The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by bperet » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:32 pm

In RS2, I modified Larson's a-b-c displacement notation to be a-b--c-d, for reasons of symmetry. As Larson is fond of saying, "anything that exists in space, also exists in time and vice-versa." So if we have a magnetic double-rotation in the time region, one must also exist in the space region--the "cosmic magnetic rotation" for c-matter.

In The Structure of the Physical Universe, Larson describes the structure of the atom as having a 2-dimensional (a-b) magnetic rotation within the time region, and that region, itself, spins on an axis to form the electric rotation in space (c). There is a problem with this geometry, as "scalar motion" does not have an axis on which to rotate, so if the electric dimension was a scalar rotation, this could not be it. In RS2, this conceptual problem was corrected by making the electric (c) rotation as existing in the space region, the conjugate of the time region, where it could exist as a scalar rotation (no geometry).

When I started developing programming for RS2, I ran into the symmetry problem. If the time region is 3D "magnetic," then the space region must be, too. That resulted in the c-d electric rotation for the model. But the issue remained as to WHY the electric rotation could reach values of ±16, whereas scalar rotation in the time region stopped at 5-4-(1).

I believe I have found the solution to the problem--it has to do with the "unit boundary," in that only the net magnitude of speed can be transmitted across it (no orientation). In RS, that is limited to the pressure of linear motion. In RS2, it is a complex quantity, composed of the linear (real) and the rate of spin (imaginary). That means that anything we measure that is on the other side of a unit boundary will be observed as a complex quantity--not the actual structure that is there.

The double-rotating system of Larson is easily expressed as a quaternion rotation in RS2. A quaternion is 3D, which means that if we were to view a "cosmic quaternion," such as the cosmic magnetic double-rotating system, we would observe it as a complex quantity--a planar rotation with a linear velocity. However, there is a catch... a 3D rotation is measured in steradians, and a full rotation is 720°. When expressed as a complex quantity, that 720° still has to be "filled out," so we get TWICE the speed on this side... 2×360°.

The quaternion, when seen from across a unit boundary, then has twice the magnitude in the complex plane, as in the quaternion rotation. Now consider that the atom is composed of TWO double-rotating systems, with a maximum value of 4-4. That means the complex rotation would have a maximum value of 8-8 or ±16 units.

And when we look at Larson's periodic table, we find the maximum electric displacement is 16 units. In RS2, in the a-b--c-d notation, the maximum speed would then be seen as 4-4--8-8.

When this system is run backwards, where the material, magnetic rotation crosses the unit boundary into the cosmic sector, the same thing happens... all of a sudden, we need TWICE AS MANY magnetic "'units" to explain the interactions. Larson ran across this problem in Basic Properties of Matter, having to break magnetic rotations into half units, which he called the specific rotation.

To summarize,
  1. c-magnetic rotation is observed as m-electric rotation, with twice as many units as m-magnetic rotation, doubling the maximum magnitude (electric rotation).
  2. m-magnetic rotation interacts as c-electric rotation, needing twice as many units--but appearing as half-steps, rather than doubling (specific rotation).
quaternion-complex.png
Quaterion--complex interaction
quaternion-complex.png (58.12 KiB) Viewed 662 times
Every dogma has its day...

Gopi
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by Gopi » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:43 am

bperet wrote: 1. c-magnetic rotation is observed as m-electric rotation, with twice as many units as m-magnetic rotation, doubling the maximum magnitude (electric rotation).
2. m-magnetic rotation interacts as c-electric rotation, needing twice as many units--but appearing as half-steps, rather than doubling (specific rotation).
So that means (1) is the reason that we have the 2n2 relation in the periodic table (electric to magnetic), and (2) is the reason for spin ½ and specific rotation ½.

user737
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by user737 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:24 am

Does this then imply we can only observe the electric (m- or c-)?
If yes, goes a long way in understanding the fascination with Electric Universe.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by bperet » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:19 pm

Gopi wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:43 am
So that means (1) is the reason that we have the 2n2 relation in the periodic table (electric to magnetic), and (2) is the reason for spin ½ and specific rotation ½.
Yes; Nehru did a paper on the latter, "Some Thoughts on Spin."
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by bperet » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:22 pm

user737 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:24 am
Does this then imply we can only observe the electric (m- or c-)?
If yes, goes a long way in understanding the fascination with Electric Universe.
We observe the c-magnetic as m-electric.

The Universe can be viewed in two ways, as a magnetic system or an electric one. However, the electric universe loses data because you're observing the shadow, not the motion casting it.
Every dogma has its day...

user737
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by user737 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:52 pm

1-x = Low Speed (3D spatial = outward in time = inward in space = gravity)
Progression speed i.e. "Speed of Light"
2-x = Intermediate Speed (2D spatial, 1D temporal = neutral)
3-x = Ultra High Speed (1D spatial, 2D temporal = inverse-gravity)
Cosmic/Material boundary
Inverse in time...

This has always bothered me. Is the apparent dis-symmetry now cured with the recognition of the true duality of the magnetic (2D) and electric (1D) rotation: why is it that 3 dimensions of inward rotation are required to produce gravitation (either spacial or temporal) while only 2 dimensions produce the inverse effect (with respect to either conventional reference frame)?

3-x region being the i.j.k = -1 rotation negates the natural progression (which is no dimension) of 1 (or 1/1)...
-1 + 1 = 0 ... seems to me this should be the neutral region. Of course, that gives no possibility of natural to the 2-x region as I cannot have half gravity in order that the 1-x region should conform to our natural experience here on Earth.

A: 3 dimensions of space plus 3 dimensions of time = 6 dimensions (can I add apples + oranges?)
B: 3 dimensions of space plus 4 dimensions of equivalent space = 7 dimensions (closer?)
Is A the truth and B the perception? or is B the truth and A the perception?

In support of the case A is the truth I see symmetry with overlap in the 2 unit of motion. This makes 3-x region Cosmic in my mind, which can't be (although it does contain more Cosmic dimensionality than Material.

Please help me put together the speed regions with the observed astronomical effects at the macro level.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by bperet » Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:52 pm

user737 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:52 pm
This has always bothered me. Is the apparent dis-symmetry now cured with the recognition of the true duality of the magnetic (2D) and electric (1D) rotation: why is it that 3 dimensions of inward rotation are required to produce gravitation (either spacial or temporal) while only 2 dimensions produce the inverse effect (with respect to either conventional reference frame)?
In Larson's model, he has three scalar dimensions that are divided into halves of speed|energy. He relates his speed ranges to the first 1.5 dimensions...

1-x: 1st dimension as speed s/t.
2-x: 1st dimension as energy t/s.
3-x: 2nd dimension as negative speed, -s/t.

These three made up the "material" speed ranges, and the 2nd part of the 2nd dimension, plus the third scalar dimension, comprised the "cosmic" speed ranges.

I had a problem with this since Day #1... symmetry requires all scalar dimensions to behave the same, as you cannot tell which is the 1st, 2nd, etc. But Larson's model makes the 2nd dimension act differently.

When we developed RS2 with the angular/yin side of things included (Larson was all linear/yang), the correlation with the quaternion jumped right out... what Larson was trying to describe as a "speed range" was just dimensional behavior on a rotational axis--not a linear one.

In Larson's model, you need TWO double-rotating systems, comprised of a photon vibration (a line to rotate, still at +1). Then he imposes an inward rotation (-1) to bring it to zero. By combining a second double-rotating system, he adds in another (-1) to get it to gravitate. All atoms are comprised of two double-rotating systems, so all atoms gravitate--but particles, comprised of just a single, double-rotating system, do not.
user737 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:52 pm
3-x region being the i.j.k = -1 rotation negates the natural progression (which is no dimension) of 1 (or 1/1)...
-1 + 1 = 0 ... seems to me this should be the neutral region. Of course, that gives no possibility of natural to the 2-x region as I cannot have half gravity in order that the 1-x region should conform to our natural experience here on Earth.
Technically, the progression is 1n=1, so it has as many dimensions as it needs.

RS2 deviates here because the 1-x speed range is [1 ai 0j 0k] = [1 ai] = complex number, so the net speed ends up no the "i" imaginary axis--no longer a "real" quantity, though it has a real projection. Larson has no such concept in his books... because of my background in electrical engineering, I recognized this right off as an "observable"... all electric and magnetic effects are on the imaginary plane. This means that all atoms in the low-speed range (1-x) will have electrical characteristics, because of that rotation hanging off the i axis--which they do, and we just call it "charge."

When the rotation extends into the 2nd rotational plane, j, you get intermediate speed (2-x) motion. Now this is interesting because unlike the low-speed plane, it has NO projection onto the real axis--it is always zero, regardless of angle, as it is orthogonal to the real axis. This makes things appear "instantaneous" (infinite speed). And two-dimensional "electric" rotation is what we call "magnetism." So your magnetic fields arise with [1 ai bj 0k]--and why electromagnetism requires electricity to produce it.

Moving forward to the 3rd rotational plane, we're now on the -real axis, heading towards -1. This is where the gravitational effect shows up. Since each atom is a "dual quaternion" structure (two double-rotating systems), you can get TWO -1's per ONE +1 progression, resulting in the net, inward motion of -1.

So your "half gravity" is actually a magnetic field.
user737 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:52 pm
A: 3 dimensions of space plus 3 dimensions of time = 6 dimensions (can I add apples + oranges?)
B: 3 dimensions of space plus 4 dimensions of equivalent space = 7 dimensions (closer?)
Is A the truth and B the perception? or is B the truth and A the perception?

In support of the case A is the truth I see symmetry with overlap in the 2 unit of motion. This makes 3-x region Cosmic in my mind, which can't be (although it does contain more Cosmic dimensionality than Material.

Please help me put together the speed regions with the observed astronomical effects at the macro level.
You need to separate coordinate dimensions from scalar dimensions. Coordinate dimensions are homogeneous coordinates (4D), whereas the scalar dimensions are ratios (needing two magnitudes to express it, which means it's actually a 2D structure).

If you know programming, look at the code that Zuoqian and I came up with in the programming forum to transpose coordinate and scalar relationships. Coordinate functions are [x,y,z,w] but the scalar relationships are just "distance" and "duration" (2D).

You end up with 3 dimensions of motion (ratio) that can be projected into 4D coordinate space and/or time (the 4th dimension being the clock).
Every dogma has its day...

Horace
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by Horace » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:17 am

...and why a constant electric current, causes a constant magnetic field BUT a constant magnetic filed does not cause constant electric current ?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The Duality of Magnetic and Electric rotation

Post by bperet » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:21 pm

Horace wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:17 am
...and why a constant electric current, causes a constant magnetic field BUT a constant magnetic filed does not cause constant electric current ?
A constant current is only constant in clock time--it is varying in clock space, which is what produces the magnetic effect. A constant magnetic field varies in clock time, but is constant in clock space. So to produce an effect, you need to vary it in clock time (alternating, etc).

With AC, you have both systems varying in clock time and clock space, so the effects are bidirectional.

I realize this is confusing... it is hard to wrap your head around "clock space" as the inverse of clock time. I try to think of it this way: clock time = duration, clock space = distance.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply