How do impossible squares relate to RST

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.
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by dbundy »

LoL. I don't need to be rejected. I'll leave voluntarily, but I don't think you ought to make this forum for just those who agree. I don't do ad hominen attacks with those who disagree, I try to reason with them. If what you say is true regarding all motion being inherently scalar, I would be interested in knowing how to come to that conclusion myself, but if you kick me off the forum, how am I going to do that?
User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by Djchrismac »

dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:22 pm LoL. I don't need to be rejected. I'll leave voluntarily, but I don't think you ought to make this forum for just those who agree. I don't do ad hominen attacks with those who disagree, I try to reason with them. If what you say is true regarding all motion being inherently scalar, I would be interested in knowing how to come to that conclusion myself, but if you kick me off the forum, how am I going to do that?
Relax Doug, nobody is kicking anyone off the forum but user737 makes a valid point - your LRC research is flawed from the start and Bruce, Horace and others have said similar in the past. I have read through a lot of your work and can't make much sense of it either.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=474&p=3560&hilit=bperet#p3559
bperet wrote:I need to intervene here and point out that Bundy's System of theory (BS theory) has little to do with Larson's Reciprocal System of theory (RS theory). As pointed out in an earlier post by daniel, you will not find SUDRs, TUDRs, "Larson Cubes," etc., in ANY of the published works of Dewey Larson or the papers on the Reciprocal System. Please bear this in mind as you are discussing things, as it can cause a great deal of confusion for other students. The reason you are having difficulty in communication is that you are both operating from different premises, using the same words to mean different things.
Horace wrote:I think the "LRC Research" section has this big sign "Beware all, ye enter here".
I certainly am aware what I am getting into by posting here, but I find Doug to be a good debater, even if he answers a little too verbosely for my taste and not always directly. His different interpretation of Larson's works makes him a challenging opponent in the debate and allows me to hone my discourse skills. Coining clever derogatory terms like "BS theory" is not what I am striving at in this endeavor.
bperet wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:09 pm
Horace wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:47 pm Yes and it causes a great deal of confusion to me, too. But I find it a rewarding challenge to straighten out the meaning of these words.
As long as you know what you are getting yourself into... have fun.
Horace wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:47 pm And how many units of motion are in a sequence of 128 consecutive reversals ?
127, because direction reversals as described by Larson (NBM, p. 50) requires an initial, inward motion to counter the progression. The last "unit," 128, would be concurrent with the progression and have no, net effect.

But then, to get a complete "wave," you would need two sets of 127, or 254, to maintain wave phase. Larson's sequence is described in detail in Nothing But Motion, p. 98. It gets worse when you try to convert Larson's direction reversals into a sine projection. I've seen a lot of conversation over this in the 22 years I've been running an RS discussion group and it has never made much sense to anyone:
Nehru, The Law of Conservation of Direction wrote:It may be seen that in the case of the translational situation the vectorial direction reverses in unison with the scalar direction. But in the case of the vectorial vibration it is not so: it is perplexing why the scalar and vectorial directions do not maintain a constant relationship in the case of the vibrational motion (compare, for example, the third and the fourth units in the tabulation).

Larson comes up with an explanation of a sort, which sounds more like an apology: “… in order to maintain continuity in the relation of the vectorial motion to the fixed reference system the vectorial direction continues the regular reversals at the points where the scalar motion advances to a new unit of space (or time).” On the principles of probability, the alternative possibility, namely, the vectorial directional reversals occurring in unison with the scalar directional reversals appears more logical.
Birotation is SO much simpler and gives better results.
Horace wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:47 pm What is a "box of speed" ?
My point, exactly.
Scalar motion is fundamental to the RS/RS2 and to reject this is baffling to me. I'm sorry to say but you have pages and pages of research that don't really amount to much so I have to repeat the classic line "complexity is entertaining, simplicty is not".

