Katirai on Photon frequency as a pressure

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: 1446
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Katirai on Photon frequency as a pressure

Post by bperet » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:33 am

I've been going through Bahram Katirai's book, Revolution in Physics, where he revives ether theory ideas to explain many of the frauds perpetrated by Einstein (he includes about 100 pages on how Einstein stole his work from other researchers, particularly Henri Poincaré (the first guy to come up with E=mc2). I find the book very interesting, because if you substitute "time" for "ether," you end up with many of the concepts of the Reciprocal System, including an independent charge mechanism (Katirai's samareh) and that atoms are rotating systems. But since Katirai's premise is from the cosmic sector side of things, he fills in many of the gaps that Larson never addressed.

Katirai, like Larson, is also a "common sense" observer. Most people will discount what their senses tell them, if it conflicts with their beliefs. Larson and Katirai are the opposite. When they encounter something that doesn't make sense, they investigate it, rather than ignore it, to try to understand it and incorporate it into their world views.

One of the more interesting analogies he makes is his return to the "waves in ether" theory of light, comparing "pressure waves in air" (sound) to "pressure waves in ether" (light). In particular, the observation that it is the medium (air, water, ether) that determines the propagation speed of waves. When a train passes, the Doppler shift causes the approaching frequency to be higher (higher pressures in air, compressing waves), and the departing frequency lower (lower pressure spreads waves).

In Nehru's model, light is a birotation being carried by the progression. A change in frequency would require the addition or subtraction of units of motion (angular velocity) to each photon. The Doppler effect, however, seems to invalidate that frequency model because the effect is a property of the linear speed of the source and observer--not a property of the photon, itself.

So what I am wondering today is: what if frequency is a pressure differential, and not a property of the photon?
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

So what I am wondering today

Post by Horace » Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:33 pm

So what I am wondering today is: what if frequency is a pressure differential, and not a property of the photon?
Pressure of what?

Note that the same obsever can observe two photons of different frequency, and if that observer moves then both photons change their apparent frequencies but those frequencies still remain different.

adam pogioli
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

photon

Post by adam pogioli » Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:43 am

Hey Bruce. I have never posted before, but I have been studying your work on here a lot lately and I want to thank you. You are really inspiring me. I am writing a book on the history of ideas with a focus on the culture/counterculture dialectic and have been researching the alternative science field the past few years. It is so great to see people really comparing and contrasting ideas like Feyerabend had hoped would become the science of the future. It is still hard to find. You are doing what post-modern philosophers claim to be the ideal, but which nobody seems to be really doing anywhere. There seem to be a lot of brilliant eccentric engineers in the scientific underground, but for someone like me who switched from electrical engineering to anthropology in my first year of college, it can be hard to get at the ideas behind all the technical jargon. But you are really helping bring the pieces together for me, so I hope you don't mind my questions. Your post here really piqued my interest. Pressure differentials are a key metaphor for me for visualizing what so many in the alternative science scene are talking about.

The pressure differential is certainly one of the common analogies implied in so much of the "consciousness science" theory, I think for good reason. The reason being those pressure differentials are of a medium defined as an objective strata only through the particuar density conditions of the observing consciousness. So as opposed to the old mechanical ether models, the new ether theories are more grounded in the phase conjugation of the observing organism with its object in probability space (or time/space).

I have seen you comment briefly on Ken Wheeler in a previous forum discussion, Bruce. Ken is all about pressure differentials: https://ia802502.us.archive.org/31/item ... 1small.pdf.

But Dan Winter is the most interesting ether theorist to me. I feel like much of what he is trying to say could be made more clear with RS2. I would love to hear if you have an opinion of him and his group. He is obviously less rigorous than other more professional figures obsessed with the goldenmean and fractal cosmology like el Naschie, Mae Wan ho, Notalle, etc., but he is getting a large following in the New Age scene, and seems to be making deeper connections with some of the other fringe theories like Nassim Haramein's.

