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...