We are not rejecting you, merely reinforcing the points made above that your LRC is your theory, your adaptation of Larson and it doesn't fit well with it or the latest advances in RS2 that are really going somewhere. :)
User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by Djchrismac »

dbundy wrote:Scalar motion, the observed motion of the expanding universe and the inverse of it, the gravitational motion of matter, is not even acknowledged as a worthy consideration for investigation, as the continual fight for the acceptance of a Wikipedia article on Larson and his work, attests.
As you are basing this statement on wikipedia I feel I should point out the following:

https://swprs.org/wikipedia-disinformation-operation/

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=592

Those in control always suppress that which scares them the most. The truth.
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by dbundy »

Sorry, I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. You're welcome to change the RST to any system you like for developing your theory, and reject any theory based on the unchanged RST, but you should understand the difference. Some of you are newcomers to this difference of opinion, but it's been around for a long time.

Bruce, following Nehru, took exception to Larson's conclusions that lead to his concept of the photon. So did I. Satz did not. Bruce used Nehru's ideas to overcome the problems with Larson's photon, but he had to change the system (fundamental postulates) in order to do so, and Larson took exception to that. (See here.)

My approach conforms to the new system, as far as I can tell. Out of it comes, photons, electrons, quarks, and neutrinos, in three families, and with inverse counterparts in each case, with proper chirality. The electrical charges are correct for each of these particles, and the periodic table of elements is produced as combinations of the first family. The interactions of plus and minus beta decay are clearly evident, and the atomic spectra of the elements is shown to work in principle.

There is much more to say about it, but the problem is I can't see the same progress in the RS2. Admittedly, I haven't spent a great deal of time with it, but that's because I can't start at the beginning and get very far. I know how Larson developed his theory and arrived at his conclusions, but I've yet to find a systematic presentation of the RS2, that leads any where near the results that I have found in my work. It seems to me that Bruce goes back and forth, between his ideas and Larson's, depending on which is most convenient to the topic at hand.

Now, that's my view, and I don't intend on disturbing your reveling in the RS2, if that's your desire. Have at it. I hope it serves you well, but as for me, I prefer Larson's RST. It has proven marvelously successful.

BTW, I don't recall receiveving any questions on my work from you, so I wonder if that would make a difference. You think?
User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by Djchrismac »

A lot of my questions are the same ones that Horace has put forward to you in muliple topics and posts that you have never got round to resolving, or providing a satisfactory answer to.
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by dbundy »

Those are topics of his ideas, not mine, and I tried to get into them, but failed, and then personal circumstances prevented me from getting into it again. However, that was fairly recently, and it has to do with units of motion, which I do want to address, if people want to know, but I can't understand clearly what Horace is wanting me to see. Again, it's about his ideas, not mine, as far as I can tell.

If you have anything I can clarify for you, I'll be glad to do it on LRC Research, of course. Now, I appologize once more for causing a disturbance here. Please, feel free to disagree with my point of view. I'm not going to defend it here. I want you guys to continue without Bruce. I'm sure that is what he would want, and he was my friend.
User avatar
user737
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: In your head

Coupling of Linear and Rotational Motion

Post by user737 »

Continuing those thoughts...

We've been calling these Yang and Yin; let's be cognizant though that we often deal with shadows and so there are likely yang and yin aspects of both space and time... equivalent space being the equivalent spatial representation of motion in time (yang aspect of yin) is one such example.

We now understand how 1/1 = Φπ2/16 links discrete linear (real) motion and rotational ("imaginary") motion to a common base scalar unity motion.

E=mc2 being the 3D solution in regard to reciprocal motion as observed across the unit boundary as mass/gravity.
There should be then 2D and 1D solution(s) and I suspect we have more than a few (read: all) in hand already.

In fact, each are as previously provided: two sides of a single coin when referring to the projective aspects of space and time.
Should not "squaring of the circle" provide for the discrete set of linear-to-rotational motion (speed/energy) solutions?

For instance, is there not already an inextricable link between engine speed (rpm measured as frequency) and engine power, itself (rate of energy per time) a function of energy (torque) output with respect to time? The engine spins and this itself creates the linear motion of the car down the road. (We're literally attempting to understand the transmission component.) The car moves the desired "direction" in space being equal-and-opposite in "direction" of the engine motion.

