This is in response to some emails concerning Chapter 3 of the working draft, presented for your information.
Larry wrote:
Nehru and I went thru this back in 2003 and came to the conclusion that Larson's displacement model left a lot to be desired, as did the notational system, since it can only represent offsets of space OR time, not both. From that point on, we've been sticking with a "speed" model and not using displacements at all.Maybe I missed something somewhere, so let me review in detail my understanding here. The material base is composed of 12L- and 21R+ which gives offsetting magnitude in all directions because the 21R+ has positively oriented time form in all directions and positively oriented space form in only the 128 interregional ratio directions in the space form of the inside region of this NRP, the Material Sector sub-atomic rotational base. Also in the equivalent space of this NRP is represented the 128 scalar directions of the temporal aspect of the 12L- and all scalar directions of the spatial aspect of the 21R+ because all aspects of the displacement motion must be represented in equivalent space and therefore the inward aspect of all displacements are represented as well. As with all notational representations, only the rotationally represented displacement combination are written, thus the notation for this base could also be ½-½-0 or 1-0-0 or 0-1-0; is this not correct?
From what I understand of Larson's displacement concept, the material rotational base is composed of an HF photon, 12L-, which has a net displacement in space, and can be represented by: M 0-0-(½) since, being an oscillation, is only half-effective (outward motion matching the progression has no net effect).
When the photon is rotated, 21R+ would appear as M 0-0-1 IF it were built on a line, but since it is built on a half-effective vibration, the net displacement is M 0-0-½. The combination of the two displacements, forming the single rotational base, is therefore M 0-0-0, as Larson used in his later works. (You'll find that the 1/2 works better as a rotation in the RB, particularly when it comes to "vibration 2", which then becomes vibration 1).
Also remember that only ONE scalar dimension can have direct representation in the 3D coordinate system, and thus that ONE scalar dimension represents all 128 directional possibilities. See Nehru's paper on the Inter-Regional Ratio for diagrams (Figure 3). Thus, the rotational base neutralizes the progression in ONE scalar dimension only, the one represented in the conventional reference system. This leaves 2 scalar dimensions free to be carried by the progression of the natural reference system, so the RB moves at the speed of light.
Nehru's articles are on-line at http://library.rstheory.org/
Larry wrote:
With the RB at M 0-0-0, the neutrino structure is as Larson labels it, M ½-½-(1). What this means is that the rotation of the RB has increased in speed, giving a displacement of 1 unit of time, distributed over the two magnetic dimensions, still half-effective. The electric rotation, however, being a spatial displacement consumes one of the unrepresented scalar dimensions, making the e. neutrino a 2-dimensional particle. The one free scalar dimension then carries the particle with the progression. Having no net displacement, ½-½-(1) = 0, the structure moves through either space or time without interference, just as it is observed to do.In the case of the electron neutrino moving in general space at light speed, its notation is M ½-½-(1) . This notation could also be written as the summation of this ½-½-0 and this ½-½-(1) which is 1-1-(1). This notational representation for the e. neutrino does not have the additional "M"l representation of the rotational base because it is included within this notation.
In RS2, we discovered that "charge" occurs when a photon is captured, and its vibratory motion adds to the particle changing into a rotational vibration. A photon is a 1-dimensional structure and its capture by a e. neutrino would then occupy that one, free, unrepresented scalar dimension leaving no free dimensions to be carried by the progression. Thus, the charged e. neutrino looks and acts like a free particle, and can be captured due to the presence of the charge (building isotopes).
Larson doesn't explain the origin of charge, except as rotational vibration, but does recognize that the charge occupies a dimension.
Larry wrote:
This is correct in my understanding; the proton occupies all 3 scalar dimensions and is not carried by the progression.Next:
I understand from the notation M 1-1-(1) for the proton that it is the Material Sector rotational base to which has been added two additional 21R+ units of displacement one in each of the perpendicular magnetic dimensions and a unit of 11R- displacement to form the structural notation M 1-1-(1). This appears to be a fully three dimensional structure. Is this not correct?
Larry wrote:
Yes. Either the free scalar dimension must be occupied, or it must have a non-zero net displacement.I don't remember that DBL ever resolved this point. Is it the necessity for the e. neutrino to have a single unit of magnetic charge before it can be captured by any compound structure that led you to that requirement?
Larry wrote:
The charge gives it a spatial displacement, which then traps it in matter, building isotope. I should also point out that the charged, electron neutrino is free to move between the atoms in an aggregate just like uncharged electrons do, creating an overall magnetic charge--the isotopic level, analogous to the electric field created by moving electrons.Apparently the magnetic charge on the e. neutrino does nothing but slow the structure down to a point that it can be captured and does not do anything for the structural notation.
Larry wrote:
It is easier to understand with charge as a photon, but that never occurred to Larson. Just consider "rotational vibration" to act and behave as a captured photon, and it becomes much clearer.However, if adding that charge completes the notation to 1½-1½-(1) or 2-1-(1) , the notation becomes identical with deuterium! Perhaps I have analyzed something incorrectly! If not, I simply missed that point about the e. neutrino having to have a magnetic charge before it can be captured. However, I still do not understand how the charge occupies the other dimension?
