Reciprocal System Research Society

Agree with 'all is motion' but I would ask; is not all motion spiral and is this not what you mean by scalar?
Could you agree that all motion is accelerated motion? Velocity is linear and there is nothing linear in nature, therefore all begins with the the second derivative.

If there are no constant speeds, not even light, nature exhibits no constants and position and momentum are meaningless terms as is Heisenberg's principle.
All motion must have a center. All expansion must exhibit contraction and therefore a reflection boundary.
Nature is everywhere continuous. It only appears to be quantitized and discrete.
Consider the most important function in nature, if not the only function, reflection and associated refraction and absorption/radiation.
These certainly have been observed to be quantitized and the whole of physics since Planck has rested on this interpretation.
What is really happening in the process of reflection? Light is not only changing direction but changing polarity. The central question is whether this phenomenon is discrete or continuous. To address this question one must consider the fnx of inversion. This is the most often used mathematical operation in physics. We must examine the integral 1/X dx. This solution is natural log X. Science does not like singularities or infinities of any kind and therefore tend to ignore them.

Reflections are continuous operations that are ubiquitous. But to be perfectly precise to the last digit this integration must occur in infinity. Outside of time and space. No perfect reflection, no universe. The infinite is related to the finite by this simple reciprocal! Where else but in infinity can light make this fantastical hairpin turn and change polarity in 'No Time'? This seems so obvious to me but maybe I'm just crazy and simple minded. Could this 'cosmic sector' Larson proposes simply be describing a 'reflection'?
I'm curious whether anyone can comment on this. I'm a layperson but I do have an interest in science and religion.
Regards, Louis

Hi Louis,

The Reciprocal System is not very new... just not well known. It has been around since 1959.

is not all motion spiral and is this not what you mean by scalar?

"Scalar" is magnitude only, by definition. A spiral has direction and therefore cannot be considered a scalar.

Could you agree that all motion is accelerated motion? Velocity is linear and there is nothing linear in nature, therefore all begins with the the second derivative.

No; scalar motion is a constant rate of change. When a constant rate of change is applied to a coordinate system, such as space, you end up with a scalar expansion that appears as an accelerated motion once a specific location is selected as a point of measurement. From that observation point the further a location is from an observer, the faster it appears to move away--though the rate of change between locations remains constant. That's what "motion" is--a ratio of space to time defining how much one changes with respect to the other.

Light is found in nature and travels at a constant, linear velocity. But the scalar motions discussed here are not "velocity." they are "speed." A scalar speed cannot have a direction (neither linear nor angular), only a magnitude. Since the derivative of a magnitude is zero, if that were the case, then nothing would exist.

See also: Uniform Motion.

If there are no constant speeds, not even light

Light is a constant speed in a vacuum; the presence of matter gives the appearance of a slower velocity.

All motion must have a center.

OK... can you identify the "center" of 45 miles per hour? That's a motion--ratio of space to time.

All expansion must exhibit contraction and therefore a reflection boundary.

True, that is Larson's reciprocal relation between space (expansion) and time (contraction), and the boundary is unit speed (1).

Nature is everywhere continuous. It only appears to be quantitized and discrete.

If that were true, why do we have discrete units of matter called particles and atoms? With the deep space probes, it has been found that even gravity has a limit where it just "stops" and has no further effect--a discrete cutoff point.

The infinite is related to the finite by this simple reciprocal!

Actually, we're just putting together some papers on this subject of zero and infinity, and you are correct if you are considering zero to be finite and infinity to be infinite. We have found them to be two, opposing datums--two mirrors facing each other--that can cause a bit of confusion if you pick the wrong one to measure from.

Where else but in infinity can light make this fantastical hairpin turn

At unity, when you have a datum of unity instead of zero, as the RS does.

Could this 'cosmic sector' Larson proposes simply be describing a 'reflection'?

By analogy, the Cosmic sector is more like looking through a lens than in a mirror. But it is a distorting lens--not only does it flip things, it shows them inside-out.

The distinction between velocity and speed is an interesting one. Yes, I agree thatnothing would exist in the phenomenal universe since the derivative of a magnitude is zero, that being the case. But, if we live in a universe that all is accelerated, then speed is a nonsense term, literally. Our senses can only 'sense' acceleration. Newton gave this concept of speed or any uniform motion, the dignity of reality, which is undeserving. Philosophically, speed or uniform motion is merely a useful concept to arrive at the reality that change in uniform motion is what is phenomenal. Speed must be thought of as an idea, since it is neither an event nor an individual. So when you challenged me to find the center of motion of '45 miles per hour' , naturally I was stuck. I simply cannot find a center to an idea that has no reality in the physical world. To manifest the 'idea' of speed you must set it in 'motion'.

Now to the seemingly outrageous comment on my part regarding light being accelerated, here is my reasoning. Light must travel (propagate) in acceleration because my senses respond to it. I may seem to be travelling at a uniform speed simply because its radius of curvature is so incredibly large and we can only 'measure' it locally. In addition doesn't Larson's theory describe light as being propagated along with the progression of space. Since it has been observed that space expansion is accelerating, would it not be consistent with light exhibiting acceleration?

