Reciprocal System Research Society

Dear Nehru,

Please see attached files.

The word document has questions and comments. I added "Sheet 2" to the Excel spreadsheet to include some more possible identifications, based on a computer model I am putting together.

Bruce

As a followup to my last reply, it also occurs to me that since "linear" motion in the time-space region is a bi-vector, the unbounded rotational motion in the time region would be a bi-rotation, so would it be possible to have a "single" rotational base?

Hi Nehru, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask me to list atoms in natural units (the notation of subatoms), rather than terms of EDU. D, He and Li aren't subatomic... the only relationship I know would be to use the 2n^2 relationship. The alpha particle, in Larson's old notation, would be 1 1/2 ...

This was the original conversation between Nehru and myself concerning time region speeds, photons, coordinate systems and other factors that lead to the incorporation of counterspace and projective geometry into the RS re-evaluation.

David Halprin's "Spin and Temporance in the RS" papers, attached as PDF files.

David Halprin's "Spin and Temporance in the RS" papers, attached as PDF files.

David Halprin's "Spin and Temporance in the RS" papers, attached as PDF files.

danmc wrote: In all three of the above mentioned systems, the Astral is "a level up", so to speak, and entirely non-physical. This got me thinking that my definition of "physical" appears to be much broader than yours... despite the same label. This kicked in a bit of pattern re...

Given the nature of rotational space (counterspace), the first manifestation with RS2 is therefore the positron, not the photon as Larson had predicted. So where does that put the RS2 photon, and how does it differ from Larson's original conception? When a second rotational motion occurs within the ...

danmc wrote: 1. Putting the cosmic sector in the "metaphysical realm". It's decidedly physical (though non "material), is it not? Yes, Larson considered it to be "physical". I'll correct the initial post. I think we've discovered another problem with the RS -- Larson's use ...