Reciprocal System Research Society

I've recently been reading a number of books from the 19th century concerning magnetism and the associated phenomenon of "aether" and "odic force" (Reichenbach). In the early days of research, the ideas of an aether, described by Nikola Tesla as "charges in an insulating fluid" was quite popular, though many researchers did not agree on the nature of aether, itself, some concluding it was an "incompressible solid", others, like Tesla, a fluid, and still others, a gaseous medium.

I have been conducting some experiments with magnets recently, and found a number of anomalies. One that Gopi brought up was a question of where the kinetic energy comes from to physically turn a compass needle?

Magnetic poles, and the associated lines of force, appear identical to the electric poles and lines of force. The magnetic pole can be reduced to a single point, with lines of flux running from north to south, just as electric lines of force run from + to -. And they behave by the same set of rules... like repels like, opposites attract, and the inverse square law applies to net force.

The primary difference is that magnetic lines are concentrated by mass (temporal displacements), and electric lines of force are concentrated by dielectrics (spatial displacements)--an inverse relationship.

From this, it appears that magnetism may be the POLAR (yin) aspect of inverse motion (t/s relationship), whereas dielectric fields are the RECTANGULAR (yang) aspects of the same motion.

The next question that arises is, how does the relationship t/s, energy in general, exist in the Material sector, which is defined by relationships of s/t

It may be that each sector (material, cosmic) may have a macrocosmic sub-sector division of "matter" and "energy", similar to what Nehru postulated for the "atomic" and "nuclear" zones within the atom.

The t/s relationship is consider to be "cosmic", having its coordinate motion in time, rather than space. A projection of this t/s motion into the material sector of s/t may appear as a type of "aether" or "odic force", exactly as Tesla describes with his "charges [t/s] in an insulating fluid [cosmic progression]".

One of the major conceptual differences between Larson's original work and RS2 is that Larson considers the material and cosmic sectors to be separate, only linking during "Level 2" biological events. The RS2 concept is similar to Nick Thomas' work on Counterspatial linkages, where the two sectors are strongly linked together, each influencing the other right down to the sub-atomic level. This linkage may well explain the 'aether' idea, popular with the 19th century researchers.

Firstly, if you have any data on bar magnets, can you send them to me?

I have been wondering why the magnet has 'poles', well, it could be

because it is 'polar'. In case of static electricity, the charge being

distributed on the outer area of the material, we could say that the

charge is at the 'plane at infinity'. Now, in case of the magnet, with

it's polar inverse, we would have the charges concentrated at the 'point

at infinity' or the centre of a sphere. This could explain why there is an

offset from the end of the magnet, and also why it is at a point. This

offset should depend on the magnetic field strength too... the stronger

magnet should have the smaller offset.

Another effect of this would be that the magnetic properties are out of

phase with electric, resulting in a force PERPENDICULAR to the motion of

an electrically charged particle... as space and time are orthogonal.

Maybe it is time we included orthogonal in the definition of reciprocal?

Gopi

Gopi wrote:

I have been wondering why the magnet has 'poles', well, it could be because it is 'polar'. In case of static electricity, the charge being distributed on the outer area of the material, we could say that the charge is at the 'plane at infinity'. Now, in case of the magnet, with it's polar inverse, we would have the charges concentrated at the 'point at infinity' or the centre of a sphere. This could explain why there is an offset from the end of the magnet, and also why it is at a point. This offset should depend on the magnetic field strength too... the stronger magnet should have the smaller offset.

We know from geophysics that the poles of the Earth are at least 1800 miles from the source of magnetism, yet we can pinpoint definitive North and South poles--but the origin is the core of the planet.

For bar-type magnets, your observation that the center of magnetic "force" may actually be the center of mass--not the pole points--is quite interesting. One of the big questions in my mind regarding the concept "opposites attract" has been "why don't the magnetic poles attract themselves to the center of the magnet, and cancel each other out?" The idea of atoms being "little magnets" doesn't hold up, because like big magnets, they should just flip around and neutralize each other. There are no identified atomic forces that would hold the configuration.

It is obvious that conventional science has no idea of what magnetism actually IS. The Wikipedia lists a number of different theories, but nothing definitive and most are just mathematical treatments of the flux.

Here's another one to consider... iron makes a good magnet, but copper doesn't magnetize at all--until you run a current through it, then it makes a substantial magnetic field. Why? What changes in the copper to produce a magnetic field?

Magnetism is a t²/s² relationship. Based on the recent "aether" ideas that all t/s relationships are actually vibratory in nature, that makes magnetism a type of vibration (Larson considers it to be a 2d rotational vibration).