Then there is this guy Drew Hempel who I have been trying to figure out for years:http://thedaobums.com/topic/5295-the-hempel-effect/. Both Dan and Drew seem to be saying frequency is a consequence of phase conjugation. Drew is fond of making the very concept of frequency in physics out to be some kind of conspiracy to hide the phase relations. He likes to point back to DeBroglie and what he calls time/frequnecy uncertainty. Juliana Brooks Mortenson also is revisting DeBroglie and reinventing the photon in the process:http://www.chronos.msu.ru/old/EREPORTS/ ... nstein.pdf

As you and Hempel point out, the Doppler effect is a key analogy.

One of my favorite authors on science Jeremy Campbell points out in his book Winston Churchill's Afternoon Nap how frequency, phase, and amplitude are not as distinct as they appear. For instance, as Hempel discusses in the link, our ear will change the phase relations to create a melody. Our brain does its own Fourier analysis on a complex waveform . There obviously is in perception always some complex tempering of phase relations across the spatial/counterspatial boundary. Is there some projective geometry concept that could help explain this?

There seems to be some kind of generalized uncertainty principle going on (here is the best mainstream explanation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOmSyaoAt0), but I can't seem to grasp it in the clear intuitive terms you guys here have seemed to render reciprocity.

There must be some way to simplify and generalize this fundamental relation with RS2 concepts. I just keep coming back to this from Mae Wan Ho's website:
"Under appropriate conditions, the fluctuations of matter and vacuum can be synchronized, thus starting a collective dance reminiscent of the orgasm intuited by Reich. This state of the matter is called “coherent” by physicists. In this state, the number of components remains undetermined, while the oscillation rhythm acquires a more precise definition. This result is the expression of a principle of uncertainty, valid in quantum physics, which states that the uncertainties of the number of oscillators in a physical system and of their phase are in an inverse relation. It is clear that, in order to reduce the uncertainty of the oscillation rhythm of a physical system and make it more coherent, we have to amplify the uncertainty of the number of the participants in the collective dance as much as possible. Therefore, we have to avoid closing the system, which would keep the number of components constant; on the contrary, we need to open it as much as possible on the outside by amplifying the number of the potential participants to the collective dance enormously. Here lies the main problem".*

A problem indeed. If anyone could help me here, I will be so grateful. This has haunted my mind for the past year. But to attempt an answer at your question, frequency cannot be the property of a photon. It must be a differential that that gets averaged out to conform to the arbitrary definition of a photon standardized for the per/second time measure. Which brings me to another question. Aren't all quantities differentials? In RS2 how are there any real primary magnitudes that exist outside the 3 dimensional coordinate frame? Don't you need 3 dimensions to make any magnitude--an object, and observer, and a reference point? Isn't phase always involved even if not explicit in every strata? How is scalar motion anything quantitative at least without some type of cross-ratio?

*http://www.i-sis.org.uk/principle_of_mi ... imulus.php

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Aether is the cosmic (3D time) projection into equivalent space

Post by bperet » Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:13 pm

Pressure of what?
Katirai refers to it as "ether pressure." Aether (the old word for "ether") is still a mystery, even to aether researchers. But RS2 can clarify the concept, which is basically this (from the upcoming --daniel paper, Part V, which I am proofreading):

Æther Theory
There is no space without aether and no aether which does not occupy space.”Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, astrophysicist, 1882-1944
The Reciprocal System is based on a reciprocal relation between space (s) and time (t) that we conventionally refer to as the ratio of speed (s/t) or energy (t/s). In the universe of motion, that is all you have to work with—space and time—nothing else. With only two choices it greatly simplifies understanding, particularly since we already know all about 3D space with clock time. We observe space as a vacuum, with stuff (particles, atoms and molecules) in it. Since space is empty, that “atomic stuff” cannot be space—so the only other choice is time.

Larson’s atoms are simply a temporal rotation in three dimensions—in other words, the “stuff” of the atom is a physical structure in 3D time that is given a coordinate location (a point) in our observable, coordinate grid of space. The location is in space (yang), the structure is in time (yin). This also tells us something important: we consider atoms to be solids (in various states) and atoms are time, so therefore time appears as a solid—and that is the stuff of æther—the “solid of time.” All of our material particles, atoms and molecules are basically little balls of solid æther stuck on a 3D, empty spatial grid, exactly as the 19th century researchers said.

Now consider the reciprocal perspective. Larson agrees with Eddington in that everything that exists in space also exists in time and everything that exists in time also exists in space. And that includes three dimensions of space, three dimensions of time and clocks: clock time and clock space. Observation tells us we have locations in space and structure in time, so the reciprocal must also exist: locations in time with corresponding structure in space. This is what the early researchers called the ætheric realm and what Larson calls the cosmic sector.
The aether researchers call aether a "fabric of space" which is essentially true; it is spatial structure (angular velocity, instead of the observable, linear velocity). This is what Larson calls "equivalent space" (yin space). Since it is all angular, this spatial structure can be visualized as a sphere of zero radius (no linear dimensions of space to give it size), so it is invisible/unobservable.

To answer your question, the "pressure" is therefore the progression of the natural reference system, trying to push cosmic atoms apart that are less than unit distance from each other, operating the same as its material counterpart, except invisibly. Astronomers call this "dark matter" instead of "aether," even though it is the same concept.
Note that the same obsever can observe two photons of different frequency, and if that observer moves then both photons change their apparent frequencies but those frequencies still remain different.
That thought had also occurred to me, later the same day. For both conditions to coexist (internal frequency + affected by external pressure), then the structure of the photon is not what is advertised in the "wave-particle" duality. It is neither a wave or particle--those are projections of the underlying structure as energy (birotation) and speed (location), respectively.

After some discussions with Gopi, we have come up with a viable model based on geometric duality, also discovering that there is more than one "kind" of photon. So far, we have identified six different internal structures that all look the same in the wave-particle projections, but act differently when interacting with atoms. I should probably start a separate topic on that. The six "kinds" are two variants of three classes (depending on 1-3 scalar dimensions composing them). The simplest being "heat," the intermediate being the classic EM radiation, and the most complex being a "biophoton" associated with living structures. I probably need to write a paper on this. But these structures, based mathematically on complex quantities, defines an internal frequency that is altered by energetic pressure, both from the speeds of the source and observer.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Projective acoustics

Post by bperet » Sun Jan 17, 2016 1:33 pm

You are doing what post-modern philosophers claim to be the ideal, but which nobody seems to be really doing anywhere.
Thanks! The discussions here have always been the way that I thought "research" was supposed to work--people freely exchanging ideas. RS2 actually originated on my Antiquatis site, which was applied the same principles to researching philosophy, spirituality and the paranormal. If those topics interest you, the link is: http://forum.antiquatis.org
For instance, as Hempel discusses in the link, our ear will change the phase relations to create a melody. Our brain does its own Fourier analysis on a complex waveform . There obviously is in perception always some complex tempering of phase relations across the spatial/counterspatial boundary. Is there some projective geometry concept that could help explain this?
I actually have never thought about the acoustic equivalent of projective geometry, but yes, the principles are similar.