Put otherwise: the rate of change of velocity (acceleration) is proportional to the rate of change of speed of engine rotation (energy measured as frequency) and the radius (distance) of the motion swept out (integrated over clock space) with respect to clock time and we call this power.

F = ma → t/s2 = t3/s3 × s/t2 where 'F' and 'a' are conjugates

As Larson described, rotating balls moving against the linear-imposed motion of the conveyor belt in which they are located. Most of the early confusion may be caused by failure to segregate 3 scalar dimensions from 3 coordinate dimensions the latter of which can only be provided for in a low-speed (1-x) gravitational system as 3D coordinate space + 1D scalar time.

Force is a 1D push/pull vector in space-time, the result of which is the apparent "force" of gravitational attraction when expressed as a maximum of 3 (scalar) dimensions of inward motion -- i.j.k = -1 -- or 3 scalar dimensions of motion in time properly situated within a unit of space that we call the Time Region (where there can be motion in time only as space is fixed at unity). We measure this as a 1D inverse speed (energy) as we cannot measure locations in coordinate time and so observe only the shadow (3D → 1D) as the motion crosses the unit boundary or more appropriately as we view said motion from the opposite side of the unit boundary. Dual quaternions then provide for observation of a single dimension of time distributed over a 3D coordinate space or little spherical balls of "mass" we call atoms. The solid of time.

The relation of any two said "points" or many "points" would then constitute the gravitational "attraction" as a function of mass (depth of angular recursion in time -- unbounded counter spatial turn measured as bounded "frequency") and distance in space. This is what digs at me when I see the internals of the exchange mechanism as (st)2. Not motion. The actual (i.e. fully-expressed) ratios of motion have been over-simplified (reduced) to *not* motion.

The interaction of the mass field or what we call 1D gravity (as it must be, we're in 1D space, right?) is really due 3D motion (the mass as temporal motion) turned inside-out, upside-down, and backwards in 4D (3 spatial + 1 temporal scalar) wherein mass being an outward temporal rotation in time (3D energy) becomes an inward linear motion in space, due the inherent duality of PG (projective geometry): points becomes volumes (in 3D coordinate space -- Euclidean) and volumes become points; lines become planes and planes become lines (electro-magnetic in a 'nut'). Hence, unit space (TR) -- a universe of time within a single "point" in space. Point goes in quotes as there is no zero, just inverse infinity (that is to say: inverse all or nothing) being of no dimension.

The universe tends to work by taking one (to be defined), creating an apparent reciprocal duality, then re-combing to pro-create something new. Do this again in the reciprocal fashion and combine once over. Now repeat that overall process in the reciprocal fashion and combine once more. Repeat.

Going back to the original thought: we do see the rotational energy of the engine and the linear motion of the conveyance as conjugates in 3D coordinate space with the ensuring orthogonal vectoral displacement in space. We explore a similar phenomenon in the Intermediate (2-x) speed range with a non-dissertation on electrical reactance.

Seems to me that all of these state equations should be shown to be naturally coupled to the entering premise and the resulting understanding as to the proper value for π should shock the [scientific/mathematical/crypto/radio, really whole] world to the core.

For example, P = I2R where I (speed, s/t) is +1 on the real (DC) axis and so is equivalent to c and therefore I2 → c2 as in E = mc2. Here we relate power (energy per time) to resistance (mass per time) -- in essence we've taken the first derivative of everything (with respect to clock time).
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: Coupling of Linear and Rotational Motion

Post by ckiit »

user737 wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:39 am We now understand how 1/1 = Φπ2/16 links discrete linear (real) motion and rotational ("imaginary") motion to a common base scalar unity motion.
The significance of this is beyond imagination, especially in light of:

Φ² ± Φ = 1, Φ³

which pins a dichotomy of discrete linear (real) to rotational (imaginary)
motion (based on a single "direction reversal" captured by the ±)
to one side of the expression.

Recalling Φ can be expressed in terms of π as (π+π√5)/2π
and Φ² being the addition of 2π viz. (3π+π√5)/2π,
we may subtract the former from the latter to produce a discrete linear '1'
and/or we may add them to produce the rotational Φ³
thus in setting them against one another we have a condition describing
simultaneity of the progression and (what must be) gravitation.

