Reciprocal System Research Society

Bruce,

My interpretation of Larson’s rotational base was an inward motion to counteract the outward progression.

I have a question regarding this extract from paper RS2-107,

“the progression of the natural reference system is still “outward at unit speed,” but with one aspect being a linear, outward speed (a translation) and the other aspect being an angular, outward speed (a rotation). Therefore, every location is potentially a “rotational base” and the concept of a “direction reversal” is unnecessary, because rotation is primary and RS2 does not require “something to rotate.”

My question is whether the phrase “an angular, outward speed” should be “an angular, inward speed”. It seems more logical that the rotation would be inward to counteract the outward progression.

Philip

p.s. see related question in the forum category RS2-0: Getting Started with the Reciprocal System

Philip wrote:My interpretation of Larson’s rotational base was an inward motion to counteract the outward progression.

He had a "direction reversal" in space, which he then rotated "inward" in space to create the rotational base. (Larson only thought in terms of linear speed and spatial relationships, just as conventional science did--and had to invent other terms when motion failed to follow those principles, such as "equivalent space" to represent angular velocity.)

Philip wrote:My question is whether the phrase “an angular, outward speed” should be “an angular, inward speed”. It seems more logical that the rotation would be inward to counteract the outward progression.

"Inward in space" is "outward in time." The atom is comprised of temporal displacement, at an outward, angular velocity.

For example, to borrow from the description of the photon in New Light on Space and Time:



The displacement is the "3 outs," not the "1 in." It must be moving outward in time to be moving inward in space.

Thanks for this thread, as it was on my mind too as I begin my investigation of RS/RS2.

As a follow-up question, how might it be possible to distinguish between inward and outward angular motion? Linear is easily understood... speed of light outward separation of galaxies vs inward "pull" of gravity, but I can't visualize a similar differentiator for angular motion.

Cheers!

jcdoss wrote:As a follow-up question, how might it be possible to distinguish between inward and outward angular motion? ...but I can't visualize a similar differentiator for angular motion.

What I deduced for the "yin" portion of RS2 concerning angular velocity, was that the "natural unit of angle" is π radians, or 180°. In 1-dimensional rotation, there are 360 degrees, so each "angular step" oscillates you between +1 (outward, i⁰) and -1 (inward, i²). So the only way you can tell is not by the direction of rotation, but by the starting location.

Remembering that imaginary numbers cycle at every 4th power...

From the material side, we start with the progression (max outward) and rotate inward to gravitation (max inward).

Sequence: i⁰ = i⁴ = i⁸ = i¹².

But the cosmic side is the reciprocal of the material, so inward and outward get flipped, as "outward in time" is analogous to "inward in space," so it appears we start at -1 (inward) and head to +1 (outward):

Sequence: i² = i⁶ = i¹⁰ = i¹⁴.

The cosmic side is the "electric" side, and if you notice the sequence of powers--how we view that cosmic rotation--is: 2, 6, 10, 14... you find that physicists call that "electron orbitals" of s, p, d, f.

I should also point out that a solid rotation (2D rotation) is 720 degrees, expressing as a quaternion. Each "angular step" appears to be only half that of a 1-dimensional rotation.