"Fundamental" Problems

[jacques]

Quote:

It has several "layers" to it. The base layer is a class library that allows you to create particles and elements, and determine atomic properties.

Which language is it writen ? C C++ FORTRAN ?

Is it only numeric or you also have graphic output ?

What are the atomic properties you determine ?

Does it calculate mass and secondary mass ?

Is it able to show all the motion transformation during the radioactive decay of U238 ?

CAn I run that on my PC ?

I read your idea about the positron and the electron being primary to photon. It simplify a lot the topo. Very good explaination of the exchange betwen electron and photon.

Also I have some base in Java, very good in C and C++. I programmed a little 3D library with a Matrice library during my studies. Today there a lot of way to do 3D easely! So if I can help just tell me.

[bperet]

jacques wrote:

Which language is it writen ? C C++ FORTRAN ?

It originally started with SAS/C on an Amiga. Migrated to C++, did a short trip to Perl for radioactive decay functions, and then pretty much settled on PhP (php.net) using POV-Ray for graphics and animations (povray.org).

jacques wrote:

Is it only numeric or you also have graphic output ?

Mostly numeric, since I am typically dealing with atomic properties that have numeric values. I have done some simulations with animated GIFs thru POV-Ray to flush out ideas.

jacques wrote:

What are the atomic properties you determine ?

Depends on the particle; normally mass, magnetic moments, valence, energy levels and charge.

jacques wrote:

Does it calculate mass and secondary mass ?

Yes, for subatomic systems and combinations.

jacques wrote:

Is it able to show all the motion transformation during the radioactive decay of U238?

I had a Perl program that simulated radioactive decay based on Larson's description, but it would never match what was in the books. Nehru and I looked at it for a while (this was about 5 years ago), but we were unable to determine why there were major differences. I shelved the research until I could get a better understanding of the atomic model.

jacques wrote:

CAn I run that on my PC ?

The PhP stuff will run on any platform with a PhP interpreter.

jacques wrote:

I read your idea about the positron and the electron being primary to photon. It simplify a lot the topo. Very good explaination of the exchange betwen electron and photon.

Most of that actually came from simulations based in the RS that didn't do what they were supposed to. I'm starting a formal model of RS2 to web publish, so others can start experimenting with it and flushing out the bugs. I just set up the subdomain rs2.antiquatis.org for the work (nothing published yet).

jacques wrote:

Also I have some base in Java, very good in C and C++. I programmed a little 3D library with a Matrice library during my studies. Today there a lot of way to do 3D easely! So if I can help just tell me.

I've experimented a little with Java, but am no expert. If you know C++, then PhP 5 is simple to learn; almost the same thing, with the same syntax. Only difference is PhP is interpretive and runs on the web.

I was looking at Java with the hopes of using it for a web-based, interactive graphic system where we could study the actual motions involved (thru the use of projective transforms), and how they interact (resultant fields, etc). I find the visual keys to be extremely helpful when trying to understand something. PhP only produces static content.

Perhaps I'll start another forum dedicated to working out the details of a formal computer model, which can be made public in the subdomain.

[bperet]

Here is another of the "Fundamental Problems" of the RS:

Larson assumes that the simple harmonic motion, the photon, is the pre-requisite to all rotation motion. The SHM is carried at a fixed location in the natural reference system. The SHM has no torque or other motion that can move it from this fixed location.

If light were the first manifestation, and as a SHM as Larson describes, then every location COULD contain a photon of light. The problem occurs is that NONE of these photons could interact with each other, to produce more complicated structures. Rotational bases could not form, unless some other agent acted upon the photons directly to induce the secondary motion.

In the RS2, the problem of interaction is taken care of. The first manifestation in RS2 is the positron, which is a rotation and has torque--it is not fixed at a location, but can move in one dimension. As such, when a "sea of positrons" is created (versus Larson's "sea of photons"), they will all immediatly start colliding with each other, forming more complex structures.

But, as to what creates that initial motion... that will probably remain a mystery. In simulation studies, I have been using a random number generator to introduce a change of speed to the grid of absolute, unit-speed locations. This results in interaction and the atomic building process.

[danmc]

Not only this, but Larson's statement "anything that can exist in a universe of motion does exist", always seemed a bit of contrived necessity to me. Since SHM has no mechanism, but is allowed by the postulates, Larson, in the end, uses the above statement in lieu of a physical mechanism to explain the reversal of motion at the end of a unit.

My first two questions to myself after reading NBM were:

1. What causes the reversal at the end of the unit in SHM?

2. What causes the photon to rotate?

Larson argues that rotation can only occur after we have something to rotate- a photon. This may or may not be true, but in either case it certainly does not serve as a reason or mechanism. Furthermore, as you mentioned on the Yahoo! list some time back, why is an object needed for rotational motion, but not translational motion?

One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in the RS is this idea that we can have motion without some "thing" in motion. Why this does not apply to rotational motion is a bit of puzzle because it seem to me that if the most basic, general motion requires no object for motion to occur, that we can have motion in and of itself, it would seem that this could be applied to any kind of motion we may encounter in a universe of motion.

There are certain areas of the RS that, to my mind, encounter some interesting issues in a philosophical sense. It may be instructive to have a forum devoted to discussing some of these in order to move toward a "reciprocal philosophy".

[bperet]

danmc wrote:

Not only this, but Larson's statement "anything that can exist in a universe of motion does exist", always seemed a bit of contrived necessity to me.

If that is held to be true (which seems reasonable to me), then "rotation without anything to rotate" SHOULD exist.

danmc wrote:

My first two questions to myself after reading NBM were:

1. What causes the reversal at the end of the unit in SHM?

2. What causes the photon to rotate?

What we've discovered with RS2 is that the 'reversal' is a normal part of motion -- the "outward motion" being the rotation from zero to pi radians, and the "inward motion" continuing the motion from pi back to zero.

As to the cause... whatever causes the progression of the natural reference system also causes the rotation within the time and space regions. To wax metaphysical, the Ra Material lists it this way:

1st distortion = Free Will -- the outward expansion of the Universe.

2nd distortion = Love -- inward motion (attractive principle).

3rd distortion = Light -- manifestation.

Note that they go in sequence... you must have free will (outward motion) before you can have love (inward motion), before you can have light (manifestation).

danmc wrote:

Larson argues that rotation can only occur after we have something to rotate- a photon. This may or may not be true, but in either case it certainly does not serve as a reason or mechanism. Furthermore, as you mentioned on the Yahoo! list some time back, why is an object needed for rotational motion, but not translational motion?

The problem occurs because Larson did not recognize the Euclidean/Polar relationship between the time-space region/time region, nor the space-time region/space region. In the outside regions, Euclidean translation is the default; in the inside regions, Polar rotation is the default.

danmc wrote:

One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in the RS is this idea that we can have motion without some "thing" in motion. Why this does not apply to rotational motion is a bit of puzzle because it seem to me that if the most basic, general motion requires no object for motion to occur, that we can have motion in and of itself, it would seem that this could be applied to any kind of motion we may encounter in a universe of motion.

There are certain areas of the RS that, to my mind, encounter some interesting issues in a philosophical sense. It may be instructive to have a forum devoted to discussing some of these in order to move toward a "reciprocal philosophy".

Sounds like a good idea. I'll set it up.

[bperet]

Larson builds the rotational base thru the rotation of a photon, a linear vibration, then states that the rotational base is the "rotational equivalent of nothing". It occurs to me that this may not be the case, as a rotational vibration is NOT a solid line, it is a VIBRATION, constantly changing scalar direction from "in" to "out". When one combines a rotation with a vibration, you don't get a rotation... you get a ROTATIONAL VIBRATION as the result.

That would make Larson's rotational base a "unit of charge", which should be detectable as a type of "charged vacuum".

In RS2, the problem doesn't exist because the RS2 rotational base is just the progression in counterspace -- exactly "nothing."

It also suggests that, in this interpretation of Larson, the photon is the carrier of charge on other particles, which is the case in RS2.

[bperet]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but, according to Larson, "gravitation" occurs when there is an inward motion in all THREE scalar dimensions. Now we know that particles do not "gravitate", because they are the projection of a single scalar dimension into two magnetic and one electric rotation.

But atoms DO gravitate, and they are composed of TWO identical particles, and thus only have TWO inward scalar dimensions associated with them; one per particle and only one capable of representation in the 3d reference system (the other is not).

Where is the third scalar motion that makes an atom gravitate? A scalar motion cannot exist without having some physical effect on the compound motion of the other two double-rotating systems, and as of yet, I cannot track it down.

And to the best of my knowledge we do not see atoms that exist only with momentum, and do not gravitate.

Ideas?