

I would like to include Nehru's Theosophical "Anu" model as well, to research the "beyond space and time" influences on the physical universe, but so far, the extraordinary amount of data that must be tracked has made a simulation impossible.

Bruce