The root of PG is based on the cross-ratio (a ratio of ratios) that remains projectively invariant. What that means is that the "shadows" cast by a projection always have that cross-ratio the same value, since the cross-ratio accounts for distortions (phase relationships). What you would need to identify is the acoustic equivalent of the cross-ratio, that one value that remains constant, regardless of the source of the melody or the one listening to it. With that identified, you can then determine what the ears and mind are doing to the incoming signals (the projection it creates) to bring it into its own frame of reference. I'll have to think about it some more, as this seems to be the basis of what John W Keely was doing with his acoustic machines--he found the invariant.
A problem indeed. If anyone could help me here, I will be so grateful. This has haunted my mind for the past year.
It is a problem of "datums." Conventional physics assumes a zero datum (end of their tape measure), so when you take the reciprocal of zero, you get infinity, and things become impossible. In RS/RS2, the datum is unity (1). Take the reciprocal of 1 and you get 1 -- coherence. Larson's "speed ranges" addresses this. In a 1-dimensional system, which is what most physics uses, the range from 0-1 is measurable (1-x, as Larson puts it), but as soon as you go over the limit, you are in the 1-infinity range, so the math no longer works. What they do not realize is that the 0-1 is in space, whereas the 1-infinity is NOT that, but 1-0 in time. Also finite. That is why Larson uses the 1-x, 2-x and 3-x notation (for a 3D system), to show that you DON'T start at zero, but at unity, and work down in either direction--space or time--and NEVER actually reach zero. To refer the video you linked (pretty good explanation, BTW), the bandwidth for coherence is centered around unity, not a range offset from zero.
But to attempt an answer at your question, frequency cannot be the property of a photon. It must be a differential that that gets averaged out to conform to the arbitrary definition of a photon standardized for the per/second time measure. Which brings me to another question.
I've been digging some more into this today, and found that there are four factors involved: the intrinsic speed of the rotating system (Larson's "primary magnitudes are absolute"), the properties of the source, the properties of the destination, and the surrounding environment that contains the source, destination and photon. For an analogy, consider two people throwing a baseball between them. Works fine in the back yard, but try it in scuba gear underwater--the parameters change considerably. Then put one person on the shore, and the other underwater and throw the ball. This would be analogous to a photon crossing a gravitational limit. The baseball would be deflecting in its path, even though it was going straight, due to the change in medium. I believe this is the situation we have, since we are gravitationally-bound observers on Earth. The siren on a passing police car sounds different because it is originating in a different "medium," the moving vehicle, which then has to traverse the air, and enter your head--another different medium--to be processed. Doppler shift.
Aren't all quantities differentials? In RS2 how are there any real primary magnitudes that exist outside the 3 dimensional coordinate frame?
Larson calls a "differential" a "displacement."

The primary magnitudes are the rotations that define the motion. If they were to change, If they were to change, than we would see the motion as something else, for example, nitrogen changing to carbon.
Don't you need 3 dimensions to make any magnitude--an object, and observer, and a reference point?
A magnitude is inherently 1-dimensional, since it is just a single number. You need a 3D system in order to resolve those magnitudes into a coordinate system, and for that, you need an object, an observer, and a reference point to determine which ways is "up." That is based on the nature of human perception. The 3D coordinate system is an agreed-upon convention based on physical senses.
Isn't phase always involved even if not explicit in every strata?
Yes, it is. The material and cosmic sectors, under ideal conditions, are 90-degrees out of phase so that the maximum of one sector is overlapped with the minimum of the other, rendering the reciprocal aspect unobservable. Atoms, with both spatial and temporal rotations involved, cause that alignment to shift off the ideal, and that is what we see as phase relationships.
How is scalar motion anything quantitative at least without some type of cross-ratio?
Scalar motion IS the cross-ratio, where one ratio of the pair is unity (1:1), the natural datum, and the other is a speed (s:t), giving a displacement (differential).

Hope this helps! Interesting idea with projective acoustics... thinking about that may lead to a more generalized idea of projection, overall.
Every dogma has its day...

Sun
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

What if sound is light in time

Post by Sun » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:01 pm

image.jpeg
image.jpeg (45.48 KiB) Viewed 3859 times
Am i looking at a diagram of coordinate time? The sin wave of pressure is the space equivalent of electro-magnetic wave of time, so light is the sound in time? Telepathic is speaking in time? You can't have a motion manifested in space but not in time and vice versa. But what about heat and the other types of light.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Sound advice

Post by bperet » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:26 pm

Am i looking at a diagram of coordinate time?
A wave in coordinate time that is being observed from space (hence it appears as longitudinal pressure waves, t/s4, rather than simple harmonic motion).
The sin wave of pressure is the space equivalent of electro-magnetic wave of time, so light is the sound in time?
EM radiation is transverse, so you have a different geometry as well.
Telepathic is speaking in time?
Easier to think of as quantum entanglement between two brains.
You can't have a motion manifested in space but not in time and vice versa. But what about heat and the other types of light.
Heat is a vibration in the time region that alters the inter-atomic distance in space. There is always a consequence in the other aspect.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

 

Post by duane » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:20 pm

I came upon this in a discussion of "conservation of energy" and thought it might be of interest

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... till-valid
There are other states of matter I could discuss such as cosmic strings and cosmic domain walls which obey different power laws. But the most interesting example I will mention is the cosmological constant. It's an energy density of the vacuum. Because the cosmological constant is "constant", this energy density is always and everywhere the same. So because the density is constant and the volume of spacetime grows as a3a3 in our spacetime dimension, the total energy stored in the Universe grows as a3a3, too.

