Reciprocal System Research Society

I've always had trouble with Nehru's concepts of the "nuclear" (1d) and "atomic" (3d) zones within the time region. I guess I could never figure out why there would be such a division, because there is really nothing different about one part of the time region as compared to another.

While working on writing up my notes for building a ZPM (Zero Point Module--tapping power from the quantum vacuum fluxuations), and analyzing why my first attempt went up with such a bang, it finally hit me as to what the difference actually is, between these two zones.

A lot of the ZPM study centers around the electron and electron neutrino and their motion thru wiring to produce effective work. I noticed that the behavior of an electron in a conductor is different from one in free space, and the same apparently holds true for the photon and neutrino, as well.

That's when it hit me... in RS2, the electron is the cosmic positron. Like the photon, the non-local aspect of a positron would be a wave function spread out across infinity. But, what I missed was when the electron is trapped in the 'time' of the time region, it exists in counterspace, and the "infinity of the universe" runs only from the unit space boundary, to the center of the region -- counterspace infinity!

And if the electron exists in the "time" of the atom (being a temporal displacement), then the atom must also exist in the "space" of the electron (being a spatial displacement), which means that there MUST be a 3-dimensional "space" zone (the space region of the electron) that would appear in the time region as a one-dimensional effect--just as atomic rotation appears as "mass" outside the region.

That's when Nehru's nuclear and atomic zones started to make sense...

Atomic Zone: zone of 3-dimensional time, where the atomic rotations take place.

Nuclear Zone: zone of 1-dimensional time, where the nuclear interactions of photons and electrons takes place.

Add to this, the presence of cosmic particles in the time region...

Atomic Zone: zone of 3d time (atomic rotation), and 1d space (unit space).

Nuclear Zone: zone of 3d space (electron rotation), and 1d time (temporal displacement in atom).

Thus, the Nuclear and Atomic zones are just conjugates of each other... the nuclear zone being the projection of the cosmic "space region" in the atom.

See attachment Figure 1 for a graphic representation.

Continuing on with these thoughts... a lot more things about the atom start to makes sense in this light. Take, for example, Hydrogen. It is composed of a proton and a charged, electron neutrino. Legacy science sees it as a proton/electron pair, and technically, it has sufficient temporal displacement to capture a free, uncharged electron.

Going back to Gopi's discussion of the "spin" experiment with silver atoms... when doing the analysis of the results, the fact that the atom is comprised of TWO double-rotating systems. In Hydrogen, the time region of the proton and the time region of the electron neutrino must both exist, simultaneously. If there were only a single time region, the displacement of the neutrino would add to the proton, making it a deuteron.

But because the two time regions coincide in space, does not mean they coincide in time. But they are obviously in close interaction. So, re-enter bi-rotation, in a slightly different form... a "solid bi-rotation", where the two time regions interact two-dimensionally, rather than the single dimension of the photon or electron. The result of this interaction... a magnetic moment... rather than creating the SHM of a wave, it creates a rotational vibration that is integral, atomic magnetism--a phenomenon which is non-local in space, and therefore local in time.

Putting these concepts of conjugate nuclear/atomic zones together with the bi-rotating regions, and a very interesting model develops. Atoms become a magnetic dipole, surrounded by a cloud of cosmic particles (electrons) which, by nature of their cosmic existence, are moving faster-than-light. And anything that moves in the intermediate and ultra-high speed ranges emits discrete and quantized signatures, such as atomic energy levels and quantized emission of photons, just like the astronomical pulsar. The "nuclear electrons" aren't organized in the time of the time region, but in the 3-d space of the cosmic sector.

See attachment Figure 2 for a graphic representation.

I still have a lot more research to do on this, and I'm not even sure it is a viable theory at this point. I'll probably attempt a computer simulation of it shortly, just to see what it actually does from a purely logical rule set.

But I find the idea quite fascinating, and it does seem to fit the available facts. Any opinions are welcome.

Hi,

You are right,your brain does go at warp speed!Had to read your mail three times to make any sense of it.I am attaching a comparison between the space and the counterspace properties.I noticed that in matching the two,the cosmic and the material labels are inverted.It must be because of the '1-d effect' which you mention here:

bperet wrote:

there MUST be a 3-dimensional "space" zone (the space region of the electron) that would appear in the time region as a one-dimensional effect--just as atomic rotation appears as "mass" outside the region.

Could you make the comparison a bit clearer?

gopiv wrote:

bperet wrote:

...there MUST be a 3-dimensional "space" zone (the space region of the electron) that would appear in the time region as a one-dimensional effect--just as atomic rotation appears as "mass" outside the region.

Could you make the comparison a bit clearer?

Easier said than done, because I don't know what particular concept(s) you are having difficulty with, and this is built on a lot of concepts.

Let me start with some basics, just for clarification:

1) Unit speed is equivalent to zero displacement, so when we measure something, the "origin" (or zero) of the system is unit speed.

2) The unit space boundary of the time region is therefore measured as "zero", since it is 1/1.

3) Infinity is the inverse of zero, which is created by the Affine projection, and therefore represents the opposite extreme of measurement. Think of it in the sense that "zero" is the closest you can get, and "infinity" is the farthest you can get.

4) When you stand on at zero, you can look in two directions: outward (macrocosm) and inward (microcosm). Just like if you were a box with eyes... you could look at the outside world that holds you, or the inside world that you contain.

