Force and Force Fields

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:06 pm

In the RS, Force, like acceleration, is simply a measurement of a change in energy within coordinate space, and is a property of motion, not an autonomous entity. This differs from the conventional understanding of force, where force acts as an autonomous entity to create vectorial motion.

Dewey B. Larson, in The Neglected Facts of Science, page 10 wrote:
It follows from the definition that force is a property of a motion; it is not something that can exist as an autonomous entity.
And on page 13, Larson affirms that the force is the result of a motion, not the cause:

Quote:
A uniform vectorial motion does not exert a force. By definition, a force develops from such a motion only when there is a departure from uniformity: that is, when there is a change in momentum.
The conjugate of force (t/s2) is acceleration (s/t2), a measurement of change in velocity. It is easier to think of force in terms of acceleration, to understand that force is only a measurement of change caused by other motions. When one steps on the gas pedal of a car, it causes a change in motion which is felt as acceleration. When the pedal is released, the acceleration stops and a uniform velocity returns. Force works the same way; when another motion interacts with a measured motion, such as a mass entering a gravitational field, that interaction is measured with force vectors showing how a distributed scalar motion was mapped to the reference system.

When "forces" are distributed about an object, as in a distributed scalar motion, Larson refers to them as a "force field." Since there are no "elementary forces" in the Universe, as they are properties of motion and not causes of it, so the idea of a "Unified Field Theory" does not make much sense! It would be like having a "Unified Film Theory" that details the interaction of characters on a movie screen in an attempt to describe the actual movements of actors on the stage in which they were filmed.

When Larson's concept of force is modeled on a computer, one quickly discovers that an independent field, either electric, magnetic or gravitational, has NO FORCE associated with it, and the force ONLY results when two or more force fields interact. Even the act of MEASURING a force field introduces the second force field (the sensor) to create resultant force vectors.

Therefore, what we call "force" is simply the coordinate measurement of the interaction of two or more distributed scalar motions.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields: Reference systems

Post by bperet » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:18 pm

Larson's force fields, the distributed scalar motion, can be envisioned as a sphere about an object, where a single radius is spun around in 3 dimensions, distributing the motion evenly across the volume of the sphere. This gives rise to the reduction of magnitudes through probability, and results in concepts such as the Inter-Regional Ratio.

Another description is possible, using the idea of counterspace (polar spaces) in RS2.

Projective geometry includes the concept of "duality", where one set of coordinates can represent two different things. In three dimensions, points and planes are "duals" of each other, each requiring only 3 coordinates: X, Y, Z. The point can be viewed as the intersection of three, orthogonal planes, one at X (Y-Z plane), one at Y (X-Z plane) and one at Z (X-Y plane). The SAME coordinates can also be used to represent a single plane passing through the points (X,0,0), (0,Y,0), (0,0,Z). Thus, every set of coordinates can represent either a point or a plane, making points and planes inverses of each other.

Larson's Euclidean geometry is decidedly point-based, starting with "absolute locations"; points on the fixed, rectangular grid of the natural reference system. That works very well for our conventional understanding of 3D space with clock time. But it does not include "distributed scalar motions" directly. Only indirectly through probability.

What if there is a SECOND, counterspatial reference system, where "absolute locations" are PLANES, not points? In space, infinity is outward, as far as you can go. In counterspace, infinity is inward, as far as you can go. Rather than forming a grid of points, the counterspatial reference system forms a set of concentric spheres, with the center at infinity. From the spatial reference frame, any outward motion in counterspace is inward in space.

Spatial motion on the Euclidean grid of absolute locations is determined by speed, s/t. Whereas counterspace is the inverse of space, the polar grid of locations would be viewed as ENERGY, t/s. Thus it becomes possible to determine which reference frame one is referring to, just by the units involved: s/t = space, t/s = counterspace.

Our "energy" relationships, such as dielectric, magnetic and gravitational fields, now become counterspatial, planar constructs, with an INWARD progression. Force then becomes a "counterspatial" acceleration or deceleration.

But one other problem creeps up... counterspace is polar, hence ANGLES, not linear translations, are PRIMARY. Is a "unit of linear space" the same as a "unit of rotational space"?

If you haven't done so, please view my presentation Questioning the Rotational Base (being converted to video... see attached Powerpoint presentation), which shows how space and counterspace differ, particularly with the concepts of primary and secondary motion.
Attachments

[The extension pps has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

Every dogma has its day...

RMohan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:49 pm

Force and Force Fields

Post by RMohan » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:37 pm

I hereby declare I have enough information to pore over to keep me

busy for months. :-)

Thanks.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:24 pm

With dealing with the planes in counterspace, vectors of motion work a little differently than we are accustomed to.

In space, a vector is defined by two points and a direction, namely an arrow. You pick one point as an origin, and the other point defines the x,y,z displacements.

In counterspace, a vector is defined by intersecting two PLANES. Yes, the result is still a line, where one end of the line is picked as the origin and the other the displacement, but there is one significant difference--"planes" in the RS model are ROTATIONS, which means that each "vector" not only points in a direction, but also has a rotational measure to it: either the planes are rotating in the SAME direction, or OPPOSITE directions. Geometrically, the result is the same--a line--but the interaction is different.

In space, a velocity vector has a length, a non-zero distance. In counterspace, a velocity vector also has a length, but can be either CW (+) or CCW (-) (in the complex realm, +i or -i). There are actually 4 possibilities with 2 interacting rotations, ++, +-, -+, --, but they exist as an exclusive OR relationship; ++ and -- cannot be distinguished from each other, neither can -+ and +-.

In space, we end up with a line segment showing a speed displacement.

In counterspace, we end up with a WAVE showing one of two speed displacements, which we customarily represent as -sin(a) or +sin(a).

Thus, the "discrete unit" of counterspace is a SINGLE CYCLE, not the customary unit of space. This, in effect, gives us another kind of "space unit" (and "time unit"), which accounts for the idea of "frequency".

Frequency is "cycles per second", which we conventionally consider as "n/t", where "n" has no units. But in counterspace, "n" is a CYCLE OF SPACE, having units of SPACE, thus making frequency a relation of ns/t -- a SPEED. Far more appropriate for a universe of motion!

And unlike space units, counterspace units can constructively or destructively INTERFERE with each other. It is this interference that provides an explanation of dielectric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, and exactly WHY they appear to "attract" and "repel", whilst gravitation only attracts.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:50 pm

In one dimension, these units of frequency appear as a flat plane with a wave. When centered on a point, such as the unit space of the positron, or the unit time of the electron, they look very similar to the waveform that results from throwing a rock in a pond. These are called longitudinal waves. The difference between the positive and negative fields are the PHASE -- 180 degrees apart.

One important fact to consider is that we have NEVER measured an electric or magnetic field outside of a gravitational field. When considering wave interactions, there will ALWAYS be that net, inward unit of gravitation to consider. I will refer to this as a negative (-) unit.

The attraction and repulsion of fields is simple addition. When two waves meet that are the same frequency and phase, the amplitude doubles. 1 + 1 = 2. When two waves meet that are the same frequency and out-of-phase, the amplitude drops to zero. 1 + -1 = 0.

Whenever LIKE fields interact, we get the doubling effect to 2 units. When UNLIKE fields interact, we get the canceling effect to 0 units. Now add in the single negative unit of "gravity"...

1 + 1 = 2 -1 (grav) = +1 = PROGRESSION occurs between the two locations of LIKE particles.

1 + -1 = 0 -1 (grav) = -1 = GRAVITATION occurs between the two locations of UNLIKE particles.

What you feel when like poles of a magnet push each other apart, is actually the progression of the natural reference system in one dimension--the very same "force" that is pushing the galaxies apart.

What you feel when unlike poles are pulled together is gravitation expressed in one dimension.

The natural magnet is a 2-dimensional form, where one end is + and the other is -. North and south poles are just out of phase with each other, producing a neutral in the center through wave cancellation.

Thus, the so-called "forces" of attraction and repulsion are nothing but gravity and progression; exactly the same "forces" that account for chemical cohesion and molecular bonds.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:03 pm

I used the "isosurface" function of POVRay to produce some plots of what the various planar surfaces of electric and magnetic fields look like.

See attached images of positron and electron force fields. Note that the only difference is that the waves are emitted 180 degrees out of phase with each other. Since the phase of the wave is locked to the progression, ALL positrons have the same phase, as do ALL electrons.

The blue and green colors show the discrete units of the field, and help to visually see the phase difference. These are shown as 2D slices; the field is 3D, but when plotted that way, the wave patterns are not visible; it just looks like a solid blob of color.

Positron Field

[img]/files/positronfield_881.gif[/img]

Electron Field

[img]/files/electronfield_171.gif[/img]
Attachments
ElectronField.gif
ElectronField.gif (19.42 KiB) Viewed 3885 times
PositronField.gif
PositronField.gif (19.74 KiB) Viewed 3885 times
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:13 pm

A natural magnetic field is simply a combination of the two electric fields within the same atom; one pole being 180 degrees out of phase with the other, maintaining the same "likes repel; opposites attract" relationship, plus a point where the field neutralizes itself.

In the attached plot, one pole is blue, the other is green. The line running between the poles shows the orientation of the magnet. The other line shows where the fields phase-cancel each other, having no net magnetic effect.

The magnet can be visualized as a drum with a single skin; when it pushes in one direction, it pulls in the other.

Paramagnetic materials, such as iron, can transmit this vibration when exposed to it, in the same phase. When the magnet is removed, the metal stops vibrating and transmitting the magnetic field. Diamagnetic materials transmit the vibration out-of-phase.

In the research so far, I do not believe that ferromagnetic materials occur "naturally" at zero magnetic ionization. The Earth is currently at 1 unit, so some materials become ferromagnetic and have a self-sustaining vibration.

[img]/files/magneticfield_162.gif[/img]
Attachments
MagneticField.gif
MagneticField.gif (15.58 KiB) Viewed 3885 times
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields

Post by bperet » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:24 pm

Larson was correct in saying that the electromagnetic field, a field generated by a current passing through a conductor, is different from natural magnetism. What I discovered when plotting out the counterspatial wave plane is that it is the SAME kind of motion, but the wavefronts are orthogonal to natural magnetism, being RADIAL rather than LONGITUDINAL.

These waves are actually PARALLEL to each other, as radii within a sphere. It just doesn't look that way, because of the spatial projection of a counterspatial plane.

The blue/green divisions again separate natural units of cycle. The flow of current and resulting field direction are indicated.

As to how electric current produces a field in iron... take the wire in the diagram and wrap it around a chunk of iron. Note the magnetic field direction--it acts just like a paddlewheel on a riverboat, inducing a magnetic vibration orthogonal to the flow of current.

[img]/files/electromagneticfield_109.gif[/img]
Attachments
ElectroMagneticField.gif
ElectroMagneticField.gif (19.37 KiB) Viewed 3885 times
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Force and Force Fields

Post by bperet » Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:18 pm

Electric and magnetic fields are typically represented by "lines of force". Based on the discrete "wave" units of counterspace, it occurs to me that these lines of force may just be the "hills and valleys" of constructive and destructive wave interference.

I put together a simulation of a cylindrical bar magnet, using the natural magnetic field as described, and produced the attached plot. There is some distortion due to the rendering process and precision (with all the trigonometry needed to compute the image, mathematical precision is being lost).

However, the resulting image does show the "lines of force" becoming visible between the poles, as interference patterns. There are actually two patterns, one orthogonal to the other, but because of the paramagnetic "iron filing" approach used to display lines of force, one pattern has preference over the other.

[img]/files/magneticfield_106.jpg[/img]
Attachments
MagneticField.jpg
MagneticField.jpg (10.08 KiB) Viewed 3885 times
Every dogma has its day...

Horace
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Force and Force Fields

Post by Horace » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:58 pm

Bruce wrote:
In space, we end up with a line segment showing a speed displacement.

In counterspace, we end up with a WAVE showing one of two speed displacements, which we customarily represent as -sin(a) or +sin(a).
Would this mean that the absolute locations in space appear discrete, while the absolute locations in counterspace appear as continuous because they are a result of a TURN? (just like the discreteness of integers and continuity of rationals, respectively) ?

Post Reply