Cosmic inflation is driven by a "temporary cosmological constant" so the total energy of the Universe grows with the volume of the Universe, too. In Alan Guth's words, inflation (or the Universe) is the ultimate free lunch. Inflation explains why the mass/energy of the visible Universe is so much hugely larger than the mass scales of particle physics.

For different mixtures of matter obeying different equations of state (roughly speaking, with different ratios of pressure and energy density), one will see the total energy increase or decrease or be constant. Generally, the total energy of the Universe will tend to increase as the Universe expands if the Universe is filled with matter of increasingly negative pressure; the total energy will decrease if it is filled with matter of increasingly positive pressure





http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-a ... ed-in.html
Why and how energy is not conserved in cosmology
Energy in general relativity

But this article should have been about the energy in general relativity. We're exactly in 1/2 of the article and I still haven't answered the main question. Does energy exist in general relativity? Is it nonzero? Is it exactly conserved? Is it approximately conserved? Can it be written as an integral of the energy density over space?

Well, most of these answers are No, at least morally. But let's look at them more carefully. The precise answers will depend on what you mean by energy and what situation you consider.
On the contrary, the energy stored e.g. in the cosmological constant will expand as "K^3". Why? Well, the energy density carried by the cosmological constant is constant during the cosmological evolution - that's why the "cosmological constant" is called a "cosmological constant". ;-) But the volume of space is literally expanding so the total energy is increasing proportionally to the volume.

I deliberately wrote "K^3" in order to appease the people who don't realize that there are extra dimensions of space or those who do realize that there are extra dimensions but who also know that only 3 of them have been expanding in the recent 13.7 billion years. ;-)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/06/unive ... thing.html
Universe may arise from nothing
Nothing means no spacetime and no information but it cannot mean no mathematics or no laws of physics

Sun
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Re: Katirai on Photon frequency as a pressure

Post by Sun » Thu May 10, 2018 4:02 am

continued discussion from this
bperet wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:27 am
Can you describe your understanding of the term "scalar?"

For me, a "scalar" is nothing more than a single variable, with a magnitude of 1..n, where "n" is a finite number. (Vector requires more than one variable/dimension.)
Sun wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 4:37 am
Frequency of light we used is not the actual frequency of "aether", while acoustic frequency is. It is also possible turning sound waves into a rotation.
This is an interesting conclusion... how did you determine that acoustic frequencies are the frequency of aether?
I think Larson's scalar is the scalar in conventional science, where scalar means only magnitude but no direction, but Larson's can be multi-dimensional. Vector is a quantity have both magnitude and direction. In a spatial reference system, i meant that a vector motion in space should cause a vector motion in time/aether, Newton's Third Law, but a vector motion in time, or i should say a vector motion of aether has no direction in space, so it is scalar, like voltage. Considering oscillating by our hand and by our mind, one oscillating space and the other oscillating time directly. Conventional science tells us that pushing something in air, F-Ffriction=ma, because of Newton's Third Law, but the problem is do we really has no reaction no friction in vacuum? Logically, in vacuum, reaction and friction occurs in aether, and this effect has quantity but no direction in space, it is scalar. It is the same to think the friction is caused by a condensed aether in air. The density of aether, has a quantitative relation to speed of light.
Therefore, oscillating your hand should also oscillate the aether/time, the true nature of acoustic effect. If not, why a sound is not a transverse wave paralleled with the direction of oscillation of your hand like water wave, and is independent of the source? It is logical to think that your hand can't oscillate faster than light, then the compression wave is in space, oscillating faster than light, compression wave in time. According to the these hypothesis, oscillating your hand is indeed vibrating the aether directly with a slower than light frequency, so i thought the acoustic frequency is the frequency of aether, but i still need to look into the math between the source and the sound wave, calculating the "barrier frequency" in different medias(since i'm not a physicist it is a bit challenge for me). Theoretically, the wave length of sound can be negative when frequency is faster than light, and this kind of sound is actually light. The effect is reversed, compression wave in time. There's one thing for sure that the frequency of light, the frequency of oscillating EM field, is actually much slower than its true frequency. What we are measuring is the effect of compression and rarefaction of aether in time. Vector motion of aether is the true reason for dimensional split. We can split aether by mind like you split water by your hand. I doubt when the wave length of sound cross the unit boundary, it becomes heat. Technically, these kind of sound is not actually acoustic effect in conventional science. Sound shatters things in space then light must shatter things in time, changing the state of matter. I found bringing in the concept of aether and to see the effect in space and time reciprocally is very helpful to understand RS.