UniΦ.jpg
UniΦ.jpg (86.34 KiB) Viewed 43221 times
As long as the three numerator terms maintain their coefficient and power relations to/with the base,
this general expression should be able to be further coupled to variables (ie. i, j, k) for a mapping
in any base desired. All that matters is the integrity of the relationship between the coefficients and powers.
user737 wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:39 am Seems to me that all of these state equations should be shown to be naturally coupled to the entering premise and the resulting understanding as to the proper value for π should shock the [scientific/mathematical/crypto/radio, really whole] world to the core.
That the "speed" of light squared can be expressed as (8√5-8) really goes to show how integral √5 is to motion/causality.
What is also a shocker (though not-at-all surprising) is the corollary implication: any/all Relativistic
e = MC² calculations now both implicitly and explicitly concerns RSoT's
16 = Φπ² and/or
1 = Φπ²/16 × 16/Φπ² = 1
∞ 1 = s/t × t/s = 1 ∞
viz. Mr. Larson was/is correct concerning space and time
being naturally coupled via (multiplicative) reciprocity.
User avatar
user737
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Coupling of Linear and Rotational Motion

Post by user737 »

ckiit wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:29 am Φ² ± Φ = 1, Φ³
Φ2 regards the dual (2D magnetic) rotation, expressed as <1, i, j, 0>, wherein Φ is a single rotation (electric), expressed as <1, i, 0, 0> -- 1D complex. The resulting combined motion (quaternion) are joined by the epsilon function as a dual quaternion projected in space.

Magnetic (Φ² as an equivalent function of π2 → π4 -- there are the 4 equivalent dimensions of time -- as π2 is a function of Φ1) is simply a second-power relationship to electric (Φ) motion -- spatial -- which can be additive or subtractive from the magnetic displacement (temporal) albeit as a 1-dimensional motion...

... the limits of which are (+)1 -- progression -- and Φ³ (gravitation) or 4D-inside-out radiation (progression).

The combinations of the 3-dimensional FTL rotations (i.e. energy) build out the PTOE from the most insignificant motion (subatomic particles: positron, electron) all the way to the mass limit as expressed in element 117 equivalent speed (ES).

π = 4/√Φ where Φ = 1 → π = 4 when space is at unity. This is within unit space or the Time Region (TR) ∴ π = 4 when working in counterspace.

Whereas Φ = (π+π√5)/2π is π-invariant -- I can pick any value for π and this equation holds true -- and takes on a irrational value in space, the same cannot be said when calculating for π.

That is to say, I make no assumption as to the magnitude of π when solving for Φ; however, the same cannot be said in the reciprocal regard as unity-Φ must be assumed (TR) to come to the correct solution for π for this speed region. This would then be how the two solutions link as they cannot be mutually-dependent as that would then create a paradox.
Attachments
RS-RS2 Working File 12.10.2019.xlsx
(112.51 KiB) Downloaded 1235 times
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by Djchrismac »

Some related info that daniel posted on Conscioushugs 6 years ago, discussing squares, phi, gravity, bi-rotation, charge and more:
Scalar this, scalar that... RS2-104
https://fora.conscioushugs.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=787

by Djchrismac » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:27 pm
In case anyone here doesn't visit the RS2 website much, Bruce has recently uploaded part 4 of the RS2 introductory papers. It's excellent, well written, funny and helps explain scalar motion and Reciprocal System basics very well:

RS2-104: Scalar Motion
Anyone who has explored the realm of the science that lies beyond what is taught in the classroom, will undoubtedly run across the term “scalar” without any consistency of application. Scalar waves, scalar energy, scalar motion, scalar this, scalar that… it appears the term is popular to describe something that the author does not quite understand themselves. This paper explains the "scalar" concept and how it is used in the Reciprocal System.

http://reciprocalsystem.org/PDFa/RS2-10 ... uce%29.pdf

If you are new here and looking for more of the same (and a whole lot more) then the other RS2 papers can be found at http://reciprocalsystem.org/.
by daniel » Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:42 pm
aeral wrote:
Dan Winter explains gravity as "The attraction due to gravity is caused by the adding and multiplying constructively, successfully of the heterodynes of waves of charge. As they approach center the phase velocities create a centripedal force where compression turns into acceleration".