Larry wrote:
The charge does nothing to the structural notation, because it is 1/2 effective, and in a discrete unit system like the RS, 1 + 1/2 = 1, just as 1 + 1.9999999 = 1. It has to go over the next integer bound to have effect.I have a great big "BUT" if the magnetic charge on the e. neutrino does nothing to the structural notation of the structure that captures it; how does it affect the mass effect of other atoms that capture the e. neutrinos during nova explosions to cause the magnetic ionization level to increase in the resulting planetary system or any resulting multiple star system?
Not sure what you are asking with the astronomical question, but charged neutrinos can only be carried by temporal structures; atoms. The 'age' of the matter stays with the matter, even during a supernova. See my article "At the Earth's Core" for a description of stellar age limits due to captured e. neutrinos.
Larry wrote:
In Larson's RS, charges are just a rotational vibration added to an existing motion, so your understanding is essential correct--a displacement of a displacement. But if you think about it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense because vibration is an accelerated motion, and acceleration requires the constant application of force, from which there is no source in Larson's model. It is just accepted as a "given". Nehru solved the linear vibration problem with the photon by introducing birotation, with the interaction of the two rotating halves creating the accelerated motion (linear vibration) of the photon.I still have some difficulty concerning the dimension of representation, though. I had been under the impression that the charge motions were displacements of displacements, thereby not requiring separate units of primary motion by which to determine scalar direction of displacement; and thereby requiring representation across the unit boundary relative to the dimension/s of the one directional rotationally represented displacements, which in turn caused the requirement of the specific number of natural displacement units required to represent the full charge.
In RS2, we generalized and extended that concept to "charge", in general, requiring a birotating system to be present to create that accelerated motion of vibration, and discovered that the photon, itself, is literally a unit of charge. This makes a LOT of sense, particularly in electrical applications, because the charged electron becomes an electron/photon pair, meaning that the electron can carry radio photons (of many frequencies) through wiring, and transmit the photon/charge into the air, as broadcast waves. It also goes a long way to explain L-C resonance, filters and many of the other tuned circuit applications because they operate via the photon/charge, not the electron (with the only property of a rotating unit of space--can't do much with that in the frequency spectrum!)
With the realization of the photon as charge, it also fixed the dimensional problems of "being carried" or "independent motion", since the photon will occupy a free dimension as charge.
When a photon is captured, you have a rotation PLUS a linear vibration. Within the time region, they are still two, separate structures, however the effect outside the unit boundary (alway being a net, scalar motion of all motion in the time region) combines the two into a rotational vibration -- the charge in "space", even though the components are inside the time region. This is why the charge always appears in the opposite aspect of motion. Charge applied to time shows up in space; charge applied to space shows up in time.
Somewhere, Larson wondered why the electron neutrino, 1/2-1/2-(1), could carry a magnetic charge, and the muon neutrino, 1/2-1/2-0, could not. There is no difference in the magnetic aspects of the particles, so the muon neutrino SHOULD carry a magnetic charge.
Considering the photon as charge... the solution is simple. The photon can only be captured by the electric rotation of the electron neutrino, to produce a "charged electric" motion of the structure. Basically, the photon is captured by the electron, the electron (being rotating space) transmits the RV into time--which then affects the magnetic rotations (which are also in time), to produce the magnetic charge in space (the inverse aspect). The muon neutrino has no electric displacement, and therefore cannot capture a photon to create the charge. Simple cascade effects.
Regarding Element #118...
Larry wrote:
It can form, but won't stay stuck together. After 1 unit of time (or space), basically the next step in the progression, it must separate according to decay logic to get the net temporal displacement back under 118 and the mass back under 236.re: "... fall apart as soon as it was put together; within 1 natural unit of space and time."
I guess I must have a tendency to assume too much, such as in this case. I interpreted less than 1 natural unit as meaning it couldn't get formed and therefore did not exist and could not exist. If I made that assumption, I'm sure others have also!
Larry wrote:
"All of the above".Regarding "projective geometry", could you give me a descriptive explanation of what it is and does. Do you use it to describe the inside region or is it strictly a description of the outside region effects caused by inside region representations?
What Projective Geometry does is allow you to position a camera (your eyes/point of consciousness), point it at something, stick on a lens (distortion depending on the assumptions going in to the lens), and build a transform of what your "something" will look like, given those conditions.
PG has several geometric "strata" to it, which are analogous to lenses for the camera: projective, affine, metric and Euclidean; the latter three having polar inverses. (The dichotomy of rectangular/polar does not exist in the projective strata, since there is no concept of direction).
The various strata and their inverses are the lenses used on the camera. If you want to see Larson's scalar motion, stick on a projective strata lens, and all you'll see is cross-ratios (no space or time, just numbers inversely related to numbers). If you want Larson's scalar directions (in,out), then replace it with an Affine lens, where zero and infinity are defined, so you can point in or out. Scalar motion in 3 dimensions is also at the affine strata.
Stick on the metric lens, and you'll see a scale-variant universe, where every object can be a different size, though the dimensions within the object are consistent. This is the transition stage between scalar and coordinate motion.
Pop on the Euclidean lens, and you see our version of reality, where all the scales for all the objects have been normalized to unity. Change it to a Polar Euclidean lens, and you can see the motions within the time region as quaternions. Slide the camera over to the cosmic sector, and see "energy" as "matter". It's very flexible!
The whole concept of Projective Geometry is to build well-defined and assumption-known transforms, to give observer views of the Universe. By knowing what assumptions go in to observation, it becomes a simple matter to reverse-engineer observation back to a model of the Universe.