Is there any graph depicting the RS atom and sub-atom particles

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Turn-about

Post by bperet » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:01 pm

Russell has also put a copy of his research on the main site, so it can be commented on by section: Bi-radial Matrix.

I think Horace's objections may be related to the lack of "postulates" for the Bi-radial matrix system. The observer/observation perspective is not stated clearly, so the reader is left to whatever assumptions they currently have about what you are looking at, and how it is being transformed. It would be probably be very helpful to include some introductory material stating that this is done from a material-sector observer viewing the coordinate realm of extension space.

For example, when I look at the diagrams, I see the equally-angled radial lines not as a measurement of a bounded angle, but a representation of constant, angular speed. If the angular separation increased or decreased going around the point, then it would indicate an acceleration or deceleration. (Assumptions made because I use projective geometry pencils a lot. May not be at all what Russell intended!) By treating it as the projection of angular speed, you don't run in to the problems of trying to represented an unbounded angle in a linear reference system, since angular velocity is always finite (whereas the turn angle, itself, isn't).
This re-cycling after 360 degrees is the "wave" function integral with the physical universe and the human reference system is a vvalid reference system.
That is a very interesting observation. The turn is an unbounded, 1D angle in time, analogous to its distance counterpart. Projection requires integration, or as Nehru puts it, dimensional expansion: 1D time becomes 2D space, just as when moving 1D space into the time region, you get 2D time and hence the t2 relationship in the time region. When a turn shows up as an angle, it is 2D--a circle--but like any integration, there must also be a constant of integration, which is the number of times that 2D circle occurs in the same space: frequency.
Every dogma has its day...

user737
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

Re: Observation is defined by Interaction

Post by user737 » Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:04 am

bperet wrote:
Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:03 pm
This is a very important point--what we observe is defined by INTERACTION. For example, the photon out by itself is NEITHER a wave nor a particle... it's just a speed. Only during its interaction does observation give it geometric structure...
Based on the work of Rudolf Steiner, George Adams, Lawrence Edwards, and Nick Thomas:
http://nct.goetheanum.org/ethers.htm

When dealing with the states of matter we worked with point linkages between space and counter space. For the ethers (as the more subtle aspects of reality are called by Steiner) we are concerned with planar linkages. The most suitable linkage tensor for light is the contravariant bivector, represented by a cone in counter space (dual to the oriented-circle-representation in space). It is suitable for polar affine linkages characteristic of light. This turned out to be an investigation of actual counter space cones acting as photons, the polar area of a photon cone being constant. Thus photons are initially neither waves nor particles. Their polar area embraces the whole of the apparatus and so the "spooky" multi-path type experiments of modern physics may be more comprehensible. Reflection, refraction, absorption and diffraction are all treated on this basis in Reference 11.

This led to the conclusion that time is the reciprocal of radial turn i.e. the turn between spatially parallel planes. Thus time increases outward from the CSI in counter space. The consequence is that light itself does not in fact have a velocity, but it appears to have one in ordinary space, and moreover that is necessarily constant without the necessity for Relativity. This follows because the product of the radial distance of the apex of a cone from a CSI, and the turn of the orthogonal plane in the apex, is constant. An interaction must occur at the apex (Reference 11), so if the turn is the reciprocal of the time then we have a constant ratio of distance to time, which seems like a velocity for our spatial consciousness. It is independent of the state of motion of the observer.
Time.gif
Time.gif (3.42 KiB) Viewed 117 times
We see two CSIs emitting photon cones (yellow) interacting at their apices. Since the turn T increases inwards while the radial distance increases outwards, and T is inversely proportional to r, we have r1.T1=r2.T2, so r1/t1=r2/t2=c, a constant which is clearly the so-called velocity of light. The light represented by the polar area is not moving in this way, but an interaction forces the cone to adopt a particular configuration instantaneously, which then gives the appearance of a velocity when interpreted spatially.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

Post Reply