Questions RE: RS2

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.
ckiit
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Questions RE: RS2

As I await a copy of the first treatise, I have a few general inquiries I'm hoping someone who is already familiar with RS might shed light on.

**Outstanding Questions**
______________________
4. in v=s/t, is √v a valid proposition? For example, √v would have two valid roots: +v and -v. If not, why?
5. Given:

s^3/t ↔ s^2/t^2 ↔ s/t^3

can the middle s^2/t^2 be taken as:

v^2 = s/t

as a/the real displacement from unity c, thus mandating v have a real root √v=s/t?

Thank you - am looking forward to both the first treatise and insights relating to the above.

bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Questions RE: RS2

ckiit wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:30 am
1. Are space and time considered true reciprocals in RS? If so, would it be accurate to state that simply 'motion' can be seen as the fulcrum upon/through which these unite?
Reciprocals as in the multiplicative inverse. Space and time are just aspects of motion. In other words, just labels like "numerator" and "denominator," and have no other significance.

Keep in mind that space and time are not "things," so they cannot be the ends of a lever on a fulcrum--just labels for the ends, like left and right.
ckiit wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:30 am
2. Is there anything in RS that might suggest time is valid in both directions? If so, where might one find in the treatise(s) the means by which this is (perhaps not) arrived at?
Larson was emphatic in stating that you cannot "time travel," i.e., go back in time, so time flows only forward. As to whether Larson was right in this opinion... no way to tell.

Some systems of physics use negative clock time to make sense of observed behavior, but that is because they have no concept of 3D time--which can give the appearance of running backward.

You may also want to check out the topic on solar flares, as they do show indications that time is running backwards on the sun. (This has led to the idea that the sun is actually a construct in 3D time--not 3D space, as the Earth and other hard planets are.)
ckiit wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:30 am
3. Would the following rejection of Aristotelian identity law:
...
*variability (+/-) allows for any/all relative motion(s)/orientation(s)
find agreement with the general basis of RS?[/quote]
I am not following your reasoning here. Can you clarify?
Every dogma has its day...

ckiit
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: Questions RE: RS2

bperet wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:08 pm
Reciprocals as in the multiplicative inverse. Space and time are just aspects of motion. In other words, just labels like "numerator" and "denominator," and have no other significance.

Keep in mind that space and time are not "things," so they cannot be the ends of a lever on a fulcrum--just labels for the ends, like left and right.
Thank you.
Larson was emphatic in stating that you cannot "time travel," i.e., go back in time, so time flows only forward. As to whether Larson was right in this opinion... no way to tell.
I was thinking more in terms of negating the (negative) effects of conventional time, rather than time traveling - I would share the sentiment Larson had re: sci-fi time travel.
For example, time still moves "forward" but instead of inducing a progression into death, it induces a progression into life (ie. regenerative rather than decaying).
Some systems of physics use negative clock time to make sense of observed behavior, but that is because they have no concept of 3D time--which can give the appearance of running backward.
I am waiting on two books: Neglected Facts of Science and Nothing But Motion - hopefully 3D time is covered in the latter. I didn't know which books to start with - I hope they are suitable.
You may also want to check out the topic on solar flares, as they do show indications that time is running backwards on the sun. (This has led to the idea that the sun is actually a construct in 3D time--not 3D space, as the Earth and other hard planets are.)
Will do, and it is exceptionally good news if true: could the sun merely be an ethereal (ie. hollow) transformer whose energetic signature(s) correspond to the 'state' of the envelope of the planet?
I am not following your reasoning here. Can you clarify?
If you point above eye-level and repeatedly draw small clock-wise-rotation (left-to-right) circles,
close your eyes, drop your still-circling finger below eye level, open your eyes
and notice you are now drawing small counter-clock-wise-rotation (right-to-left) circles:
whereas the motion itself is unchanged, its apparent motion is inverse.

This is what I find neglected by the Aristotelian Identity Law A = A.

To re-tap the exceptionally good news comment above: if time appears backwards on the sun from the earth,
what does this say of time (and space) as it would appear on the earth as if perceiving from the sun?

If the universe is (of) motion, A ≠ A (not necessarily) because it is incomplete:
it describes an object/subject that is invariably stationary, which is impossible in any universe of motion.
I do not believe Aristotle knew to factor motion into the identity law itself,
for not knowing the finding of Larson: we live in a universe of motion.

It's like trying to pass off a stone (ie. static) figure as a dynamic living being.

If one considers a torus field, inward/outward are distinct yet equally valid motions:
either A is moving towards (+) the center, or away from (-) the center (like breathing).
Because "time" is otherwise required to know this, taking a snapshot would not do. We know this
because we can not tell both the direction and exact position of a particle if/when "measured".
However, by building the *variablility of motion itself into the
object/subject itself (hence: *A) as an intrinsic property (!),
this "stone" limitation can be circumvented by removing the assumption intrinsic to A = A: motionless.

Re-working the logic and supplementing a commentary breathing in/out practical analogy:

A = A (?) <-*what if A is breathing? in, or out?
√1 = +1, -1 (breath in, breath out)
√A = +A, -A (A is breathing in, A is breathing out)
A = *A (A is breathing, thus alive and in motion)
∴ A ≠ A (unless: A is motionless and/or dead, which satisfies A = A as TRUE by necessity)
∴ A = *A (A is breathing, thus alive, thus in motion)
__________
*variability (+/-) allows for motion(s)/orientation(s)
according to any impetus (of any motioning body).

Essentially, a "fixed" A is motionless (ie. inanimate, only +) whereas *A has intrinsic capacity for motion built-in (ie. animate, both + and -).

What I am asking is if this non-Aristotelian logic finds any agreement with the general basis of RS?
If you reject the logic, please do feel free as it is part of a theorem I need falsified if possible, thus endeavor to.