RS2 Tutorial Book

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.
User avatar
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

RS2 Tutorial Book

Post by bperet » Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:28 pm

I have been putting together all my notes of the last 25 years, assembling it into a RS/RS2 tutoral book. I am not going to copy Larson's "postulate" approach, as Larson already did that and it does not seem to work well for today's researchers.

So, now is your chance to tell me what YOU want to see in a beginner's book to understanding the Reciprocal System. Tell me the topics you want included (a section of the Table of Contents, perhaps), the concepts you are struggling with, and what kind of background information you think you need (or have discovered) that helps refine the concepts in the RS.

So click REPLY and let me know what you want to see in such a beginner's book.
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm


Post by jpkira » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:17 pm

First - thank you!

Start with the beginning of course! Explain motion and time WITHOUT using the word dimension OR clearly state what is meant by RS dimensions and how it is described externally by an observer from some frame of reference vs. without a frame of reference if that is even possible. then take that into what we'd call degrees of motion or a vector. Forgive me if I have misunderstood the basics. I really like RS because it seems so fundamentally sound and basic and real.

thank you

Again thank you!

adam pogioli
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am


Post by adam pogioli » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:16 am

This sounds great Bruce. I think more conceptual context of all kinds would be helpful to me. It seems like the current introductory material for RS2--both the pdfs and on the site-- is organized into separate categories where the conceptual unity between subjects is not always easy to see. It all seems designed to be short and to the point, which makes for good reference, but barely hints at the richness of the world these ideas create. It all can have an arbitray feel to it, like just a list of how this system labels things we know, and the meaning is often unclear. From reading your forum work I know what rich understanding you have of how things relate to each other, how certain concepts in one area explain concepts in another. This analogical unity is in my mind how the universe is really structured and is at heart what makes the RS system so powerful. Nothing is arbitrary.

In my own attempts to explain this system to people I have noticed how difficult it can be to summarize the RS/RS2 view on any one phenomenon since the whole structure kind of hangs together. It takes a lot of revision of assumptions and terms, and even then the concepts seem to demand a deeper philosophical justification. This makes organizing learning by field or phenomenon somewhat awkward. In the current intro material, simple basics are thrown together with complex concepts and math that those who want the basics are not necessarily prepared for. I know you have said before that you have a difficult time writing if you aren't asked a question--that there are just too many possible levels of readers you might be addressing. It seems to me though that RS2 revises some rather basic concepts anyway, revises even Larson's basic assumptions. You really have a whole new system here--even if it all was incipient in Larson. Larson was good at explaining concepts, building from layer to layer. You have a much richer conceptual system, where additional layers are not just added motions in a Euclidean space, but added assumptions about space, degrees of freedom, etc... But besides a few summaries, these concepts are all developed within more complex papers and forums, whose prequisite understandings are unclear and uneven. I know it took Larson many years and many books to explain all his concepts from a basic level, and many of them are still the same in a way in RS2, so I am sure you don't want to repeat too much what has been written. But I think as this stuff catches on, and I think it will (I hope to have a part in that in the future), many people are going to want to read the most up to date theory first without having to read so many out of date books. Different people will have different levels of science literacy but if it is all framed as an exploration of ideas, the most basic reader will be inspired to learn and the more advanced, to relearn and rethink.

I think one problem with starting with Larson and framing your ideas as just a revision, is that people can miss how sophisticated your ideas are. At first glance "a universe of motion" comes off as another neo-classical theory. Larson's philosophical framing was just a little out of date when he came out with it. Now it is ancient. So forget the foundationalism. I think the people most likely to take the time to learn this stuff are going to be people with a more esoteric-philosophical interest in science. Even if they are coming from a more mainstream science perspective, I think they will be more likely to follow you if they see these ideas are going to explore the relationships between ideas and possible representations and not just give them a seemingly eccentric, insular and elborate formal system built up from a couple assumptions. I don't just want basic definitions and then complex applications. What is missing for me is the stuff in the middle, the why things are done this way, the how they could be done differently, and the why this makes more sense.

