Newbie - where to start?

This forum is dedicated to the student just starting out with the concepts of the Reciprocal System, or RS2. Questions and clarifications for the RS/RS2 concepts go here; please place new ideas and commentary in the appropriate RS2 fora.
Post Reply
wright_de@hotmail.com
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:16 am

Newbie - where to start?

Post by wright_de@hotmail.com » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:10 pm

hello all. Just found this site and I am very interested. Can anyone suggest the best place to start learning /studying /reading? I just watched the intro videos.... Now where? What books and/or papers should I begin with and in what order? Also, sounds like some material may be a little outdated on RS1 site and updated on RS2....is there any material I should pass on the RS1 site? Thanks Doug

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Start at

Post by Horace » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:49 pm

RS2 does not replace RS1 - it bulds upon it.

IMO it would be best to start at the foundation of RS1 - the Nothing but Motion.

This forum has several interesting threads on RS2, too. For example you might want to look at bperet's posts in this thread.

If you can think in terms of speed rather than in terms of length, then you should be OK.

...and remember that the point of view of a material gravitating observer is not motionless and not the only one.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Starting points

Post by bperet » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:27 am

I usually recommend Larson's book, The Neglected Facts of Science, as a starting point. It points out some of the flaws in conventional physics. Short book and probably one of the easier ones to understand.

If you want a quick outline of Larson's work, he did an outline of it, here:

Outline of the Deductive Development of the Reciprocal System of theory

One of the better books to read after that is New Light on Space and Time, which is completely sold out. (There are no more books left.) I did take one of the last copies, ripped it apart, and scanned it in to a PDF and put it on the ReciprocalSystem.org site, here, free for personal use.

New Light on Space and Time (eBook)

Horace is correct that RS2 is built upon Larson's Reciprocal System. We just "updated" it with knowledge taken from how computers generate artificial realities, since they appear to do it the same way Larson does--starting with only scalar magnitudes (numbers) and building very realistic environments. As a result, we've been able to eliminate some of the "epicycles" from Larson's original work, such as the "direction reversal" idea to explain simple, harmonic motion. This has opened the door to many more conclusions, particularly in the biologic areas, and those "Beyond Space and Time."
Every dogma has its day...

jcdoss
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:25 pm

Re: Newbie - where to start?

Post by jcdoss » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:21 pm

Hi guys. Long time listener, first time caller. Well, not really... just wanted to say that.

I just discovered all this a few weeks ago and have been trying to work my way through Nothing but Motion, with supplements here and there from Bruce's tutorials. Dr. Larson's writing is thick and difficult to follow, and doesn't help the fact that RS is supposed to be a simpler way to think about the universe.

Anyway, I'm about to start chapter 13 ("Physical Constants"). After spending considerable effort to understand a photon, that a photon is the center of an atom (actually, two photons), and the complexities of the rotational motion the units must undertake in previous chapters. After pausing to supplement that understanding with information here, I find that RS2 has scrapped the idea of a photon being a simple oscillation, and the idea of needing "something to rotate" in order to build a particle of matter. Are there more major contradictions to come? Is it worth moving forward, or should I switch to a different source?

Also, in chapter 12, I came across a statement where Larson up and says, "...there can be no physical distance less than one natural unit, which, as we will see in the next chapter, is 4.56 x 10-6 cm," before saying something about measured distances being smaller. Is this still considered current or correct? Having a background in biology/pathology, there's no way 45nm could be unit size, evidenced by electron micrograph images like the one below. Everything else seems so elegant, so hopefully you guys can enlighten me or show me what I misunderstood?
phage.gif
phage.gif (134.29 KiB) Viewed 1522 times

Alexis
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:42 am

Re: Newbie - where to start?

Post by Alexis » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:52 am

jcdoss wrote:
Is it worth moving forward, or should I switch to a different source?
I'd say only you can know that, depending on what you are seeking. RS theory is far from complete and i honestly doubt any serious theory will ever be... that would indicate omniscience and the end of the quest, and human understanding is far from that. An all cooked up answer to the universe is the job of the Sandman.

Nonetheless you question is very pertinent, my quick take on it is that the natural units pertain to the concept of motion and the natural reference system. Measured distances are in the realm of coordinate space where time is normalised. If you read Larson's work further you will find that he can calculate inter-atomic distances from his atomic rotational notation. The values he arrive at are in close accordance with the measured ones, given in the range of 0-6 angstroms (A=0.1nm), which is way smaller than the natural unit of space and that doesn't seem to bugger him, maybe it should have.

Probably someone else here can provide a more detailed and/or pertinent answer, thats the most i can do now without doing a several chapters post, for which i have no time. One thing for sure, if you are into free puzzles, thats the right place.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Newbie - where to start?

Post by bperet » Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:01 am

jcdoss wrote:After pausing to supplement that understanding with information here, I find that RS2 has scrapped the idea of a photon being a simple oscillation, and the idea of needing "something to rotate" in order to build a particle of matter. Are there more major contradictions to come? Is it worth moving forward, or should I switch to a different source?
I started a paper as a preliminary to a reevaluation of electric theory that starts with a comparison of Larson versus RS2 models of the photon and 1-dimensional rotation. I will post the first 7 pages of that--haven't really even proofread it yet, so it might be a nice time to get some comments from the new folks as to how understandable it is. It assumes you've at least made an attempt to read Larson's basic material, and tries to clarify it and show the differences with RS2. I will do it as a separate topic, to make it easier to find.
jcdoss wrote:Also, in chapter 12, I came across a statement where Larson up and says, "...there can be no physical distance less than one natural unit, which, as we will see in the next chapter, is 4.56 x 10-6 cm," before saying something about measured distances being smaller. Is this still considered current or correct? Having a background in biology/pathology, there's no way 45nm could be unit size, evidenced by electron micrograph images like the one below. Everything else seems so elegant, so hopefully you guys can enlighten me or show me what I misunderstood?
The only thing we can observe and measure is the linear distance between locations in 3D space, where time runs constant. That is what you see in a microscope.

Atoms, however, are composed of temporal rotation--moving outward in time, and by the inverse relation between time and space, also moving inward in space. So place two atoms at 1 unit apart, 45.5 nm, and the temporal, rotating systems "suck" them closer together via gravitation, reducing the apparent, "linear spatial" distance between them. The larger the atom, the stronger the pull and the shorter the distance. Larson address this mathematically in Basic Properties of Matter in the chapter on Inter-atomic distances.

You only get the 45.5 nm separation at unit speed--once atoms are involved, the temporal motion that creates the gravitation that holds them together pulls them closer (in equivalent space).
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply