Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

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.
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by Horace »

dbundy wrote: Horace, Larson's assumption that "direction" reversals, were the only way to introduce variation into the uniform progression of space and time was challenged by Nehru and Peret, who came up with their alternative assumption based on the concept of bi-rotation.
I don't want to go into that comparison now. It could be that your approaches are even compatible.
dbundy wrote: On the other hand, I maintained that the objections to Larson's idea of "direction" reversals could be overcome, if the reversals were considered as 3D reversals instead of 1D reversals, since that would eliminate the "saw tooth" waveform, which was the main objection to the reversal assumption.
...but does it create a sine wave of the photon and how? How are non-3D phenomena created when the reversals always take up all of the available dimensions?
dbundy wrote: But now, you raise another one of those challenges: If space and time can only be regarded together as motion, how then can there ever be what Larson called a "displacement" between them?
Larson's displacement refers to the deviation from unit speed. Such deviation is possible only when the speed is averaged out over multiple units of motion. Deviation from unit speed is not possible over one unit of motion. Because of this, the deviation is not an intrinsic property of one unit of motion but is a result of relating multiple units to each other.
dbundy wrote: We think of the integers as separate from the rationals, but in reality, they are not. The set of integers that we call natural numbers, or counting numbers, are in reality rational numbers, partially represented.
That's obvious, but you must define what these numbers in the denominator and numerator mean. To me these two numbers denote how much the space has expanded or shrunk during a quantity of time (or vice versa). What do they mean to you?
dbundy wrote: The unit denominator of these numbers is ignored for convenience of expression, but the truth is, they are always part of the number.
Yes they are, but unit denominators are not merely ignored for convenience of expression, they are normalized out on purpose. The material observers normalize out time and the cosmic observers normalize out space. Because of that difference alone you have to admit that the scalar directions (and their reversals) are not intrinsic to the motions because the are affected by the type of the observer (material or cosmic), that's doing the observing.
dbundy wrote: What we choose to call negative numbers, which are so troublesome philosophically, are actually inverse integers, with unit numerators.
That's just a different notation.
dbundy wrote: These inverse integers can also be regarded as fractions of a whole, but not without introducing an element of confusion into the discussion of ratios. The ratio of time over space is the inverse of the ratio of space over time, but when we consider the number line as a whole, we have to realize that there is another sense, a second sense in which we can perceive the reciprocity of numbers and that is a reciprocal number line.
The best analogy I can think of to illustrate this is to picture a "teeter-toter," or "see-saw"
There is no confusion, A less than unity ratio simply means that space expanded less than time when averaged over multiple units.
(when the amount of time is put into the denominator).
dbundy wrote: This analogy is very useful for understanding the two senses of reciprocity in the RST. The view of the unit progression from the MS point of view is the reciprocal of the same unit progression from the CS point of view. This is important to keep in mind, when we consider variations from the unit progression, because if we don't we can easily lose track of what the numbers mean.
These "variations from the unit progression" make my point - they appear different for different observers. Which means that the direction of reversals, which make these "variations" possible, are also affected by the observers. Ergo, directions are not intrinsic to the observed motion but are functions of relations between at least two motions.
dbundy wrote: The number s/t = 1/2 is the inverse of the number s/t = 2/1 in the MS, where s/t = 1/2 is normally represented on the number line to the left of the unit progression, s/t = 1/1, and s/t = 2/1 is to the right. To be consistent, the CS representation of the number line, should have t/s = 2/1 on the left of the unit datum, and t/s = 1/2 on the right, if we were to extend our investigation into the CS. Just sayin.
That's fine and dandy but you again provided evidence against directions being intrinsic to the observed motion.
dbundy wrote: Remember, that in any given RSt, everything is a motion, combination of motions, or a relation between motions and combinations of motions,
So "directions" are determined by relations between motions, too. Changes of these directions are the cause of reversals that cause speed deviations.
dbundy wrote: So, with this much understood, we come to the question of absolute magnitudes. Does Larson's postulate hold that posits these? I think so, precisely because an increase or decrease in magnitude of space over time, or time over space, can be quantified as just discussed.
Yes, it can be quantified but not in separation. The aspects need to be considered together. One unit of space per three units of time can look as three units of space per one unit of time depending what observer is observing it. The motion of the observer matters, because the change of direction, that is the essence of the reversal, depends on the relation between the observer and observee.
dbundy wrote: Representing tne cycle of expansion/contraction for every two units of time (space) is completely analogous to the analysis of a rolling wheel, or a swinging pendulum or a propagating water wave, sound wave or light wave.
All of these examples assume an underlying uniform progression of time and that is generated only by material observers.
dbundy wrote: That's all I can say at this point, Horace. I can understand and work with these numbers, but I can neither understand nor work with the concept you are presenting here, at least so far.
The only alien concept to you seems to be the proposition that a direction of motion does not stand on its own and is affected by its observer.
PJ_Finnegan
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:49 am

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by PJ_Finnegan »

dbundy wrote:
So RS is only an approximation valid for low speed, like Newtonian physics.
And is more a "qualitative" theory than "quantitative" i.e. you couldn't fly a probe on Jupiter basing on RS only, which basically gives you an underlying theory about the nature of particles. For computations on "events" (4D points) in the MS you keep on relying on GRT and Newtonian ballistics/gravitation for low speeds.
The questions you are asking tend to make me think you have not undertaken as yet to study Larson's works. Is that true?
I've read Bruce Peret's tutorials but couldn't find answer to my questions. And I still haven't.
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by Horace »

PJ_Finnegan wrote:I've read Bruce Peret's tutorials but couldn't find answer to my questions. And I still haven't.
Most relevant publications are in this library. Dewy Larson's materials were the first ones to be published.
The prevailing opinion is that it is best to start with the "New Light on Space and Time" or with "Outline of the Reciprocal System" article.
The biggest book is called "Nothing but Motion" and it is a revision of the "Structure of the Physical Universe".
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by dbundy »

dbundy wrote: On the other hand, I maintained that the objections to Larson's idea of "direction" reversals could be overcome, if the reversals were considered as 3D reversals instead of 1D reversals, since that would eliminate the "saw tooth" waveform, which was the main objection to the reversal assumption.
...but does it create a sine wave of the photon and how? How are non-3D phenomena created when the reversals always take up all of the available dimensions?
It's close to a sine wave, I believe. I wish I knew how to model a propagating 3D vibration to see what it would like like. One thing for sure, though, it solves the mystery of how one quantum spin cycle is equivalent to 4 pi or 720 degrees of rotation.

As far as the lower dimensions of electrical and magnetic phenomena go, the 1D electric charge is simply due to the unit imbalance in the three "red" S|T units that make up the electron, which is opposite in "direction" to the same "blue" imbalance in the proton.

http://www.lrcphysics.com/storage/images/ST3Grps.png

In order to further answer this question, we have to understand what Larson explained in relation to the definition of dimensions:
The dimensional situation is complicated by the fact that I necessarily have to use the term in its broadest sense, whereas it is more generally used with a very restricted meaning. From the general standpoint, “dimension” is a mathematical term that may be, but is not necessarily, capable of being represented in geometric form. An n-dimensional quantity is simply one that requires n independent numbers for definition. As one dictionary says, by way of illustration, “a²b²c is a term of five dimensions.” Within a certain limited range, dimensions of space may be represented in the conventional reference system, and because this usage is so common, the qualification “spatial” is commonly omitted. Thus we say that a cube is three-dimensional, meaning that it extends into three vectorial dimensions of space. But we also say that space is three-dimensional, and here we mean something different. We do not mean that space extends into three dimensions of space. That statement is an absurdity. What we mean is that three scalar magnitudes, or numbers are required in order to define a location in space.
In the graph above, we can see that each entity consists of three S|T units. The color of the center dot of each S|T unit can be green, red or blue, indicating the motion balance of the unit. Green for balanced, or an equal number of S and T components, red for more Ss and blue for more Ts.

But the three S|T units of the electron, or the positron, would be considered one-dimensional in the algebraic operations of combining them, while, by the same token, the proton, and the neutron, consisting of three quarks, each composed of three S|T units, would be considered three-dimensional.

The two-dimensional (magnetic) phenomena is produced as a relation between the one-dimensional (electric) phenomena and the three-dimensional (inverse mass) phenomena. (e = (s/t); P = (s/t)3; f = (t/s)2. The details of the development are still being worked out.

(More later)
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by Horace »

dbundy wrote: In the graph above, we can see that each entity consists of three S|T units. The color of the center dot of each S|T unit can be green, red or blue, indicating the motion balance of the unit. Green for balanced, or an equal number of S and T components, red for more Ss and blue for more Ts.
For newbies' sake, please enumerate the progressions represented by the red, green and blue dots.
I know that they are on the LRC but give us numeric examples here.
PJ_Finnegan
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:49 am

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by PJ_Finnegan »

Horace wrote:
PJ_Finnegan wrote:I've read Bruce Peret's tutorials but couldn't find answer to my questions. And I still haven't.
Most relevant publications are in this library. Dewy Larson's materials were the first ones to be published.
The prevailing opinion is that it is best to start with the "New Light on Space and Time" or with "Outline of the Reciprocal System" article.
The biggest book is called "Nothing but Motion" and it is a revision of the "Structure of the Physical Universe".
Ok but since evidently you've already read and metabolized them and you know them better than me, could you give the answer to my questions/observations?
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by Horace »

There is no substitute for reading the originals. Subatomic particles are on page 145. I could not do them justice as well as Dewy or Doug, anyway.
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by dbundy »

Horace wrote:
For newbies' sake, please enumerate the progressions represented by the red, green and blue dots.
I know that they are on the LRC but give us numeric examples here.
Ok, if it's all right with Bruce.

We probably ought to make it clear for newbies that there are several different individuals developing RST-based physical theories. I refer to individual theories with the acronym RSt, with the lower case t. The RSt Bruce and Gopi are developing is what they call the RS2, while Ronald Satz is continuing to develop Larson's original RS theory, and I am developing what I call a modification of Larson's original theory, without giving it a new name.

It's helpful to understand that Larson developed a new SYSTEM of physical theory, in place of the old system. The basis of the old system is what we call vector motion, or the motion of objects observed upon the stage of space and time, we might say. The basis of Larson's system is what we call scalar motion, Which is motion unheard of in the old system.

The new system explains how the particles of the old system come into existence and how and why they interact the way they do, whereas the old system doesn't speak to these things at all. Its focus is on the observed particles and their properties and explaining how they interact with one another.

In the theoretical development of the RSt that I am pursuing, the elementary particles are those found in the old system's model known as the standard model of particle physics (SM).

In the SM, there are three families of particles, but only one family is stable over time. The others have short life-times, so my RSt does not address them yet. There is one neutrino and its anti-neutrino, two quarks and two anti-quarks, and one electron and its anti-electron (the positron) in this, the first family of the SM. Eight particles in all.

Each of these particles, except the neutrinos, has an equivalent on the reciprocal side of the unit progression, so the total number of particles in the figure above is fourteen.

To understand the meaning of the colors, it's best to think of the rational numbers, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, which quantify the values of scalar motion combinations that are mathematically derived from the fundamental postulates of the RST (see my website http://www.lrcphysics.com for details.)

In my RSt, each particle consists of three combinations of these values, or three preons. Each preon is symbolized by a bar-bell like figure with one end colored red and the opposite end colored blue. The red end symbolizes the less-than unit rational values (1/2) and the blue end symbolizes the greater-than unit rational values (2/1).

Rather than put numbers on the ends to indicate how many 1/2 values or 2/1 values constitute the combo, a third color is placed in the middle of the preon symbol between the red and blue ends to indicate the balance between them.

A green color means they are balanced at one apiece (1/2 --- 2/1), a red color means they are unbalanced to the red side at 2 to 1 (2(1/2) --- 1/2), while a blue color means they are unbalanced to the blue side at 1 to 2 ((1/2 ---2(2/1)). We have developed a mathematical formalism to operate on these combinations algebraically, wherewith operations with greater values than these initial ones can be calculated.

I hope this helps.
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by Horace »

dbundy wrote: Ok, if it's all right with Bruce.
I expect it will be since you stated so clearly, that you do not speak for him.
dbundy wrote: The red end symbolizes the less-than unit rational values (1/2) and the blue end symbolizes the greater-than unit rational values (2/1).
Could you elaborate what the individual numbers in the numerator and denominator stand for ?
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

Post by dbundy »

Sorry, Horace. I just spent a long time writing the explanation out in detail and lost it when I went to preview it, because my login had timed out!!!

I had the impression to save it, but I didn't, thinking the software was more advanced than that!!!!! Grrrrr. Live and learn!
Post Reply