Tell me a story. Sense you are working from 25 years of notes, I would love to know your story, how your ideas evolved, how you found Larson, how the theory evolved, why you decided to use Miles Mathis' ideas and Nick Thomas, and anyone else. And/or give us a metaphysical narative of how the observer and scalar ratios come together to produce motion and yet are made of motion themselves, how they interact and develop more complex motions. Show me why I should learn calculus, why complex numbers are necessary and why RS2 makes it easier to understand. Many of the things that are hinted at or summarized elsewhere could just use some fleshing out. You seem to have to spend so much time explaining things to us beginners that I bet with some editing you could probably just cut, paste and tweak some of what you have already wrote on forums, insert some notes and you would have the best book ever on alternative science by far.

One thing in particular I would really like is a tutorial on electronics. Is it possible for you to write something on electronics that starts with the basics or suggest a way into the concepts? I really like Dollard's basic stuff and some of Ken Wheeler's basic use of his theory, but I dropped out of electric engineering for the social sciences my frehsman year in college and anything past the basics at this point makes my mind melt. In Larson's BPOM, I get the feeling I am missing something that the field-dynamics approach of aether theory seems to provide. I noticed you seem to have made some connections between RS and aether theory lately and I hope I can understand them. I don't think I am ever gone read Steimnetz, let alone Heavyside. Thomas K. Simpson has some good books on Maxwell that better approximate my level of reading, approaching the math in a rhetorical way.... But from what I can tell I think you could help some of us get a road into some of these concepts. I need to understand the concepts before it is worth me learning the math. Any book you write I hope will make use of your skill with concepts, with teasing out what these ideas really mean and help us make the connections from motion to force, to energy, to answer the questions that most scientists can't seem to frame--what is a field, what is the quantum, how are they related? It all seems to be here in some form, if only seed form... Best of luck putting some of it together coherently for everyone. No matter what the results, I am sure it will be very valuable beyond measure.

Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

hi Bruce,

Post by duane » Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:43 am

hi Bruce,

this sounds like a great idea

I would to see a a comparative chart of some sort

as RS unfolds in your book

RS = these assumptions

other theories = other assumptions

you could point to something and say "this is what particle physics sees as _, or why cosmology believes _

they are registering "something" with their equipment but misinterpreting it

and require "add-ons" to explain things

Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

please include

Post by jpkira » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:04 pm

I would like to see you start off with two good definitions of what motion and time is [at least from an RS perspective] and then describe their movement or change.

Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:06 am

Book topics

Post by Nick » Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:38 am

Not sure if all the topics are appropriate for the beginners book, but here is the list anyway:
  • Weight/mass/inertia/gravity.
How do they work together? What are the principle and subordinate locations? When they are coincident (UFO-like motion: "how they do their thing"), and when and how do they separate?

How do we start from the scalar motions and end up with the Newton laws and classical mechanics? The connections here appears to be not so trivial as Larson wrote.

Atomic/particle and/or maybe macroscopic body examples may be added here.

The concepts mentioned are familiar to all readers and their treatment could serve as a bridge between the RS/RS2 model and our everyday experience.
  • Chemical "bonds" and valence in RS/RS2.
Discussion of various types of bonds and interactions (covalent bond; multiple bonds; dipolar, a.k.a. coordinate, bond; "dipole-dipole" interactions; hydrogen bond;"London dispersion force"; "cation–pi" interaction; aromatic ring "pi stacking" etc.) may be appropriate. How do we interpret this interactions in terms of RS/RS2? Does A-B-C-D RS2 atom rotation model change something here?
  • Forms of electricity:
uncharged, charged, "Cooper-pairs" (birotating electron, superconductivity), triples (charged electron neutrino, "radiant" electricity). Their properties and effects on matter.
  • "Unusual" devices.
Stuff like SEG (, Tesla coils (, EM and "anti-gravity" propulsion systems (3-x speed range matter(?), co-magnetic effects(?), 117- element(?) based), etc. How could we apply RS concepts to undestand, analyse and (maybe) construct them?
  • Living matter.
Cosmic linkage in biological systems. "Biophotons" - how do they work? Plain and "living" water. Role of helical structures in protein/DNA/RNA. Geometry of brain structures and its functions. Some discussion of motions from existence levels 1,2 and 3 working together to form mind/body/spirit complexes. Extended version of
  • Please, don't hesitate to add more images, schemes, graphics, any visual aids to make presented concepts more comprehensible :-).

Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

Please include also...