All vibrations respond to the laws of harmonic resonance and discord--basically a rhythmic system of pressure, with "highs" and "lows". And, like an airfoil that lifts from a low pressure system above the wing, vibrating objects will attract and repel each other, based on their frequency and phase. Keely demonstrated much of this in his experiments with vibrating drums in water. Magnetism acts just like vibration in a fluid medium.

Looking at projections, remember that reciprocal relationship--carry it through to ALL aspects, not just aspects of space and time.

First thing up is that we see "space", the material sector, as objects localized in a vacuum. Taking the reciprocal of that for the cosmic sector, we would see "voids" localized in a SOLID, akin to the Theosophical concept of "bubbles in Koilon".

Our material sector is far from stationary, there is all sorts of motion going on which makes our "vacuum" full of particles and matter. Therefore, the inverse should hold true for the cosmic sector--that "solid" will have a lot of voids in it, giving it some degree of "fluidity", which is exactly what the aether experimenters describe. Nikola Tesla, himself, described that aether as "charges [t/s] in an insulating fluid".

It appears that the properties of the cosmic sector, in conjugate to the material, has all the same properties that the aether theories of the 19th and early 20th centuries have, so we can learn something from all that research.

All the dimensions of magnetic effects are analogous to the electric ones, with one important exception: everything is multiplied by t/s (a "charge"). What this means is that magnetism has a 2nd power relationship to the corresponding electric quantities--polar versus linear. It also means that magnetism may be exactly that--a polar form of electricity, namely a type of "cosmic electricity". Which also implies that there is some analog to the electron as a type of "carrier" for magnetic current (see Ed Leedskalnin's research).

We know that the electron is cosmic and therefore localized in TIME, not space. However, when the uncharged electron (space region, 1/s) moves through the time region of the atom, it becomes its reciprocal, s/1 -- a MATERIAL structure, now localized in SPACE. Therefore the dual, the plane of that spatial point inside the atom, would become the dielectric field--a 2D surface extending about that localized point.

When the electron becomes charged through the capture of a photon, t/s, the 1/s x t/s = t/s² = Force, EMF or Voltage. This particle, if it were to enter the time region, would therefore enter as s²/t -- again, material and localized, with the interaction product being a type of 2D speed (c²); a relationship that shows up often in physics, but we don't consider to be an actual quantity. In magnetic theory, they call it "A^-2", where "A" is amperage (speed, s/t)--again, a reference to electricity.

This makes the charged electron also localized in SPACE and non-local in TIME, again producing a 2D surface about it, which we would again see as a field effect--but with different dimensions. The time region, moving through the space of the uncharged electron, produces a dielectric field of t/s. The charged electron produces a field of (t/s)² -- a magnetic field, and because it is a type of "solid" rotation, versus a planar one, there must be two hemispheres to that spherical projection--the poles of a magnetic, that look like the Earth.

There is also an additional followup I ran across today from Kozyrev's "torsion field" experiments in Russia, where he considers the torsion field to have axial symmetry, rather than point symmetry (as do electric charges and poles). It may be that the magnetic force is actually the axial projection (2 planes intersect to form a line; see below) that runs down the center of a magnet, and where the line segment terminates gives the appearance of "poles" discharging like point sources.

Gopi wrote:

Another effect of this would be that the magnetic properties are out of phase with electric, resulting in a force PERPENDICULAR to the motion of an electrically charged particle... as space and time are orthogonal.

Maybe it is time we included orthogonal in the definition of reciprocal?

The way I see it, is that "time" is the imaginary plane that is orthogonal to the "real" axis. I did not say the "imaginary AXIS", because we're dealing with a polar system, where lines only occur from the intersection of planes, so you need at least 2 planes to form a line.

Thoughts:

Opposites attract, I agree, the hader collider comes to mind without it there would be no friction (or is it fiction) there's no sparks and no creation. A collision can create or destroy, depending on the velocity of the force, I would think this is what you mean by canceling each other out. You know that saying, too much of a good thing, is not necessarily a good thing. Does exposure to radiation has anything to do with it.

Even though opposites do not have much in in common, they can complement one and other. It allows compensation for whatever quality or trait is lacking from one and the other. They both complete each other?

Speaking of orthogonal, I've been looking as some peoples charts, have you taken a closer look at your astrological chart (circle). It's similar to the Red Square Nebula image. I won't go further as it will take the discussion out of context.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... ebula.html

*******