Again, I would like to see an example of any 'observable' motion in the universe that has no center. Speed and uniform motion have no center, but I see no examples of these. You may already know that the seven postulates of projective geometry require that the universe be topologically toroidal.
A donut has some unique properties. Geometrically, its CENTER, is an infinity. This makes the donut hole the geometric center of infinity. Topologically, it allows the finite and the infinite to coexist. Its boundary is the inverse numbers. The graph of the inverse numbers is the hyperbola. The toriod is a hyperboloid.
I hope I am not arguing semantics, but I see no reality in position or uniform change in position. Nor do the terms momentum, moment of inertia, moment, velocity, action have any meaning, since nature begins with 1/t^2.
Your recent revision of a couple of days ago is very interesting. Is your cubed expression for unit speed relate to the third derivative, change in acceleration? I have always wondered about this much ignored derivative and have always conceptualized it as Control. Much as a driver controls his vehicle by turning, depressing the accelerator,or braking. For your consideration; I am always eager to learn.

Regards, Louis .

Since it has been observed that space expansion is accelerating

Key word here being, "observed." The progression of the natural reference system, upon which photons hitch a ride, is a constant velocity of 1 unit of space per 1 unit of time, between absolute locations. It is an invisible, expanding grid, only detected by the presence and behavior of light at those locations. Note that the origin of measurement is NOT a location, but a speed--unity--which defines it. Once you select a specific location as a zero point of origin, velocity becomes acceleration, because now you are measuring a change in speed, relative to that reference.

since nature begins with 1/t^2

I agree with that, if you are referring to speed in the time region. See post on Interatomic Distance.

Is your cubed expression for unit speed relate to the third derivative, change in acceleration?

3rd derivative with respect to velocity (1¹), 4th derivative with respect to a point (1⁰).

Much as a driver controls his vehicle by turning, depressing the accelerator,or braking.

Interesting, and accurate, way to look at it. Let me think about acceleration for a bit, as I have to separate out scalar speeds and clock time. The frequency of light is a constant velocity, not an acceleration, and we observe it as color. I'm thinking that "observable" is the projection of uniform, yin motion into the yang, coordinate system with respect to clock time, thus manifesting as acceleration, though the underlying, scalar motion is uniform. (In other terms, acceleration = (s/t)/T, where (s/t) is the scalar motion and T is clock time--different "times," so to speak.) Also need to factor out the observer effect.

Hi Bruce.

Lots of new terms to redefine for the uninitiated.
Invisible grid... an assocition of related points? I can imagine a cubic, hyperbolic space (hypercube) expanding from its center as a tesseract that grows as cubes uniformly grow from that center. Is this what you mean? Is this expansion, however uniform, actually a natural log growth (governed by Euler's number e)? I don't know. Does this cube have optical qualities as you previously mentioned regarding cosmic sector lensing?

When you select a specific location as a zero point origin, is this ZPE? And is this the 'source' of the force (fulcrum) that allows for velocity to 'become' acceleration? Do these zero points then become centers of rotation making this accelerated motion 'absolute', thus negating its relativity? For instance, in my swivel chair I spin. Is the universe spinning around me as relativity would permit? I think it would then be inconsistent with itself for permitting the motion of stars around me to move at greater than light speed. Rotational motion must therefore be absolute.

This zero point, being dimensionless, must have no position in space. It follows that it cannot exist in time either, right? So, are you saying that velocity emerges from nothing, to 'become' something' (acceleration) in time-space? This sort of 'becoming' seems familiar to me as the process of creation.

You have no-thing (idea of motion or velocity), becoming something (energy/mass) by multiplying by 1/t . Multiply again by 1/t and you control that creation (gravity). Multiply again by 1/t and you go back to zero. You've come full circle, Yin Yang, Ying Yang... Matter appears, then disappears, then reappears ad infinitum. This cycling I suggest could be devided into an expansion(radiating) phase and a contracting (gravitation) phase.

The torus can accommodate two separate motions of space. Take the inner tube as an example. Expansion/contraction as air volume inflates/deflates and the torus structure, simultaneously, exhibiting rotation about its axis of symmetry. A really super duper symetric model. Of course, this would apply to the macro universe and equally to the micro universe of the atom. Is this a model that would be consistent with RS2?
Completely agree with your post on inter atomic distances. This integral is what I've suspected is occurring as reflection at boundaries. For your consideration.
Regards, Louis.

Invisible grid... an assocition of related points?

If you want to understand the Reciprocal System, put yourself in Larson's shoes... set the Waybac to 1955 in an easy chair in Portland, Oregon, with a pad of graph paper and a slide rule. That's how the Reciprocal System got its start, and why Larson's work is so tied to Euclidean geometry.

Have you gone through Larson's outline fo the RS? I put a copy on this site for easy reference: http://rs2theory.org/rs_outline

If you haven't, you should, as it explains the premises and how he constructs his theoretical Universe. That is the foundation that RS2 was built upon, then Nehru's Theosophical influence let to birotation (the introduction of yin into a yang system, resulting in yin-yang motion).

I will address the other points in your other reply, as the points are actually "deltas," so to speak. Larson only uses the concept of absolute location to give people a place to put their push-pin to mark a zero as reference in which to measure. Mathis's math (guess you could call it, Mathis-matics) recognizes this.