Reciprocal System Research Society

While inverting the relationships between poles is hypothetically possible in software, without my really understanding of why, exactly, the relationships are so inverted, software I write to do that is only going to feel like just so much "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" sort of thing to me... like it's been orchestrated to behave in a particular way that doesn't regard the underlying principles involved. Not that I'm saying it wouldn't reflect what would actually happen, but, and perhaps most importantly to myself, it won't really help me understand why the SEG behaves the way it does, which would be my entire purpose for writing such a computer program.

I've already read the papers you've mentioned above on the structure of the sun, and although they do indeed describe the behavior of comagnetism, but I still find myself at a loss as to understanding why it behaves so differently... while the paper does affirm that it does, I have been unable to concretely identify why it happens. If, as I understand it, all magnetic domains are ultimately the result of moving charges inside of each magnetic moment, then what makes those in comagnetism behave differently from the conventional ones? If comagnetic domains are not caused by moving charges, then what are they caused by? And why?

I'm not necessarily expecting you to answer these questions yourself, mind you. I'm perfectly willing to read and attempt to analyze any papers I can find on the subject myself. If you coud kindly point me in the right general direction (like, for example, where on this website I should be trying to look), I'd be most appreciative. The search facilities don't seem to turn up much.

Thanks for your patience, and assistance.

Mark

I've already read the papers you've mentioned above on the structure of the sun, and although they do indeed describe the behavior of comagnetism, but I still find myself at a loss as to understanding why it behaves so differently...

It only took me about 6 reads before I understood it, but then I've been working with the RS for 20 years.

If, as I understand it, all magnetic domains are ultimately the result of moving charges inside of each magnetic moment, then what makes those in comagnetism behave differently from the conventional ones? If comagnetic domains are not caused by moving charges, then what are they caused by? And why?

In the Reciprocal System, the atom is composed of temporal rotations, anchored to a spatial location. These temporal rotations (I believe they are called "configuration space" in conventional physics) exist in 3-dimensional time, called the "time region." That rotating system can be vibrated in one or two dimensions. One dimensional rotational vibration is electric charge (visualize a washing machine agitator). Two dimensional rotational vibration is a magnetic charge. In the RS, they are independent motions. A magnetic charge does not require ANY electric charge to exist in the atom. Usually there are electric charges present, since there are electrons everywhere and they get caught up in the motion.

Moving charges CAN produce a magnetic field, when they move through a 3-dimensional atomic system. Basic math--the field of the 3D atom (time) gets slightly disrupted by the passage of a 1D electron (space), and the result is a 2D vibration (electromagnetism). 3D rotation minus 1D rotational vibration = 2D rotational vibration. But EM is a different effect than static, magnetic fields.

ANY 2-dimensional rotational vibration can be a source of magnetism. Normally, we only deal with the EM field. What Nehru discovered in his article on sunspots was that there is another source of 2D RV--when thermal motion (heat--a 1-dimensional vibration) enters "equivalent space", it becomes a 2-dimensional motion--a 2D rotational vibration.

Equivalent space is a hard concept to understand at first, but basically it is a spatial projection of motion in time. In RS2, all temporal motion is polar (yin), basically a vibrating angle (like a windshield wiper, versus simple harmonic motion). When viewed from time, it's just a 1-dimensional motion, as all you need to represent it is a single variable, the phase angle. But when viewed from space, that vibrating angle must be put in a plane to represent an angle, so it now requires 2 dimensions to represent the motion, x/y axes, for example. So motion in equivalent space is the 2nd power of the motion in time--so we see it as a 2-dimensional vibration.

In the world outside the atom, any 2D RV is magnetism. Comagnetism arises not from electrical charge, but from what you could call, thermal charge. An electrical charge will never exceed the speed of light. It can't, because to do so would destroy the electron (a single rotation). Atoms, however, have lots and lots of stuff inside them with massive rotational displacement, so they can take a lot more abuse--like from heat. When the thermal motion exceeds one natural unit of heat (the speed of light, as heat is considered a motion--a speed), it starts to move faster-than-light and stops moving stuff around in space and starts moving stuff around in time. Space and time are reciprocally related, so all the relationships invert--opposites repel and likes attract. That is the origin of comagnetism--faster-than-light, thermal motion.

If you haven't already, read Larson's Outline of the Deductive Development of the Reciprocal System. That covers the entire Reciprocal System, from photons to galaxies, in 164 steps. (Larson's books are difficult to read, as they lack diagrams and he does tend to go on-and-on trying to justify his position. The outline is right to the point.)

Now you may be wondering why, since comagnetism is thermally generated, why the SEG doesn't just melt down and do a China syndrome... well, as I said, once you exceed "c", things invert. Up to the speed of light, heat gets "hotter". Once you pass the speed of light and continue to add thermal energy, heat gets COLDER. If comagnetism is present in the SEGs, then when the machine is in operation, it will get COLDER, not hotter, as any friction would add to the "inverse" thermal motion which we observe as cooling down. And I do believe that has been reported by Searle.

Actually, what I'm really wondering is why it would be called magnetism at all... since it is seeming to me like something entirely different.

I mean, given a comagnetic field, at it's S pole, will a conventional magnet's N pole still be drawn to it, for example? Will it still repel a conventional magnet's S pole? From what you are saying, I get the impression that this is not the case, but yet conventional magnetic sensors are still able to detect them (as documented by Searl), which puzzles the heck out of me.

I'll read through the article you've linked to above, and perhaps have some additional insight at that point.

As always, thanks for your input.

Mark

I mean, given a comagnetic field, at it's S pole, will a conventional magnet's N pole still be drawn to it, for example? Will it still repel a conventional magnet's S pole?

You must have a spycam hidden around here--I was working on just that question last night! Might want to read the Forces and Force Fields topic. In the RS, "force" is an indicator of how time alters space. It appears as an invisible force, because time cannot be directly observed in space--only the effect it has ON space. And being a rotational vibration, it has frequency, phase and orientation.

What I found from last night's research is that magnetism and comagnetism are 180-degress out of phase with each other, analogous to paramagnetism and diamagnetism. One is pulling, the other pushing, so the result should be no net motion. (+sin(x)) + (-sin(x)) = 0. (I emailed Nehru for his thoughts).

Regarding the SEG, I suspect that it is NOT the interaction of the magnetic fields, but the effect the magnetic and comagnetic fields INDUCES on the paramagnetic and diamagnetic alloys used in the roller construction. I'll have to find the construction details to examine the interactions.

conventional magnetic sensors are still able to detect them (as documented by Searl), which puzzles the heck out of me.

Sensors are just detecting the presence of 2D rotational vibration. The phase or orientation of the vibration is probably irrelevant; if you measure a light wave, can you tell the difference between sin(x) and -sin(x) on a solar cell, or if the light is coming from the left or right side of the room? Detectors, like the Hall effect, only pick up the magnitude of the vibration, so they will respond to ANY 2D RV.

I kinda figured it wouldn't interact with normal magnets... or rather, that there would be no net effect upon them (the pushing and pulling would cancel out). What puzzles the heck out of me though is how it can not have any effect on other magnets, yet still be detected as a single regular magenetic pole by a sensor. I would think it would sort of be perceived in space like two opposing magnetic fields at the same physical point, and thus cancel eachother out (by my limited understanding thus far, anyways)

What puzzles the heck out of me though is how it can not have any effect on other magnets, yet still be detected as a single regular magenetic pole by a sensor.

Consider a mechanical analogy. Take two pistons that are oscillating at the same speed, but exactly 180-degrees out of phase. You can put them head-to-head against each other, and they won't collide, because the inward stroke on one would be exactly matched by the outward stroke on the other. Both would be moving, but being exactly in sync, there is no net effect outside the system.

Yet, you can take EITHER one and put it against a metal plate, and it will smash the heck out of it like a jackhammer.

The magnetic situation is the same. The magnetic and comagnetic fields are out of phase, and fit together like puzzle pieces. Yet place either one against a flat plate--the induced field of a magnetic sensor, and it will shake it, producing the electric current that the device creates to measure the field strength.

Though the induced magnetism in a metal would be in the opposite direction. In comagnetism opposites repel, so when a paramagnetic material is placed in a comagnetic field it will produce a diamagnetic response--even though it would induce the same magnetic poles in the material, it will push the material away rather than adhere to it (as you would get in a normal, paramagnetic response). A comagnet would float over a paramagnetic material, and would stick to a diamagnetic material--exactly opposite to normal, magnetic material. Again, a phenomenon observed in the SEG behavior.

I would agree that it is classical electrodynamics which has to be used to obtain a model, with one important addition: the gauge (Lorenz gauge and Coulomb gauge) have to be removed, as they are arbitrary assumptions. Once they are out, it gets easier to get the effects of a scalar field. If you want I can give you a reference on doing that... will have to dig it out.

QED, in my opinion, just goes ahead and blindly quantizes everything. This helps when it has to do with electrons and photons, but with little else, as in the rest of the particles, the dimensions involved are more than one.