Things is getting clear in my head these days. Wired. I have to revise my questions by making some some statements as follows and hope anyone can tell me if I get it right.

Since in RS2 rotation is primary, there is no need for a progression of space-time as a basic motion proposed by Larson. Extension space is just one of the manifestation of space to us and the other one is couterspace. The progression of space-time is just an illusion of the projection of motions. Photon is one-dimensional scalar rotation manifested to us as Yang aspect of motion as bi-rotation. Atom is composed of two bi-rotation disk perpendicular to each other rotating in another dimension which forms two two-dimensional rotational motions. Larson's atom need something to rotate, but in RS2 photon is rotation, no need another rotation to form a disk, more simpler.

## questions for the deductions of RS2

### Some basics

In RS2, there are TWO primary motions:Since in RS2 rotation is primary, there is no need for a progression of space-time as a basic motion proposed by Larson.

*linear velocity*(which is what Larson recognizes) and

*angular velocity*(added by Nehru, see The Law of Conservation of Direction). The progression of the natural reference system is just the speed (datum) at which

**both**these speeds are measured. For angular velocity, speed is measured in radians per second, rather than meters per second. A radian is just a circumferential distance, so it has similar units to linear distance.

The progression of space-time is just the natural datum of motion. Because we are dealing with the multiplicative inverse, "1" is the center of the scale, with opposite sides of 1/n and n/1. 1/1 is what Larson calls the progression. The progression is basically what is "clocking" the system--a clock

*speed*, rather than just the aspects of clock time and clock space.

Extension space is the "space" we are accustomed to (not to be confused with "equivalent space"). We have found that extension space isExtension space is just one of the manifestation of space to us and the other one is couterspace.

*created*by the observer, who defines the reference system. In the scalar realm, there is no up, down, right, left, forward or backward--there is only a "speed delta" between objects (magnitudes). You need someone to observe the scalar relations in order to make the assumptions of which way is up, right and forward, in order to create a 3D coordinate system for extension space.

Counterspace comes from Rudolf Steiner, carried into projective geometry by Nick Thomas. Counterspace is the "inside realm" as compared to the "outside realm" of normal space. For example, when you look out of your eyeballs, you see normal space--outside of you. During a meditation, you introspect and look "inward" into counterspace, that realm that is behind your eyeballs.

The "progression" is not a thing, it is just the unit speed datum. It is like the "default speed" for everything, and it is the default speed in all dimensions. As it is not a "thing", it is not an "illusion" either. It is just where things start off--unit velocity. And that is either linear (moving linearly at the speed of light) or angular (moving rotationally at the speed of light--Larson's "rotational base").The progression of space-time is just an illusion of the projection of motions.

"Bi" meansPhoton is one-dimensional scalar rotation manifested to us as Yang aspect of motion as bi-rotation.

*two*, so it is a 2-dimensional scalar rotation that manifests as a 1-dimensional wave in RS2. Many people in the RS objected to Larsons description of the photon, because any wave is an accelerated motion--not a constant velocity. Nehru's solution fixed many of the photon problems, but was also a bit of a conceptual change from Larson.

Note... my last scalar motion simulation demonstrated that there are actually SIX types of photon rotations, that result in the conventional wave structure. The simplest structure is heat; the most complex is the quadruple rotational base that resides in life units. They all reduce to a simple cosine function, but when they interact with things, the behaviors are radically different.

A particle (such as the proton) is constructed of two, perpendicular disks (see Fundamentals of Scalar Motion). That is called a "double rotating system." Atoms are comprised ofAtom is composed of two bi-rotation disk perpendicular to each other rotating in another dimension which forms two two-dimensional rotational motions.

**two**of these double-rotating systems (taking up 2 dimensions, one dimension per double-rotation) and an optional 3rd rotation in the inverse aspect. Conventional atoms have the two double-rotating systems in time (magnetic), with the optional 3rd rotation in space (the electric rotation).

Correct. Larson only dealt with theLarson's atom need something to rotate, but in RS2 photon is rotation, no need another rotation to form a disk, more simpler.

*linear*aspect of motion (yang), as conventional science does. Hence, he had to come up with a device to get a rotation (the yin side) out of it--making a line (direction reversal) than spinning the line (rotational base). RS2 accepts that, in a vacuum, you can throw a ball and it will move in a straight line forever (yang), OR you can spin it on its access, and it will spin forever (yin). So in RS2, the rotational base shows up first, and then forms a birotation to create a photon.