5) The infinity of the macrocosm is represented by a "plane", which defines parallel and orthogonal relationships.

6) The infinity of the microcosm is represented by a "point", which defines radial (polar version of parallel) and circumferential (polar version of orthogonal) relationshps.

7) Planes and points are referred to as "duals" in projective geometry, which means it only takes 3 coordinates to define them -- (a,b,c) is a point, as commonly understood, or a plane that passes thru the point x=a,y=b,z=c. Outside the world of sensory perception (like in an array in a computer), there is no way to distinguish between the point and the plane.

8) Our physical sensory system, therefore, defines how we interpret the point/plane duality; we view the macrocosm as planar and the microcosm as polar, because of the "illusion" we create with our senses. In "reality", they are just coordinates without the connotation of point nor plane; simply ratios of ratios.

9) Based on the "Octave" discovery, ANY DISPLACEMENT OF UNITY is equivalent to a SPEED OF UNITY, and can break down into a pair of inverses, since 1 = n/1 * 1/n. The natural datum of the universe is one such unity--a displacement of 1 in the octave, and the speed of light (1).

10) The time region is another such "Unity", in the aspect of space. It is therefore logical to assume that the UNIT SPACE can also break down into a pair of inverses, 1/t * t/1; speed (atomic) and energy (nuclear) representations.

11) Based on our physical sense perception, we then view the speeds in the time region (1/t) as "polar" -- atomic "rotations", what Nehru refers to as the "atomic zone".

12) Note that I DID NOT say 1/t², because 't' in this sense is POLAR MOTION, which we interpret as 2-dimensional. The second power relationship is an artifact of the transformation from polar to Euclidean geometry (where our measuring instruments exist), which Larson refers to as "s = 1/t, therefore speed s/t = (1/t)/t = 1/t²". Which is fine, until you realize that you are dealing with an imaginary number, not a real one. Then you discover that it was just a device Larson used to account for a geometric inverse he did not recognize at the time.

13) Our physical senses are designed to interpret spatial relationships, not temporal ones. Therefore, we see "speeds" as localized and coordinate in nature (3-dimensional), and "energy" as a non-local field effect (1-dimensional "magnitude", since we cannot perceive the actual, temporal coordinates).

14) The other aspect of the time region, t/1, is what Nehru refers to as the "Nuclear Zone", because it is inverse speed or "energy", and as such, is non-local, and appears to our senses as 1-dimensional. Of course it ISN'T one-dimensional, it is every bit as 3-dimensional as the atomic rotation, but in a region we can only perceive a single dimension of -- like our sense of "clock time" version temporal coordinates.

15) The electron, being a c-positron in RS2, is still a "rotating unit of space", but being cosmic, it is localized in TIME (1/s -- the space region). And yes, I realize Larson's terms are confusing, because the relationship s/t is called "time-space", and you have a "time region" in space, and a "space region" in time. I guess it is like "driving on a parkway" and "parking on a driveway." But we're kind of stuck with it.

16) So where does an electron "go" when it encounters the temporal displacement of an atom? It's structure is "1/s", so the "1/t" Atomic zone is off limits, because space cannot exist concurrently with time, as it does not constitute motion. Therefore, the electron is captured in the "t/1" Nuclear zone, because the relationship of t/s DOES constitute motion, which we then measure as electron "energy" or "charge" about an "atomic core."

17) The electrons captured in the Nuclear zone measure as a one-dimensional effect, because of the perceptual biases mentioned above. But the electrons still have COORDINATE TIME locations in the t/1 Nuclear zone.

18) Given my re-definition of "displacement", where d = (t-s) rather than Larson's d=t-1 or d=s-1, electrons can exist at different speeds (energies), in discrete, quantum steps, since a speed of 54/53 still equals 0-0-(1).

19) The normal "speeds" in the atomic zone will also have a 1-dimension "energy" in the Nuclear zone, since it is part of the 1/t * t/1 = 1 dichotomy, but these energies will be quantized, since they are all moving faster than unity (speed of light). The energy should appear as a series of 1-dimensional, distribute "inverse speed" shells. (See Larson's works on white dwarfs and pulsars, concerning the emission of quantized radiation).

20) The interaction between the atomic and nuclear zones will therefore produce a series of discrete, "energy" levels. These levels should be determined by the speeds of the electrons settling into these "shell" locations where their speed is neutralized by the non-local expression of atomic speed.

21) When other motions interact with the atom or electrons, those motions will adjust the component motions of the atom/electron system to again reach a neutral speed condition (since all seeks unity). Photons or other electrons entering the region will add to the electron speed, moving them to a different shell with a compatible speed zone, or emit excess motion (photons) to achieve unit speed in a particular zone.

22) When other material motions intersect the atom, such as neutrinos or m-positrons, the atomic motion is altered, changing the "shell" speeds in the Nuclear zone. Therefore, when one is considering the energy levels, not only does the atomic number come into play, but also the isotopic mass of the atom, when determining spectra.

Hopefully, this will clarify things. I did it point-by-point so you can identify key elements for further clarification.

Again I put out the warning... PRELIMINARY WORK. So far, the conceptual logic works beautifully, but there are undoubtedly things that I missed, based on how much I missed over the last 15 years of research with Larson's material!

Comments welcome.