RS2 Fora

The server will be down for a hard drive replacement on Saturday, May 12, around noon, Pacific time, to replace a faulty hard drive.

It should not take more than an hour.

Forums:

• Website General Information

Life units, a stable combination of material and cosmic atoms, differ from inanimate structures in that they have "length" in clock time--the combination only remains viable for a limited duration. The simplest life unit is the compound neutron, a stable motion between a material proton and a cosmic neutrino. Nehru's research indicates that, based on probability mechanics, that motion remains stable for about 13 minutes before the rotational vectors align in such a way that allows the two particles to break the bond and go their separate ways, ending the combination (death).

I attempted to apply the same logic to the larger, life unit structure of the cell, but with trillions of m-atoms and c-atoms involved, the probability of the cell experiencing death through motion vector cancellation was unlikely, to say the least. The cell bond between the material and cosmic sectors remains viable for millions of years, so the lifespan of the cell must have another cause.

The only time inanimate structures "die" is through radioactive decay, which is due to the isotopic mass--the accumulation of neutrinos in the atomic nucleus. When sufficient neutrinos are captured, the spatial rotation of the neutrinos neutralizes the temporal rotation of the atom, causing a birotation and dimensional reduction, changing the stable rotations to translational motion and being emitted as particles. Once it throws off sufficient particles, the atom can again return to the zone of stability, which is determined by magnetic and electric ionization levels. In the Reciprocal System, everything works the same way--the same rules apply, regardless of complexity, so I did some research along the lines of ionization causing cell death, through the accumulation of m-neutrinos and c-neutrinos.

Most medical knowledge comes from postmortem--a study of what happened after it died, rather than what is going on while it is alive. To see if ionization applied to the life unit, I needed to see what was going on in the living cell and that brought me to concept of rejuvenation and the legends of the Fountain of Youth--a miraculous water that could rejuvenate cells and reverse the aging process. I find it helpful, particularly with the Reciprocal System, to take "reciprocal" views when investigating a subject to find the common factors. In thise case, cell death and cell restoration.

The Fountain of Youth is a legendary spring that reputedly restores the youth of anyone who drinks of its waters. Tales of such a fountain have been recounted across the world for thousands of years, appearing in writings by Herodotus, the Alexander romance, and the stories of Prester John. Stories of a similar waters were also evidently prominent among the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean during the Age of Exploration, who spoke of the restorative powers of the water in the mythical land of Bimini. The legend became particularly prominent in the 16th century, when it became attached to the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León, first Governor of Puerto Rico. According to an apocryphal story that features a combination of New World and Eurasian elements, Ponce de León was searching for the Fountain of Youth when he traveled to what is now Florida in 1513. Since then, the fountain has been frequently associated with Florida. --Wikipedia on Fountain of Youth

I cross-referenced a number of legends about the "waters of life" from cultures around the globe from the 12th to 16th centuries, to see if there were any common characteristics. The legends are in virtually every culture and the descriptions of the process is similar. The primary element is water from a spring. The Taoists of China were a bit more descriptive than the Caribbeans that Ponce de León encountered, indicating that the spring was blessed by a goddess. That may not mean much to most people, but 'goddess' says two things to me: yin & bioenergy. Or to translate into more modern terms, "living water."

The legend related by Ponce de León is a bit more confusing as it started with a mistranslation of Beniny as Bimini. Beniny refers to an island where the fountain of youth is located, but it translates to the "Island of the Immortals," which is where the "youth" thing came in. Ponce assumed that Immortality = perpetual youth, and the artesian spring on the island of immortality became the "fountain"--hence, fountain of youth.

References to an island of immortality is found in virtually every culture that has a shoreline. If they don't have a shoreline, then the immortals reside at the top of a mountain, like the gods of the Grecian Mount Olympus. Note that an island is usually a volcanic island, meaning that it is just a mountain sitting in water. So the island isn't actually an island--it is a mountain. American Indians, East Indians, Africans, Norwegians, Japanese, Chinese, Polynesian... they all have the same myth concerning a mountaintop where people seem to live forever, and it has something to do with water and attitude towards life. Cross-referencing the various theologies and mythologies of these cultures, the location of this mountain becomes obvious. Whereas it is in a highly inaccessible location and my own ethics requires I respect the privacy of those who reside there, I'll leave it to you to figure out where, as it really does not matter to the topic of this discussion on aging and rejuvenation. What is important is the process and what it reveals about the life unit.

First, let me describe what this "fountain" can, and cannot, do. It cannot make your physical body immortal. It can restore your cellular energy back to about what you had in your early 30's, the point where your body stops growing and begins aging. With the cell energy restored, the body will, of course, rejuvenate to over 6-7 years. It is not an instantaneous thing. Even the legends of the island of the immortals say it takes a lunar month for the process to take effect (28 days) and several months before things start working again in older folks. One may get an immediate energy boost out of it, but it still takes the body time to repair and reconstruct. It will not heal you of anything that would not normally be healed naturally. Limbs and organs that were lost or surgically removed will not regenerate. However, many diseases caused by aging and a failed immune system will heal, as the body's immune system recovers.

With that in mind, let us examine what is going on at the atomic level of the life unit. What this process does is to restore the flow of Qi in the body, by eliminating the blockages caused by cellular aging.

In atomic physics, Larson discovered that atoms "age." Atomic aging is a result of the capture of charged electron neutrinos that increase the isotopic mass of the atoms (this is unknown in conventional physics). In perfect conditions, an atom can reach an isotopic mass of about 236 AMU before it dies. Carbon starts with 12 AMU at "birth," so that's quite a lot of room for growth.

In Basic Properties of Matter, Larson describes a thing called a magnetic ionization level, that controls the maximum isotopic mass of an atom. Here on the Earth's surface, it is about 1 natural unit, which means that any element starting with Uranium will be subject to decay--old age. The higher the magnetic ionization level, the lower the element that ages (becomes radioactive). It also imposes a limit as to the maximum isotopic mass an atom can have. For the case of carbon with a unit ionization, that's about 24 AMU, so carbon can double its mass before it dies. BUT... once it hits 14 amu, the ionization level starts the decay process and carbon-14 becomes radioactive.

This is what happens in the inanimate realm. My examination of the life unit has turned up something interesting. Magnetic ionization occurs when there is an imbalance between space and time; too much time, not enough space, so time (particles) are ejected to bring the system back into balance for the specific ionization level of the surrounding environment. However, the cell is composed of BOTH material and cosmic (temporal) atomic systems, so the cell is ALWAYS in balance. As the material atoms of a cell increase in isotope, so does the isotopic mass of the cosmic atoms, increasing the amount of space and time available to the life unit motion. The atoms INSIDE a living cell cannot become radioactive; the ionization level is always zero because of this balace between material and cosmic structures. (However, that does not prevent damage from external radiation or contamination by heavy, inanimate isotopes. Only the "living atoms" are immune.) So the atoms inside a cell can reach the highest isotope permitted by the external ionization level.

Now consider carbon, as we are carbon-based life. In electrical engineering, carbon forms the basis of a component called the resistor--because it resists the flow of energy. The denser the carbon, the more resistance it has to allowing energy to pass. And we are made of a LOT of carbon. When carbon builds isotopic mass inside the cell, not eliminated by radioactivity, the more the cell resists the flow of bioenergy--it blocks qi and prana. Once it maxes out, which I estimate takes about 130 years in our environment, the life force is literally blocked and the life unit breaks down and reverts to inanimate status. That is "aging"--an accumulation of "atomic waste" in the cell. It is the same process that atoms use internally, and why stars eventually grow old and explode as supernovae.

The high isotope level of cellular carbon has never been noticed, because of the very short half-life of carbon isotopes beyond an AMU of 14. Upon death, 90% of the heavy carbon will become radioactive and change into other elements within 3 seconds. After 6 minutes, all traces will be gone except for a minute quantity of C-14.

There is no known method to remove isotopic mass from an element. If there was, we would make a spray called "Nuke Away" to get rid of unwanted radiation. But that does not mean there isn't a method to do it--as apparently the Fountain of Youth does.

About a century ago, Austrian Viktor Schauberger discovered some unusal properties of mountain spring water, which he called "Living Water." (Living water will be discussed in a separate topic.) Water is a curious molecule, since hydrogen has a valence of +/-1 and oxygen, +/-2, using Larson's systems of valences described in Nothing But Motion. Carbon is +/-4. Because of this spatio-temporal symmetry, the same magnitude in both aspects of motion, from a chemical perspective one cannot determine if the atoms involved are material or cosmic. For example, m-oxygen has a magnetic valence of +2 and electric of -2, whereas c-oxygen has a magnetic valence of -2 and an electric of +2. In summary, inanimate water occurs when both hydrogen and oxygen are material atoms. Living water occurs when one component is a cosmic atom, therefore making a life system (life being defined as a stable combination of material and cosmic atoms). Living water therefore has some special properties--as well as a life span. (Proof that m-atoms and c-atoms can combine in a stable combination for a limited clock time can be found in the compound neutron, a stable combination of an m-proton and c-neutrino, and as described in Nehru's paper on The Lifetime of the Neutron.)

