## Mass and Gravity

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.
bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Mass and Gravity

For years, I have wondered why mass has the space-time dimensions of t3/s3, which is a form of 3-dimensional energy. I think it is fairly obvious that mass is tangible and substantial--not like the other forms of energy we experience as heat and electromagnetic radiation.

I was working on the issue of atomic cohesion (Larson never finished his work on it) and in large bodies, like the Earth, the 1-x, low-speed range extends from the surface up to the gravitational limit, where the effect of gravity drops below one natural unit and progression takes over. That limit is where things fly away at the speed of light (+1), so gravity should be slower than that, a s/t (speed) relationship, since atoms are temporal displacements (1s/nt).

Gravitation, as 3D inward motion, is always towards the unit boundary (inward = toward, outward = away). But the unit boundary is NOT the surface of the planet--it is the gravitational limit... so why aren't we flying off the planet, heading for it?

Here's the solution... we are! But, the Earth, itself, is expanding under us (as scalar motion) faster than we are trying to "fly off of it," so it has the appearance of some force pushing down on us--when it is actually the Earth "pushing up" under us. This is why the equations are upside-down, gravity is the speed of Earth expansion (s3/t3) in three dimensions, not some mysterious force pushing down on us. Mass (inverse speed) is rotationally inward, meaning that gravity (speed) is radially outward--expansion.

This also explains the inverse-square law--it is NOT a property of attraction, but a property of the environment the "speed of gravity" is moving in. There are three inverse-square equations: charge (kqq/r2), magnetism (mϕϕ/r2) and gravity (Gmm/r2). The "fudge factors" (universal constants) adjust the dimensional relationships so units of force, a 1D vector, results. What these factor are, are the number of effective dimensions being distributed over the 3D, spatial environment.

The resulting motion is just the probability that the motion vectors of the two (or more) objects involved will be towards each other (radii). Picture a single radius vector, spinning randomly about inside of a sphere. What is the probability that it will happen to point in any specific direction? Easy... it's pointing at the surface area of the sphere, so "1" out of "4πr2" chances. And that's the inverse-square law, with 1/4π placed in the "Universal constant."
Every dogma has its day...

SoverT
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

### Re: Mass and Gravity

bperet wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:35 pm
Picture a single radius vector, spinning randomly about inside of a sphere. What is the probability that it will happen to point in any specific direction?
Using that analogy helps make sense of gravitational null zones. At some points on the planet, there's probably an interaction or pattern that influences the likelihood of the direction of movement

duane
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### Re: Mass and Gravity

reminding me of a book I read years ago (pre-RS)

The Final Theory
by Mark McCutcheon
He proposed both you and and the Earth are expanding as why they get together
I think he said mass expands but space doesn't
don't hold me to this as the statute of limitations on remembering has expired
I'm not sure how his theory matches RS in other matters

http://thefinaltheory.com/

bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Mass and Gravity

duane wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:35 pm
He proposed both you and and the Earth are expanding as why they get together
I think he said mass expands but space doesn't
Sounds interesting--I'll check it out. Though if he isn't expanding space (progression), then it's more a Semi-Final theory, as he only has half of it!
Every dogma has its day...

bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Mass and Gravity

duane wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:35 pm
He proposed both you and and the Earth are expanding as why they get together
I think he said mass expands but space doesn't
I read through the online material and unless I blinked and missed it, he does not actually discuss his theory anywhere--it all appears to be an "infomercial" to sell his book. The chapters presented "for free" only point out the problems with conventional theory, which is really not anything new these days... thousands of authors are doing it now... and Larson started doing it back in 1959! I don't need to pay money for that. I did not think it was possible, but he's actually worse than Larson about not getting to the point!

Without some idea of the theory and/or postulates behind it, I don't have the time and resources to invest in looking at it further.
Every dogma has its day...

bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Inverse Square

Here's something interesting about looking at mass and gravity differently...

In the RS, atomic motion occurs in the time region, a 2nd power "speed" to conventional space (s/t becomes 1/t2). The atomic rotation is magnetic, described by Larson as a "double-rotating system" (a solid rotation) defined by two, interpenetrating disks sharing a common axis. Disk #1 has the speeds of A-A, and #2, A-B (giving the A-B magnetic rotation of the A-B-C displacements). TWO of these solid rotations form the basis for gravity, as each can contribute a 1-unit "inward" motion... the first neutralizes the progression (+1 → 0) and the second creates gravitation (0 → -1).

If we put this to "probability," then for a single disk, there is a 1 :: 2πr chance that the net motion will be where we want it to. Two, interpenetrating disks form a solid rotation, so only 1 :: 4πr2 chance. HOWEVER, because the time region is a "2nd power" to the time-space region (conventional space), the square root of that probability must be taken to get the net probability, as sqrt(1/t2) → s/t. That means the probability of attraction is 1 :: 2πr in the outside region, from atomic rotation--a planar rotation, not a spherical one.

Due to the recursion of the time region, there are multiple vectors spinning around, so the probability is increased with larger mass, being n/2πr, where n is the recursion depth--what we call "mass."

When two masses interact, having depths of A and B, the probability is the same as spinning a roulette wheel... in America, you have a 1:38 chance of your number coming up, "per atom." Two atoms are like two roulette wheels--except you only get to spin the second one, should a "0" come up on the first. If you get a second "0", you win. Odds of doing that are 1:38 × 1:38 = 1/1444. That means for atoms, the probability of "gravity" comes down to:

A/2πr × B/2πr = AB/(4π2r2)

If we factor out the constants of 4 and π, and make it some "universal constant" like "G"... we get:

$probability = G \frac{AB}{r^2}$

The basis of the inverse-square law.
Every dogma has its day...

bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Mass and Gravity

I made a simple diagram to explain "gravity" as nothing more than probability of two objects moving towards each other, in a rotationally-distributed scalar system.

Larson states that beyond the gravitational limit (about the orbit of the moon for us), we are in "equivalent space," which is a 2-dimensional space--not at all like the 3D space we live in, inside the gravitational limit, here on the surface. What that means is that astronomic bodies attract in a 2D fashion, even though they are distributed 3-dimensionally--circles, not spheres!

You can look at Nehru's "Lifetime of the neutron" paper for a lesson on probabilities, regarding the scalar motion of the proton and antineutrino coming apart in the neutron. The situation is similar with gravity:
..
Inverse Square as Probability
Inverse Square.png (28.42 KiB) Viewed 203 times
..
The probability is the same for two bodies pointing at each other (spin two roulette wheels enough times to get a "0" on both of them at the same time), or one is nested inside the other. Same factors involved. When they line up, you get a gravitational influence, which is why "gravity" is so weak--it is just a very low probability of it happening!

Magnetic and electric attraction are also probability... except that it is more probable that magnetism will line up than gravity, and very probable (50/50) that dielectric lines of force will, as it is just a 1D system.

I know; new way to look at a "given" that was taught in school, but IMHO, it makes a lot more sense than magical "gravitons" somehow sucking things together.
Every dogma has its day...

SoverT
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

### Re: Mass and Gravity

For some reason I was under the impression you had found a way to avoid needing probabilities and randomness in RS2.
Was that the case, and probabilities are just useful to approximate a deterministic but too-complicated system?

It's of particular interest to me since I'm attempting to build a simulation foundation without reference to geometries generated from preferred reference frames, and a postulate indicating a random element at the scalar realm level would be problematic.

bperet
Posts: 1321
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Probability and Determinism

SoverT wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:01 am
For some reason I was under the impression you had found a way to avoid needing probabilities and randomness in RS2.
Was that the case, and probabilities are just useful to approximate a deterministic but too-complicated system?
Yes. There are two factors involved, the number of variables and the unknown variables influencing the system (the "beyond space and time" effects). With cosmic sector knowledge, the RS greatly reduces the randomness due to the nonlocality of temporal influence (the magical forces and fields of conventional science), but we do not yet have sufficient information to determine the variables for the non-physical (beyond s/t) influences.
SoverT wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:01 am
It's of particular interest to me since I'm attempting to build a simulation foundation without reference to geometries generated from preferred reference frames, and a postulate indicating a random element at the scalar realm level would be problematic.
In order to get a totally deterministic system, you would need to track the entire history of every motion, so at any point in space or time, you would be able to calculate its orientation and properties. And since the RS is "steady state," not "big bang," there is no "starting point" of which to being an historical account. So it becomes a matter of probability that you'll find a motion in the state you want it in.
Every dogma has its day...