Newbie Question

[MWells]

Hi Ross,

Quote:

Has Larson made any *new* predictions using his theory? ( I understand he's done at least one, predicting a new form or behavior of quasars, but I haven't read "Quasars and Pulsars" yet).

Here are a few off the top of my head:

Electrons travel through the atoms of a conductor, not around them.

The stellar evolution sequence is reversed from modern theory. That is, a red giant is actually a young object.

All planets in a solar system originated from the explosion of the same star they currently orbit.

Each of these is capable of being falsified. As yet, none have been.

Mike

[RMohan]

Thanks Mike!

I understand that Carver Mead's "Collective Electrodynamics" arrives

at a similar result, saying there's nothing wrong with a "ten meter"

electron passing through matter, given the right conditions.

Keep 'em coming....I love keeping my 'physics' hat on, and have

learned more about physics history and loopholes reading Larson

than I did in school.

Ross

MWells (email removed) wrote:

Quote:

Hi Ross,

Quote: Has Larson made any *new* predictions using his theory? ( I understand he's done at least one, predicting a new form or behavior of quasars, but I haven't read "Quasars and Pulsars" yet).

Here are a few off the top of my head:

Electrons travel through the atoms of a conductor, not around them.

The stellar evolution sequence is reversed from modern theory. That is, a red giant is actually a young object.

All planets in a solar system originated from the explosion of the same star they currently orbit.

Each of these is capable of being falsified. As yet, none have been.

Mike

[RMohan]

Folks,

I am a list newbie, and a rank novice with the work of Larson. His theories

make my head hurt, and I admire his logic, his breadth of application,

his elegant writing and his careful scholarship greatly.

I have had some years of physics in getting my undergraduate degree

in Physics, and a bit of mathematics in getting my graduate degree in

applied math, so I don't mind putting in the effort. And the curiousity

still burns brightly, a quarter of century after getting these degrees.

Having read "The Case Against the Nuclear Atom" and "Neglected Facts

of Science" with great excitement and interest, I have just now barely

begun to drown in "Nothing But Motion".

But I am a bit flummoxed and need some help.

Has anyone written anything like "Larson For Dummies", where I can

get a strategic overview of this work? I know that "Neglected Facts"

largely plays this role, but as the factual counterpart to his theoretical

presentation, it leaves much out. And I fear that after struggling with

that short volume, "Nothing But Motion" with go over my head. Something

like a schoolboy's primer would help greatly. Aside from Larson's source

work, I can find nothing on this topic.

A new theory (in my hopes) should explain and integrate facts consistently,

present a more elegant expression of mathematics than existing theories,

stand up robustly to new tests and knowledge, make applied calculations

easier, and above all, present predictions.

Has anyone taken a standard Classical Mechanics or Electromagnetics primer

(e.g. Jackson) and interpreted/extended it in Larsonian terms? Has Larson

made any *new* predictions using his theory? ( I understand he's done at

least one, predicting a new form or behavior of quasars, but I haven't read

"Quasars and Pulsars" yet).

Thank you for any and all thoughts you may have,

- Ross

[bperet]

RMohan wrote:

Has anyone written anything like "Larson For Dummies", where I can get a strategic overview of this work? I know that "Neglected Facts" largely plays this role, but as the factual counterpart to his theoretical presentation, it leaves much out. And I fear that after struggling with that short volume, "Nothing But Motion" with go over my head. Something like a schoolboy's primer would help greatly. Aside from Larson's source work, I can find nothing on this topic.

"Larson for Dummies" is a work in progress right now; Gopi, an IIT Kanpur, India, physics student is doing a series of Powerpoint presentations on Reciprocal System basics, the first of which can be viewed in the rstheory.org Presentations area. He has 6 presentations currently worked out, and will be posting them to the RS2 presentation forum for review.

Another good document to read is Larson's "Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion", found on the RS and RS2 libraries. This outline is perhaps the most concise description of Larson's development that has been published, and is public domain (not copyrighted).