Post by rossum » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:55 am

It's great to hear this news.

Here is what I consider the most important:
  • introduction to RS/RS2
  • a quick summary of RS/RS2 history
  • mathematical introduction (especially what part of projective geommetry will be used) or at least what one should know
  • absolute and relative locations and speeds in RS
  • what is a unit of motion (exact deffinition, how and when are these units combined)
  • what is time and what is space in relation to ordinary terms
  • what is the complete description of a RS system (e.g. a classical system is completely described by objects, their positions, masses and speeds. A quantum mechanical system is completely described by particles, their wave function and external potential. How is it in the case of RS?)
  • how RS arrives to ordinary physical relations
  • the connection between quantum mechanics and reciprocal system
  • the connection between electromagnetism and RS (perhaps the derivation of Maxwell's equations)
  • comprehensive explanation of Larson's triplets along with some standardized version for both atoms and subatomic particles
  • isotopes in RS, radioactivity, fission etc.
  • how RS2 understands aether
  • nonlinear time (time travel etc.)
If possible, please describe things using as many formulas, charts and pictures as possible, because:
  1. it is easier to find stuff in the book, you read previously
  2. it is more interesting for the eye
  3. it gives one the possibility to understand things more quickly
Please use as many "legacy science" names as possible to avoid confusion.

I would also like to participate at least by giving feedback for the parts that are already written.

Thanks in advance

User avatar
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

Target Audience?

Post by bperet » Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:22 pm

Thanks for all the good info, folks. I'm actually quite amazed at how much material, graphics and simulations I've done over the years... trying to index the stuff now and see if I can come up with an outline.

I need some more info/advise here...

First, what is my "target audience?" Larson's books were aimed at physicists and astronomers, mainly because of the comments of his friend, Linus Pauling, telling him that he needed to get his ideas out to the scientific community. The --daniel papers target the New Age/Conspiracy groups, which are far more open-minded than the High Priests of Science are. So if I can get an idea of who is going to read what I write, then I can use that image in my mind to "talk them through it." So who (or what group) should I be thinking of, when creating a writing style?

Second is that I need to know the background of the people I am writing for. I've found that over the course of the last few decades, education has become far less "educational," and people no longer have many of the fundamentals that I was taught in school (I went to Catholic school, so did have a more formal education than public schools.) I've noticed from discussions on various fora that you really can't assume any background knowledge, anymore, particularly with the "under 40" age group. So, what can I assume about the background of the readers--if anything?

PS: I also have a great deal of info on electricity/electronics, which I have reduced to a series of analogies that any household plumber can understand the basics of. But there is so much material here, I would probably have to do it as a separate book. One of those things I keep meaning to do...

For the book, itself, I want to keep it focused on the RS2 material and not drag in too much of conventional science. Might be able to get Gopi to write a companion book doing that, as he knew the RS quite well when he got his PhD in physics, so he has all the connections.
Every dogma has its day...

Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

Background of readers

Post by rossum » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:30 am

In these two questions I can speak only for myself, but I think that:

you can safely assume the reader knows what used to be the standard mathematical and physical curiculum i.e. functions, trigonometry, euclidean geometry, vectors and some of their operations, differentials, matrices and gaussian elimination. If you assume any less you may end up explaining just the basics or describing just some facts without any logical context. On the other hand assuming to much more would probably decrease the number of readers substantialy.

I think the average reader (not the only reader) should be some PHD student or a just graduated scientist. Such a reader should have technical enough mind but still should be flexibil enough to think differently and learn new things. Maby I 'm wrong, but this is my opinion.

User avatar
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am

Modern education

Post by bperet » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:01 pm

you can safely assume the reader knows what used to be the standard mathematical and physical curiculum i.e. functions, trigonometry, euclidean geometry, vectors and some of their operations, differentials, matrices and gaussian elimination
i talked with some High School students yesterday--they said they can add and subtract, providing they have an App for it.

From what I'm finding in the younger generations, about all I can assume is basic arithmetic done on a calculator--not in their heads. Trig--nope "we don't need that in real life", geometry--can't even draw a circle with a compass, vectors--only as an arrow without any concept as to what they are, and forget differentials, matrices--and "gaussian elimination" was translated as "diarrhea."

This could be more of a challenge than I thought.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply