Reciprocal System Research Society

I am still not sure if i have got the right piture. Could anyone present me the excact graph or give me a link?

Is there caption for your lecture, Bruce? The video is so noisy that i can't hardly hear what you're saying.

I am still not sure if i have got the right piture. Could anyone present me the excact graph or give me a link?

There are a couple of problems with visualizing the atom in the RS. First, the atomic motion is in time, not in space. Second, they are speeds, not things, so there is no geometry to them. The Periodic Table is a graph of magnetic speed (rows) versus the electric speeds (columns). That is probably as close to a graph as you can get.

Is there caption for your lecture, Bruce? The video is so noisy that i can't hardly hear what you're saying.

No, there is not. When we made those videos, I did not realize at the time that the camera was sitting next to the refrigerator, and picked up all that motor noises so clearly. I tried to filter most of it out, but I'm no expert at audio processing.

However, I am working an a more formal series of videos for RS2, with clear audio and computer simulations to describe the concepts. Just have not had much free time to devote to them this summer.

There're several things i don't understand:

1. In "nothing but motion" chapter 10 Atoms, Larson said,"Geometrical considerations indicate that two photons can rotate around the same central point without interference if the rotational speeds are the same, thus forming a double unit. The nature of this combination can be illustrated by two cardboard disks interpenetrated along a common diameter C.", but in the outline in 33 and 64, there is just one photon in the atom. So there should be one or two photons in an atom?

2. You said "there is no geometry to them". I understand they are scarlar motion so there're only independent speed numbers of it(am i right?). But it should project into our space time right? Then it comply with Elucidian geometry, which is the geometry problem Larson talking about. So there is such the "exhaust available dimensions" thing. Since there is actully no geometry, how can there be considerations about dimensions?

3. In the a-b-c notation, a and b is the rotation of the disk in different axis, so it is 2-D, but i don't understand why the rotation of a sphere of speed c is one-dimensional? Or c is the rotation of the stick of photon?

4. In RS2, you provide the concept of projection, which is how a scarlar motion manifested in the "space" we are seeing. It makes the scalar motion more purely scarlar. So there are no directions before coupling, only independent numbers of speed. When we represent a uniform scarlar motion in the spatial reference system as rotation, we get bi-rotation but not rotatoin. I learn an atom in Larson's book. There's geometry and 3D dimension. But how to understand an atom in RS2 since there's no geometry?

I am working an a more formal series of videos for RS2...

Please do make captions for them.

Bruce is right - the atom does not have any shape by itself and cannot be diagrammed.

However, an atom observed by another atom will have the properties you are looking for.

The "observer factor" cannot be ignored in RS or RS2 or even in legacy physics.

As an illustration consider a charged electron on a cat. As long as you are holding the cat on your lap, the electron manifests only its "electric field", however as soon as you put the cat down and start mowing away from it, the same electron manifests its "magnetic field" because there is a relative motion of a charge now. (relative to you - the observer)

If you were to try to draw an electron and its intrinsic properties you could not do it because the "observer factor" would be unaccounted for. The same is true for atoms and even such basic concepts as length and time intervals. Geometry without stable lengths is very hard to draw!

So better ask Bruce how does one hydrogen atom appear to another and it will be possible for him to answer you meaningfuly.

1. In "nothing but motion" chapter 10 Atoms, Larson said,"Geometrical considerations indicate that two photons can rotate around the same central point without interference if the rotational speeds are the same, thus forming a double unit. The nature of this combination can be illustrated by two cardboard disks interpenetrated along a common diameter C.", but in the outline in 33 and 64, there is just one photon in the atom. So there should be one or two photons in an atom?

I asked the same question first time I went through Larson's stuff. Larson does not adequately explain that the atom contains TWO, double-rotating (magnetic) system and ONE single-rotating (electric) system.

Particles only contain a single, double-rotating system with one photon, whereas atoms have a double, double-rotating system with two photons (Confusing, isn't it?) It's not really that difficult to comprehend.

A double-rotating system, the magnetic rotation, is a SOLID rotation, measured in steradians, not radians. In a single-rotating system, we have a radius that is a line rotating about a point, drawing a circumference. The double-rotation has a CONE that expands through a sphere--starts out as a line, moves to a cone, then a flat disk at 90 degrees, then a cone in the opposite direction, ending up with a line pointing out at 180 degrees, then folds back upon itself. That is how you can visually depict 2D rotation.

The 2D, magnetic rotations are INSIDE the time region. The 1D electric rotation is a rotation OF the time region. A rough analogy would be to stick a couple of gyroscopes tumbling head-over-heels in a sphere (magnetic), then rotate the sphere (electric). Particle: 1 gyroscope, Atom: 2 gyroscopes.

What Larson is trying to describe in NBM is that the two gyroscopes, if aligned correctly, can be at zero separation--the old "wheel within a wheel" idea of Ezekiel. And he can do this, because his gyroscopes aren't wheels--they are spinning rods. You just have to get them spinning so the rods don't clobber each other, and you can do that by setting them up the way he describes.

It is simpler in RS2, if you've ever used a complex number... the 1D is the "real" part, and the 2D is the "imaginary" part.

2. You said "there is no geometry to them". I understand they are scarlar motion so there're only independent speed numbers of it(am i right?). But it should project into our space time right? Then it comply with Elucidian geometry, which is the geometry problem Larson talking about.

Take a look at the PDF I just uploaded in the Presentations forum on the Reciprocal System for Non-Dummies (1.0). It attempts to show the difference between natural (scalar) and artificial (coordinate) systems.

So there is such the "exhaust available dimensions" thing. Since there is actully no geometry, how can there be considerations about dimensions?

Dimensions are just the arithmetic concepts of evolution (exponent) and involution (roots). All it indicates is a relationship... 2D just means that there are 2 independent variables needed to define the motion. How they are arranged geometrically is a result of the "artificial reality" imposed upon them in the projection, such as Euclidean geometry.

3. In the a-b-c notation, a and b is the rotation of the disk in different axis, so it is 2-D, but i don't understand why the rotation of a sphere of speed c is one-dimensional? Or c is the rotation of the stick of photon?

Since there are 2 independent variables to define a 2D motion of the stick, it can spin at one rate head-over-heel, and at another rate, spinning on its vertical axis. The A and B define these speeds. In early works, Larson called the faster speed the "primary" and the slower the "secondary," describing it as analogous to the major and minor axes of an ellipse.

You have to remember that magnetic motion is INSIDE the time region (the region where space=1 and only time progresses). That region, itself, can spin about ONE axis in space, which is the C value. (Since there is only 1 independent variable here, even if you spin it about more than one axis, you just change the orientation, you don't actually generate any additional rotation).

4. In RS2, you provide the concept of projection, which is how a scarlar motion manifested in the "space" we are seeing. It makes the scalar motion more purely scarlar. So there are no directions before coupling, only independent numbers of speed. When we represent a uniform scarlar motion in the spatial reference system as rotation, we get bi-rotation but not rotatoin. I learn an atom in Larson's book. There's geometry and 3D dimension. But how to understand an atom in RS2 since there's no geometry?

RS2 also includes the "yin" aspect of motion, that of constant, angular speed (Larson only uses the yang, linear speed). The projection of a scalar speed onto a coordinate system always ends up with BOTH the linear and rotational shadows at the same time. The linear is a bivector--a line pointing in two directions. The rotational is a birotation, two opposite rotations. In the case of the photon, the birotation is stretched by the bivector into a coil spring appearance--EM radiation--with one axis in space (real, electric) and the other axis in time (imaginary, magnetic). Buy at the scalar (natural) level, all that is there is a speed. To make the shadow, you need to make the assumptions, which are defined in Larson's 2nd postulate: Conforms to the relations of ordinary, commutative mathematics, its magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry, Euclidean. (This is clarified in the 1.1 Fundamental Postulates paper, which I'll have uploaded soon).

One additional comment to the above... for visualization, I used Euclidean geometry. In projection that is not a requirement, but a postulate of Larson's. You could as easily use something like tetrahedral geometry. Actually, two double-rotating systems is easier to visualize as a star tetrahedron (one tetrahedron inverted and stuck inside another).

So better ask Bruce how does one hydrogen atom appear to another and it will be possible for him to answer you meaningfuly.

This is a very important point--what we observe is defined by INTERACTION. For example, the photon out by itself is NEITHER a wave nor a particle... it's just a speed. Only during its interaction does observation give it geometric structure, since geometry is an "artificial reality" of man, based on Man's Law--commandments of the way things are to behave.

When the photon interacts with something and has a net motion in space, it shows up as a particle, since space is point-based. If that same photon interacts with something else like a force field, the net motion in time, and it is observed as a wave, since time plane-based and rotational. Once the interaction is over, it's "anything goes" again.

I believe there is a way to visualize the RS atom with geometry. The trick is to find the correct geometric analogy to time

to depict motion in time. I have made a case in the Bi-Radial matrix that time (and motion in time) is properly depicted as quantized angular displacement using equi-spaced radial angles. Time is essentially angular displacement in ranging from one to three dimensions.

Space is linear displacement ranging from one to three dimensions. From this basic set of assumtions the toroidal structure of force fields can be derived from first principles and described interms of space-time in a way consiste3nt with the RS and RS2. This is a work in progress and further details can be seen at:

.http://bi-radialmatrixtutorial.weebly.com/

RECIPROCITY2520

time (and motion in time) is properly depicted as quantized angular displacement using equi-spaced radial angles.

But this angular displacement is unbounded and anything you draw in human reference system will cycle after 360deg.

Also it is wrong for you to write that "space is" or "time is" or "appears as" because this only the effect of viewing time and space from the point of view of material gravitatating atoms. From the point of view of an electron or a foton they would "look" entirely different.

Horace,

Have you reviewed in detail the web site to see the extensive evidence I have offered in support of my assertions much less understand it?

This approach has produced results which have been un-achieved elseswhere: namely explaining in totally consistent manner in geometrical and mathematical terms how nature has designed its reciprocal realtionship between space and time structurally resulting in the toroidal attraction field and the "Assymtotic" repulsion field in a manner totally consistent with the basic tennets of the RS and RS 2.

"But this angular displacement is unbounded and anything you draw in human reference system will cycle after 360deg."

Yes horace. This re-cycling after 360 degrees is the "wave" function integral with the physical universe and the human reference system is a vvalid reference system. I am approaching this from an engineering point of view to develope useful technology and most of my work does imply a human reference system.

"Also it is wrong for you to write that "space is" or "time is" or "appears as" because this only the effect of viewing time and space from the point of view of material gravitatating atoms. From the point of view of an electron or a foton they would "look" entirely different.."

Also if you wish to be fussy about it I will restate: "It is extremely revealing to regard time as angular displacement in 1 to 3 dimensions and to regard space as linear displacementin 1-3 dimensions.

If you have a "theory" about what the time a space "looks" like from the point of view of an electron or photon that's fine

RECIPROCITY2520