RMohan wrote:

A new theory (in my hopes) should explain and integrate facts consistently, present a more elegant expression of mathematics than existing theories, stand up robustly to new tests and knowledge, make applied calculations easier, and above all, present predictions.

The mathematics of Larson's RS is virtually identical to current theories, with the only problem being the conversion of Larson's "natural units" to conventional ones.

It was discovered quite a few years back by KVK Nehru, when studying spin, that the configuration space of an atom was better represented by quaternions (imaginary numbers) than regular, Euclidean rotation. This, along with a study of the bi-rotational character of the photon, led to the development of this re-evaluation of Larson's work where we deal with a non-Euclidean, polar space for time-related phenomenon. The mathematics of the RS2 system is moving towards complex numbers, where the real part represents spatial phenomenon, and the imaginary part being the temporal motion. This is resulting in a more 'elegant' mathematical expression, because both coordinate space and coordinate time can be treated simultaneously in mathematics, rather than individually, as conventional (and Larson's original work) now do.

RMohan wrote:

Has anyone taken a standard Classical Mechanics or Electromagnetics primer (e.g. Jackson) and interpreted/extended it in Larsonian terms?

Actually, we are doing that now with the RS2 research, though I am using Steinmetz as a reference, not Jackson, so transients can be included in the research. It has turned up a number of problems with Larson's original research, which we are addressing as best we can, to get a more coherent theory.

RMohan wrote:

Has Larson made any *new* predictions using his theory? ( I understand he's done at least one, predicting a new form or behavior of quasars, but I haven't read "Quasars and Pulsars" yet).

There are actually a good number of predictions, from Larson and others whom have carried on his work.

As Mike mentioned, there are a few in the astronomical realm:

• Quasar distance calculations are wrong
• Galactic "supernova" that produce quasar/radio galaxies pairs (re: M87)
• Pulsars motion being anti-gravity (moving backwards from the pull of gravity)
• Stellar collisions are impossible
• Stellar evolutionary sequence (red giant through blue supergiant)
• Stellar generations (single, double, triple, quadruple star groupings)
• Planetary cores containing white dwarf fragments
• Planets expand, causing continental separation (not drift)

In physics:

• The photon is common in all reference frames, because it isn't moving (being carried by the natural reference system
• Bi-rotational nature of the photon producing polarization and torque effects
• Bi-rotational nature of the electron producing Cooper pairs and other paired electron phenomenon
• Four different types of "electricity" (current, static, cold, neutrino)
• Two types of "charge", one a space displacement (s), the other energy (t/s)

There's more in the physics area, but most concern the interpretation of equations using space/time relations to identify errors. "Basic Properties of Matter" is a good reference for them.

Bruce

[/][/]

[MWells]

Bruce wrote:

The mathematics of Larson's RS is virtually identical to current theories, with the only problem being the conversion of Larson's "natural units" to conventional ones.

But there is not just a unit-conversion problem. There are dimensional conversion problems, and problems mapping Larson's primary existants such as "rotation" and "simple harmonic motion" to behavior observed in atomic (inter-atomic) and subatomic phenomena. This latter problem deals with what modes of scalar motion can manifest - that is, the qualities associated with a collection of objective existents. As Larson was a strict epistemological realist (objectivist), he rejected the role of mind (interpretation) as being connected to any inherent quality of observables themselves.

But the biggest difference is conceptual. Two different sets of premises results in two different paradigms. As Bruce pointed out, the entire concept of force does not exist in the RS. With the RS, you actually have to figure out where the force measurement comes from in terms of scalar motion. With conventional theory, the standard-model forces (i.e. nuclear, gravitational), themselves, are indeed primary existents, so there is no explanation of origin offered.

Larson can claim a more or less consistent and comprehensively deduced system of theory based on first principles. Conventional (legacy) science, however, is effectively a program of research that relies strongly on historical components which, when examined, are found to be largely based on free invention and tacit assumptions.

[bperet]

MWells wrote:

But there is not just a unit-conversion problem. There are dimensional conversion problems, and problems mapping Larson's primary existants such as "rotation" and "simple harmonic motion" to behavior observed in atomic (inter-atomic) and subatomic phenomena. This latter problem deals with what modes of scalar motion can manifest - that is, the qualities associated with a collection of objective existents. As Larson was a strict epistemological realist (objectivist), he rejected the role of mind (interpretation) as being connected to any inherent quality of observables themselves.

Something else to remember is that the physical constants are a measurement of extention (coordinate) space and clock time -- not a measurement of scalar speeds.

Take a look at Planck's constant, in the relation: E = h f.

In conventional units, h = 6.62606896 x 10^-34 J-s, which are pretty bizarre units (units of action).

In the RS, h = 1/c². And since c=1, the constant exists only to adjust the units and dimensions, just as c² does in E = m c², because frequency is considered a speed, s/t. It shows the true reciprocal relationship between speed and energy: E = 1/f.

If you read Nehru's article on the derivation of Planck's constant, he starts with the scalar, reciprocal relationship of E = 1/c² f, then has to work through all the assumptions made by the observer and his process of measuring to obtain the conventional value--which he does.

[RMohan]

Bruce,

Before I read this carefully, as I will shortly, I do want to say "thank you!" for a very provocative and thorough answer!

Ross

bperet (email removed) wrote:

Quote:

RMohan wrote: Has anyone written anything like "Larson For Dummies", where I can get a strategic overview of this work? I know that "Neglected Facts" largely plays this role, but as the factual counterpart to his theoretical presentation, it leaves much out. And I fear that after struggling with that short volume, "Nothing But Motion" with go over my head. Something like a schoolboy's primer would help greatly. Aside from Larson's source work, I can find nothing on this topic.

"Larson for Dummies" is a work in progress right now; Gopi, an IIT Kanpur, India, physics student is doing a series of Powerpoint presentations on Reciprocal System basics, the first of which can be viewed in the rstheory.org Presentations area. He has 6 presentations currently worked out, and will be posting them to the RS2 presentation forum for review.

Another good document to read is Larson's \"Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion\", found on the RS and RS2 libraries. This outline is perhaps the most concise description of Larson's development that has been published, and is public domain (not copyrighted).

RMohan wrote: A new theory (in my hopes) should explain and integrate facts consistently, present a more elegant expression of mathematics than existing theories, stand up robustly to new tests and knowledge, make applied calculations easier, and above all, present predictions.

The mathematics of Larson's RS is virtually identical to current theories, with the only problem being the conversion of Larson's "natural units" to conventional ones.

It was discovered quite a few years back by KVK Nehru, when studying spin, that the configuration space of an atom was better represented by quaternions (imaginary numbers) than regular, Euclidean rotation. This, along with a study of the bi-rotational character of the photon, led to the development of this re-evaluation of Larson's work where we deal with a non-Euclidean, polar space for time-related phenomenon. The mathematics of the RS2 system is moving towards complex numbers, where the real part represents spatial phenomenon, and the imaginary part being the temporal motion. This is resulting in a more 'elegant' mathematical expression, because both coordinate space and coordinate time can be treated simultaneously in mathematics, rather than individually, as conventional (and Larson's original work) now do.

RMohan wrote: Has anyone taken a standard Classical Mechanics or Electromagnetics primer (e.g. Jackson) and interpreted/extended it in Larsonian terms?

Actually, we are doing that now with the RS2 research, though I am using Steinmetz as a reference, not Jackson, so transients can be included in the research. It has turned up a number of problems with Larson's original research, which we are addressing as best we can, to get a more coherent theory.

RMohan wrote: Has Larson made any *new* predictions using his theory? ( I understand he's done at least one, predicting a new form or behavior of quasars, but I haven't read "Quasars and Pulsars" yet).

There are actually a good number of predictions, from Larson and others whom have carried on his work.

As Mike mentioned, there are a few in the astronomical realm:

• Quasar distance calculations are wrong
• Galactic "supernova" that produce quasar/radio galaxies pairs (re: M87)
• Pulsars motion being anti-gravity (moving backwards from the pull of gravity)
• Stellar collisions are impossible
• Stellar evolutionary sequence (red giant through blue supergiant)
• Stellar generations (single, double, triple, quadruple star groupings)
• Planetary cores containing white dwarf fragments
• Planets expand, causing continental separation (not drift)

In physics:

• The photon is common in all reference frames, because it isn't moving (being carried by the natural reference system
• Bi-rotational nature of the photon producing polarization and torque effects
• Bi-rotational nature of the electron producing Cooper pairs and other paired electron phenomenon
• Four different types of "electricity" (current, static, cold, neutrino)
• Two types of "charge", one a space displacement (s), the other energy (t/s)

There's more in the physics area, but most concern the interpretation of equations using space/time relations to identify errors. "Basic Properties of Matter" is a good reference for them.

Bruce

[/][/]

[RMohan]

((running behind, trying to keep up....))

I noted in the earlier post a reference to a noneuclidean polar system.

Has Larson's work been recast/extended to a projective geometry context?

That would be fascinating.

Speaking purely 'poetically'; and not physically, the projective interpretation

of infinity as a circle (or a point) and its complementary treatment of

points/planes would seem to suit complementarities in Larson's work

extremely nicely. Not to mention the natural expression of projective

geometry in terms of quaternions, which was Maxwell's original expression

of his laws.

Fascinating!

bperet (email removed) wrote:

Quote:

MWells wrote: But there is not just a unit-conversion problem. There are dimensional conversion problems, and problems mapping Larson's primary existants such as "rotation" and "simple harmonic motion" to behavior observed in atomic (inter-atomic) and subatomic phenomena. This latter problem deals with what modes of scalar motion can manifest - that is, the qualities associated with a collection of objective existents. As Larson was a strict epistemological realist (objectivist), he rejected the role of mind (interpretation) as being connected to any inherent quality of observables themselves.

Something else to remember is that the physical constants are a measurement of extention (coordinate) space and clock time -- not a measurement of scalar speeds.

Take a look at Planck's constant, in the relation: E = h f.

In conventional units, h = 6.62606896 x 10-34 J-s, which are pretty bizarre units (units of action).

In the RS, h = 1/c2. And since c=1, the constant exists only to adjust the units and dimensions, just as c2 does in E = m c2, because frequency is considered a speed, s/t. It shows the true reciprocal relationship between speed and energy: E = 1/f.

If you read Nehru's article on the derivation of Planck's constant, he starts with the scalar, reciprocal relationship of E = 1/c2 f, then has to work through all the assumptions made by the observer and his process of measuring to obtain the conventional value--which he does.

[bperet]

RMohan wrote:

((running behind, trying to keep up....))

It isn't a race, so don't worry about it.

RMohan wrote:

I noted in the earlier post a reference to a noneuclidean polar system.

Has Larson's work been recast/extended to a projective geometry context?

That would be fascinating.

That is what we are doing with RS2, since the polar (cyclic) nature of time naturally led to that conclusion. We ran in to a lot of problems with the "Fundamental Postulatists" promoting the RS, and hence moved our research here, so we would not be harassed as we were on the RStheory forum.

I maintain both sites, RS and RS2. Trust me, you are better off here, where the researchers are open to all new ideas, and the primary drive is to find the best possible solution to a universe of motion. Though you should check out http://library.rstheory.org/ where I have on-line versions of Larson's books and many articles.

RMohan wrote:

Speaking purely 'poetically'; and not physically, the projective interpretation of infinity as a circle (or a point) and its complementary treatment of points/planes would seem to suit complementarities in Larson's work extremely nicely. Not to mention the natural expression of projective geometry in terms of quaternions, which was Maxwell's original expression

of his laws.

Yes, it works wonderfully. We've been working with it since 2003, though I'll admit none of us are experts at PG yet. We've been in contact with Nick Thomas, who does some really interesting stuff with PG and counterspace.

I hope you can help us along with it, and add to our knowledge. We could certainly use an expert!