This is only possible, he goes on to prove with golden mean geometry. Is this the acceleration from the Material [less than speed of light ] to the Cosmic sector {faster than speed of light?
(Dan Winter video link - https://youtu.be/wv74kNU2WiQ)
In the Reciprocal System, there are two components to gravity: rotational mass and gravitational charge. The rotational mass is fixed for each element, as it defines the element, and has a value of twice the atomic number. In the early 19th century research, they referred to this as "weight" instead of "mass."

The gravitational charge (also known as isotopic mass) is the extra bit that is added (or subtracted) to the rotational mass to get the actual mass of the atom. All charges are vibrations, having 1/2 the effectiveness of a rotation and measured as 1 AMU (which is why a rotation is 2 AMU). It would seem that he is only addressing the gravitational charge portion of the net, gravitational effect. The gravitational charge varies between atoms, depending upon the magnetic ionization level of the environment (a concept I use frequently in my papers). As a result, you see a lot of fractional mass values, because that is the average weight of an isotopic range of mass. If you could actually weigh a single atom, it would always be an integer value in AMUs = 2Z + G.

The only problem I see with Winter's explanation is that he is explaining the effect of scalar motion, not the cause, and assumes the effect IS the cause. Kind of "putting the cart before the horse."

The Golden Ratio (phi) is the consequence of the interaction between motion in space (squares) and motion in "equivalent space" (how time is represented in space, circles)--the result is the spiral with the phi ratio. Since space is discrete (squares), the ratio arises as part of that "quantum PI" function that Bruce describes in his next paper, RS2-105: Quantum PI.

BTW, did you catch the ENKI reference in his video?
by daniel » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:40 pm
Here is a screen snap...
Image

Though it is Latin and actually spelled vesica piscis, which means "fish bladder."
daniel wrote: Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:13 pm
infinity wrote:So, some of the lines I'm looking at are inward and some are outward? E.g. the yellow line is the reciprocal of the green one?
You would have to ask the author of what his intentions were, regarding the lines. But in RS context, they would be analogous to lines on a contour map, showing discrete speed ranges.
PHIon wrote:When the electron is described as being 0-0-(1), is this describing the same process you just mentioned? The two magnetic dimensions of the electron are free (cancelled?) and as a consequence the electron is carried by the outward progression in the material sector which also means carried inward in the cosmic sector?
Larson's particle displacement notation, 0-0-(1) is basically saying that the magnetic speed is unity (see RS2-106: Dimensions and Displacements). Any dimension at unit speed is carried by the progression. Analogous to the photon, which is a vibration orthogonal to the translation of the progression, the electron is a rotation orthogonal to the progression.

Now when an electron becomes charged, the photon (a birotation of 2 dimensions) occupies those unit-speed dimensions, so there are no free dimensions to be carried by the progression, and the particle is no longer carried at the speed of light. The charged electron is "static electricity." (uncharged being electric current)
PHIon wrote:Does the spatial displacement electron cancel out any gravitational dimensions at some point due to thermal motion like molecules do?
No, you have to be stuck inside the time region to affect a gravitational dimension, where 3D time is. The electron is a rotating unit of space and the time region is time... space-to-time constitutes motion, so the electron just passes through the time region without interacting.

When you get that "thermal motion" on an electron, it shows up as our concept of "charge", instead. That's why charged stuff can attract (gravitation) and repel (progression). Think of it as wave addition or cancellation. In the RS, any time you get "repulsion," all that is going on is that you have neutralized the inward motion and allowed the progression of the natural reference system to take effect. So next time you put two magnets together with the same poles facing, what you are feeling is that natural, outward push of the expansion of the Universe. Pretty neat, huh?

PHIon wrote:At this point, I am learning about how the electron can pick up a charge, but I'm not sure if that process is the same as the process of molecules changing state.
The concept of charge is dimensional in the RS...
LV (Linear vibration) = thermal motion
RV-1D (rotational vibration) = what you get when an LV is attached to a rotation (R), electric charge.
RV-2D = gravitational charge, also known as isotopic mass. This is the vibrational component to gravity that is dominant in the heavier elements.

PHIon wrote:Regarding states of matter, Prof Nehru mentions in his sun paper that there are seven states of matter: solids , liquids, gases, their inverses, and thredules. Is vapor a reference to the aether of 3D time -- Pythagoaras' fire element? Lastly, is the wall that gas encounters referring to unit speed which cannot be crossed without a supernova type of force?
Nehru addresses the vapor state in one of his dialogs with Larson ( http://reciprocalsystem.org ), where Larson basically admits "oh, I hadn't thought of that." The vapor state is where you get fogs, mists and clouds from. Unlike the other states, the thermal range for the vapor state is very small, so it tends to collapse to either liquid (rain) or gas (fog "burning off"). It is not recognized by conventional science, whom treat it as an aggregate property.

The states of matter I discussed were all in the low speed range (1-x). The intermediate speed gives the inverse states, and the ultra-high speed range gives you the thredule. If you go beyond that, there is no spatial component left to observe or measure--at least not in the Material sector.

I would associate the fire element with the thredule concept, as the references tend to be towards a flame or jet, which is the way a thredule manifests (like the jet from the M87 galaxy).

The "gas wall" is pretty much any structure that has gravity. In the gas state, you don't actually have moving particles, as much as you have particles being carried by the progression. Gravitation is the inverse of progression, so it "draws the line" (or wall) as to how far something can be carried.
daniel wrote: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:25 am
PHIon wrote:Your explanations for these concepts along with bruce's lecture #1 on the RS2 site have helped me tremendously. It's really amazing how the cognitive process works when you struggle with a new idea and there are obvious blocks to comprehension and then suddenly something clicks seemingly out of nowhere.
And that's only the first click. Now that your mind has that pattern of recognition established, it will start to apply it to other situations--and you'll begin to see how that reciprocal relation applies in just about everything.
PHIon wrote:I get a little lost when bruce talks about cosmic neutrinos in his lecture -- is that the RV-2D you mentioned?
That would be the anti-gravitational charge, since you are dealing with a cosmic particle where everything is backwards from the material perspective. The neutrino is an interesting particle to begin with because it has no net displacement, since the magnetic and electric rotations cancel each other out. So the only thing that can interact is the charge on it, making the cosmic neutrino indistinguishable to our science from the charged electron. It just doesn't behave the same, because it technically has a negative mass. Get enough of those in a wire and guess what happens?
PHIon wrote:Since I am not in the science end of research, I have been asking myself how I might apply whatever I learn about the RS in some practical application. I have always been fascinated with life, the universe and everything so learning some RS concepts for their own sake is enough for me.
I don't know your cultural background, but most "western" societies, particularly the ungendered-noun English speakers, do not understand the concept of yin-yang, or as Larson calls it, time-space. Once you start to build the association of space = yang = linear = masculine = light and time = yin = rotational = feminine = dark, you'll start to recognize it in everything else, from the hot, yang, sunny side of the hill to the cool, yin shady side of the same hill--two aspects of the same hill. Men, being masculine, are more yang and "material sector" (body, sensation) whereas women, being feminine, are more yin and "cosmic sector" (soul, feeling) oriented. And the interactions work the same as basic chemistry in the RS. Relationships between partners, friends and families work the same as molecules and aggregates in RS physics--and when things "heat up" from thermal motion (anger, stress), it tends to break the aggregates and relationships apart.

The trick is to expand that pattern recognition of time-space, yin-yang into other fields. What has always impressed me about Larson's Reciprocal System is the extraordinary range of application of the principles, and you don't even need any equations, just the basic concepts of a "universe of motion."
Added in case the descriptions help anyone reading this and also the related topic on charge:

Unity and Phi^3 - Annotations of Mathis' "Squaring the Circle"
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=680&p=4147#p4147
Post Reply