Another thing to note is that we have discovered that all vibratory motion tends to be the consequence of shear strain--two things rubbing in opposite directions (like birotation). Vibration, like heat, sound and light, are the consequence of primary motions (linear and angular) not being in harmony. Consider for yourself... how do you make a sine wave? Rub a bow on a violin string. The sound is an attempt to "balance the imbalance."

Every dogma has its day...

### Thank you Bruce.

Thank you Bruce.

Since rotation is also primary and "During a meditation, you introspect and look "inward" into counterspace", in every location of extension space there is a rotational motion in unit speed, in 3 scalar dimensions. This means that every location in space is a rotational base (i think i have seen this statment in one of your post).This rotation base actually exists inside the unit boundary. Any deviation from it manifest as particles. By adding 1 unit of time into this RS2 rotational base, we get positron(M 0-0-1).

Am i right?

Since rotation is also primary and "During a meditation, you introspect and look "inward" into counterspace", in every location of extension space there is a rotational motion in unit speed, in 3 scalar dimensions. This means that every location in space is a rotational base (i think i have seen this statment in one of your post).This rotation base actually exists inside the unit boundary. Any deviation from it manifest as particles. By adding 1 unit of time into this RS2 rotational base, we get positron(M 0-0-1).

Am i right?

### Unit angular velocity

Yes. Larson only considered a linear progression, basically everything flying apart at the speed of light. It wasn't until Prof. Nehru came up with the idea of angular velocity also being primary that we can also have an "angular progression," which appears as a unit speed rotation (spinning at the speed of light).Am i right?

Of course, unit speed is the equivalent of nothing; so a displacement will produce something. (If you've ever read the Ra Material, Ra mentions that the "first distortion" is that of free will--opposing the unity.)

Every dogma has its day...

### A thought

There is something, that keeps running in my head for quite some time. Maybe it's not very important, since this is more a metaphysical speculation, but what if there are

**two**different units for the two primary motions, which are ultimately incommensurable by one another? - just as in the plain simple common sense Euclidean geometry, where the radius and the circumference are incommesurable - thus the radian is (angular) equivalent to the (linear) radius, but can never fill up the circumference with integer times of itself. Analogically between the linear and the angular units of motion there will be always some remainder of excess or deficiency. But since the physical universe is constructed**only**with units, those remainders would not manifest**until**they accumulate adding up to a whole unit (in a manner, similar to that, how the remainders of the year, measured in days, accumulate and add up to a whole day in the leap-year). Then it would seem as if occasionally some units of motion (angular or linear) pop up out of nowhere, while others maybe dissapear into nothing, which would create "deffects" in the measurements (uncertainty), introducing indeterminism in an otherwise "clockwork universe". Maybe I am wrong in this assumption, but it seems to me that this could make the model essentially dualistic - there will be two primary motions with fundamentally different nature (linear and angular), which are partly convertible, but ultimately irreducible to one another or to some more general concept of motion. And such a view in my opinion is more close to reality than the monistic belief in the alleged "unity of all things" (a cultural prejudice, imposed by the religions, conveniently maintained by the state, i.e. because of politics, not truth).### Speed and units of motion

One of the tenants of the RS put forth by Larson, was that the

As you mentioned, linear and angular speeds are incommensurable, but they are

Larson's two units of motion system is the same, philosophically, as yin-yang. Yin and yang are inseparable, if you have one, you have the other. Larson used a similar concept to describe motion in the video, using a box as motion, with yang=outside and yin=inside. If you have a box, you have an inside and outside, if you have an inside, you must have an outside, an outside must have an inside and an inside with an outside means you have a box (unit boundary). It is the same concept as yin-yang, but just in mechanical terms.

Coming from an electrical engineering background, I represent 1-dimensional speed as a complex quantity, to account for the 2 units of motion: 1 + 0j = linear/yang and 0+1j = angular/yin. The form the motion takes is dependent upon interaction, as motion will interact in such a way as to reduce the net speed to unity, which is the concept behind chemical bonding, as described in the latter half of

By using a complex number for speed the displacement is the radius, so a speed of 0.7071+0.7071j still has a magnitude ("absolute value" in math) of 1. This is where your fractional parts come into play, because there is still a unit speed, the effective motion in space and time is zero, being less than 1 unit on either axis.

Interesting correlation of unexpressed fractional parts to "uncertainty." I had never thought of that. You may be right.

So the RS (and myself) are in agreement with you; linear speed (space) and angular speed (equivalent space) are incommensurable, but also inseparable.

*effective*magnitude of motion is discrete, in other words, a speed of 0.999 = 0, 1.0001 = 1. The math function: effective = floor(magnitude). The magnitude (speed), itself, can contain fractional parts. That goes along with your idea of "filling up" a speed to reach a discrete unit boundary. This is particularly noticeable in the time region. Using just 1 dimension, the effect on space outside the unit space boundary is equivalent to the natural log of the temporal displacement within: ds = ln(dt). As such, there is no effect on space until the temporal displacement is 3 or more, since ln(3) = 1.1. (Why particles do not gravitate.)As you mentioned, linear and angular speeds are incommensurable, but they are

*convertible*, as the above equation illustrates. A rotation in the time region is an angular velocity, yet it has a linear influence on the space outside the unit boundary. This equates to Larson's two "units of motion" in a single dimension, the first unit being speed (s/t) and the second energy (t/s). If you start with speed (linear s/t), you are convertible to energy (spin t/s). If you start with energy (atomic rotation) you are convertible to speed (linear, inward gravitation).Larson's two units of motion system is the same, philosophically, as yin-yang. Yin and yang are inseparable, if you have one, you have the other. Larson used a similar concept to describe motion in the video, using a box as motion, with yang=outside and yin=inside. If you have a box, you have an inside and outside, if you have an inside, you must have an outside, an outside must have an inside and an inside with an outside means you have a box (unit boundary). It is the same concept as yin-yang, but just in mechanical terms.

Coming from an electrical engineering background, I represent 1-dimensional speed as a complex quantity, to account for the 2 units of motion: 1 + 0j = linear/yang and 0+1j = angular/yin. The form the motion takes is dependent upon interaction, as motion will interact in such a way as to reduce the net speed to unity, which is the concept behind chemical bonding, as described in the latter half of

*Nothing But Motion*. (Two factors come into play, speed and orientation. Atoms and molecules will reorient themselves in a way to bring the net speed to unity, and without any net motion, the molecule become stable.)By using a complex number for speed the displacement is the radius, so a speed of 0.7071+0.7071j still has a magnitude ("absolute value" in math) of 1. This is where your fractional parts come into play, because there is still a unit speed, the effective motion in space and time is zero, being less than 1 unit on either axis.

Interesting correlation of unexpressed fractional parts to "uncertainty." I had never thought of that. You may be right.

So the RS (and myself) are in agreement with you; linear speed (space) and angular speed (equivalent space) are incommensurable, but also inseparable.

Every dogma has its day...

### I think i have got the whole

I think i have got the whole story of a universe of motion. In a universe of motion there just interation of motions and how we perceive them(the observer effect, the process of projection). Firstly, there is a motion whic is rotation. For the creation and the perception of this rotation we need a reciprocal system to observe, which we call space/time. When we peceive this rotation in space, we get a spinnig field expands over the whole space (same thing happens when you are in time), so it is also translational when presenting to us. it now have a speed because it have a relation of space/time when we observe it. The speed of this motion is none and all, so it is unity. Then conciousness create another rotational motion that opposing this rotation forming vibrations (focus process refered by Ra). Therefore, the souce field of the whole universe is a rotational motion, also called tortion field by the others. The galaxy was created by opposing this field and forming a spiral field structure in its basic. Intersections of this spiral forms a energy web throughout the galaxy. Same principle can be apply to earth and a human. That is how earth and humans have energy centers and a energy web. Density is really a good concept for understanding vibrations. As the frequency go higher, more dimensions vibration occupied, and higher density it is. 8 Densities together can be another 1st density(infinite frequency/unity), therefore there can be multi-dimensions in one vibration, and that is how human beings can be multi-dimension entities.

These concepts are really simple and explain a lot about such things like aether, chi, torsion field, anti-gravity tech, spiral light, chakra, acupunture et.,al. It also explains why there is no past and future but just now. In the reality, there are only vibrations.

These concepts are really simple and explain a lot about such things like aether, chi, torsion field, anti-gravity tech, spiral light, chakra, acupunture et.,al. It also explains why there is no past and future but just now. In the reality, there are only vibrations.

### Illumination of the Sun

By Jove, I think you've got it! What people miss is that the Reciprocal System is just a scientific approach to a very old yin-yang philosophy. Once you equate the RS terms with philosophies that you understand, then it makes a lot of sense--and you can apply mathematics and geometry to it, which you could not do in the old days.

The details take some time to work out, but you've got the general idea.

The details take some time to work out, but you've got the general idea.

Every dogma has its day...