I am actually borrowing some thought from Tesla. He was always talking about the importance of the media. In vacuum, the media is aether. In air, an electric field, magnetic field, and anti-matter, the media is different. It may provide new explanations to light deflection in different medias. I am not convinced by the geometry of bi-rotation, i think it should be like two disks overlapping each other in spatial reference system. F>ma in air is just because the aether is more condensed, if we pushing something through anti-matter, we should get F<ma. If we can compress the aether around an gravitate object to a higher density in space(rarefaction aether in time) than this object, it should levitate. We don't have experience of these things currently. I am hoping fequency can also result in sub-atomic, atomic structure, and life unit, then everything can make sense.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Pressure, resistance, scalars, vectors

Post by bperet » Sat May 12, 2018 1:11 pm

Larson never liked the word, "force." He referred to it as a "push." You got me thinking about the whole concept of pressure and resistance... all conjugates of conventional concepts:
  1. t/s: energy, conjugate of s/t, speed
  2. t/s2: force, conjugate of s/t2, acceleration
  3. t/s3: firmness/stiffness, conjugate of s/t3, jerk
  4. t/s4: pressure, conjugate of s/t4, jounce or snap
The conventional speed measurements are called clock time derivatives of spatial position, so based on the conjugate relation, the energy measurements must be clock space derivatives of temporal position.

I believe this supports what you are saying, as the relations are conjugates (between sectors), not inverses (between inside and outside of a unit boundary).

The dimensions of pressure can be interpreted different ways, for example, "force per unit area" or "energy per unit volume." There is one more, though I've not heard of it before: "firmness per unit distance," which may be where Larson was going with his "push"... when you push something, you are attempting to make a change across a linear distance and that desire to bend your "line of push" against the mass can be calculated as a firmness or stiffness.

Now think about what is happening at an atomic level, when you take your finger and push your pencil across the desk. It requires a certain about of "pressure" before it will move, enough to overcome the pressure of gravity pushing down against the desk based on the pencil's mass--friction--as well as the resistance of mass, itself (resistance = unwillingness to change). If you think deep enough, and consider what Larson describes in molecular bonding, what is actually causing the pencil to change position is the progression of the natural reference system. When you push the pencil with your finger, you are essentially trying to fuse your finger and the pencil together. However, as the distance between atoms decreases, the expansive force of the progression increases, until the progression takes over and the object changes coordinate position to compensate, restoring balance.

It always seems to be about balance, equilibrium and harmony... oddly enough, the "universe of motion" desires to be still! But given the "natural datum" is motion, it can never find that stillness and everything we see is just a compensation for the motion introduced by the progression of the natural reference system.

Regarding scalars and vectors... a scalar is just a 1D vector (a location on a line). When you are in [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland]Lineland[/url], there is no concept of "direction." ALL you have is larger or smaller magnitudes. It takes more than one dimension to create the "direction" concept: a vector.
  • 1D: magnitude only
  • 2D: magnitude + angle
  • 3D: magnitude + elevation + azimuth
From this list, you can see that the concept of direction starts with 2D and continues to more dimensions.

Applying this to Larson's concept of "scalar" it can be noted that all Larson is doing, is utilizing the magnitude component of a vector. A 3D, scalar motion is just a change of magnitude distributed across three dimensions, what we would call "expansion" or "contraction." The reason this happens is because only a net motion can be transmitted across the unit speed boundary. In the RS, that is "magnitude" of speed, only. In RS2, it is a complex quantity: magnitude of linear speed + magnitude of angular speed (spin). So one can conclude that a "scalar" effect in the RS concerns the net motion of one sector upon another, rather than some intrinsic property.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply