The conventions are:
- Space is the same "out there" as it is, here on the surface of the planet.
- All of space is in the low, 1-x speed range of 3D space and clock time.
- Everything moves by vectors.
- Orbits are dumb luck, with a planet's orbital velocity exactly cancelling the pull of gravity. (One would think the impact of a big meteor would be enough to knock a planet out of orbit.)
If we start with what we know, the environment surrounding us, we find we exist in a 3D spatial, coordinate reference system, scaled by clock time. This is Larson's "low speed" (1-x) speed range. We also know that the "pull of gravity" (actually push of scalar expansion) has a discrete limit to its action--the gravitational limit. For Earth, it is located just outside the orbit of the Moon. Going beyond the gravitational limit takes us out of 3D space and into what Larson calls the "scalar zone" of 2D, equivalent space.
Consider what that means... equivalent space is energy, not speed, and is expressing how time effects space. That infers that the region past the gravitational limit is TIME, not space, which makes perfect sense if you consider it in RS terms... Earth is 3D space, beyond Earth is 3D time. The relation of space to time constitutes motion, so the Earth can move freely in orbit. If "space" was space, and Earth was space, we would be locked into position.
From this, we can deduce that the sun is actually cosmic in nature--not material--with a 3D temporal coordinate system extending out to its gravitational limit. The hard, inner planets are 3D spatial coordinate systems moving in this 3D, temporal field of the sun. Essentially, the inner planets are the inverse of the sun... analogous to "white dwarf" fragments. Houston, we have motion.
There is a distinct difference between the hard, inner planets and the soft, gaseous outer ones. Why?
Let us continue the analogy and make the assumption that the gravitational limit is NOT at the 2.2 light year value that Larson calculated (based on relations to the Centauri group), but is at the asteroid belt. This means that the "inverse low speed range" of the sun will flip to equivalent time--how space affects time--past the asteroid belt, causing an inversion of structure. If that is the situation, we would expect to see the outer planets as the inverse of the inner ones, with a similar character to the sun. And that is exactly the situation. The primary elements we see on the sun are hydrogen and helium. Same for the outer planets. The sun is basically gaseous, same for the outer planets. The sun is a polar X-ray emitter, same as the outer planets. The structure of Jupiter's moons and rings exactly mimics the structure of the solar system, with equatorial moons, a ring (asteroid belt) and spherically-distributed smaller moons, way out (Oort cloud). Same structure, different scale.
This infers that the outer, "gaseous" planets are not planets, at all, but mini-stars, with the "hard planets" around these mini-stars being the moons.
If one examines the exoplanet database, it contains some ridiculous orbital data... planets, purportedly being in orbits at the distance of Venus and Earth, swinging around these stars in a few days. The orbital velocities are ludicrous--one would think the planet would rip itself apart at those speeds.
BUT... if we take Jupiter as a "mini solar system" we find it is roughly 10% of the actual solar system. When you take these exoplanets and scale the "stars" down by a factor of 10 to Jupiter-sized mini-stars, and the "planets" to moons... well, virtually every one matches an existing orbit of a moon around a gas giant in our solar system. Surprise. Exoplanets are exomoons around "gas giant" planets--not stars.
Since a mini-star should behave exactly as a regular star, Larson's stellar evolutionary sequence (the reverse of conventional astronomy) should also apply, where evolution proceeds from red supergiants, to orange, yellow, white, blue-white, blue, then a supernova. The older the star, the more towards blue it is.
In the RS, the solar system was formed as a byproduct of a supernova explosion, where the "B substance" failed to form a binary pair and instead formed a number of planets. The material furthest out from the center of mass would condense the fastest, because it is "coldest" -- heat tends to prevent things from coming together. That would mean that Neptune is the "oldest" of the planets in the system, forming first. And curiously enough--it happens to be blue. Uranus would be next, a lighter blue. Saturn appears yellow in the sky, much like our own sun. And then Jupiter, with its orange-reddish tint. The SAME evolutionary sequence as stellar evolution in the Reciprocal System.
This analysis has a number of mind-blowing "natural consequences," particularly if you are an astronomer... such as the starfield, when scaled down appropriately, IS the "Oort cloud" and not very far away. And as discussed in other topics, what we call "galaxies" are newly-forming solar systems, rather close to our own. Quasars, scaled down, become the actual "stars" and "quasar galaxies" become the regular galaxies.
The Reciprocal System is based on "scalar" motion--same rules, different scales. This infers that molecules will have similar properties to the solar system, and the "stellar neighborhood" may actually behave just like a complex molecule.
Gopi and I are now working on factoring the system to find a set of equations that are "scale invariant" -- the same equation will work to bond hydrogen to oxygen, or the Moon to the Earth. It is proving to be quite interesting... thoughts and contributions welcome, as this is thinking that is WAY "outside the box" and I find myself constantly having to challenge predetermined notions that I have been taught were true--and probably are not.