Neutrinos, in an uncharged state, have no net displacement [1/2-1/2-(1)]  so they can easily pass through either m-atoms or c-atoms. However, when a neutrino passes through an m-atom and acquires a charge in the process, the charge is applied in the inverse aspect of the magnetic displacement. In the case of the m-neutrino, that is a charge in space, giving the neutrino a net, spatial displacement. m-atoms are temporal displacements, so the neutrino can enter the atom and move freely between atoms (space of neutrino to time of atom constitutes motion), but cannot leave the atom through the surrounding vacuum of space (space to space is not motion). The neutrinos will tend to distribute themselves evenly through a material aggregate, just like heat would, to a specific, isotopic "temperature."

To remove the isotopic mass of cellular carbon, one must remove the charge that holds the neutrino captive within the atomic structure. With the charge gone, the neutrino reverts to neutral status and just departs, being carried away by the progression of the natural reference system, not causing the cell any damage. So the trick is to uncharge the neutrino and let it be on its way.

A charge is a rotational vibration. The presences of ANY rotational vibration (such as an electromagnetic field from AC wiring) will tend to induce and sustain charge. So first thing about this "fountain" is that it must be located away from any source of vibratory electricity or magnetism--no AC, either natural or manmade. Second is to induce a rotational vibration that is equal and opposite to the one we want to get rid of, so it cancels it out. There is no material structure that can do that--but there ARE cosmic (antimatter) structures that WILL, for example: the cosmic atom in living water.

At the molecular level, the cell obtains its energy from the oxygen bound in water, not oxygen from the air. Since life is stable within life, living water absorbed by a cell will provide a c-oxygen source to the body. The c-neutrinos captured in the c-oxygen isotope, when bonded with carbon and its isotopic m-neutrinos, will cancel each other out as a birotation, releasing the charge as photons and allowing both uncharged neutrinos to be carried out of the body, reducing the isotopic mass of both the carbon and oxygen within the cells. Since the neutrinos can move around within the cellular aggregate like heat, over time, the net effect will be to lower the total, isotopic mass of both the oxygen and carbon within the cell. Heavy carbon can also be expelled as carbon dioxide.

The mountain of the immortals is a place that is outside of anything that could induce rotational vibration, where bathing and ingesting living water over a period of a month will remove the excess carbon isotope from the cells in your body, removing the resistance blocking the flow of Qi, and with proper meditative discipline, restore youth to the body. This could be repeated a number of times until you run out of telomere. By my estimates, under optimal conditions, that would mean the human body could live about 1200 years. In surface conditions on Earth, a reasonable estimate would be 600-900 years, depending on exposure to technology.

Forums:

• Life Unit Biology

Doesn't  that 137 seem like the interregional ratio effect?  See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=TZBuhall5hA

Forums:

• Other Theories

Hi Bruce!

You guys are gonna love this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk

 

Here's some good commentary on it...

Quantum mechanics writ large

Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics?

Forums:

• General Discussion

In conventional theory, the force of attraction between two charges is defined by:

Charge is defined in units of Coulombs, which in the Reciprocal System have units of "s" (1 ampere x 1 second = s/t x t = s). Omitting the fudge-factor constant, the equation is unitless, since the distance is also has units of space. They introduce "k" as a magic constant containing units to make the equation work.

In researching Basic Properties of Matter, Larson indicated that the cgs-based statCoulomb would probably be a better choice of units for measuring the electric charge, rather than the SI-based Coulomb. In conventional science, the two are considered to have the SAME units, with just a constant supplying the difference in magnitude:

1 C ↔ 2997924580 statC ≈ 3.00×109 statC (Wikipedia on StatCoulomb)

BUT, then it goes to define the units for a statCoulomb like this:

1 statC = 1 g1/2 cm3/2 s−1 = 1 erg1/2 cm1/2.

Rather bizarre combination, so let's break it down into natural units of space and time:

It has units of the square root of time--not even CLOSE to the Coulomb units of space! But, if you use statCoulombs in the equation for the force of attraction/repulsion between charges, it works:

When correcting the units for statCoulombs and using them as the magnitude of charge, the equation balances nicely with units of force. This would indicate that the Coulomb is a quantity of electrons, not the electric charge. Larson had come to a similar conclusion regarding electric charge q (versus Q), making one have units of space and the other units of energy (t/s) to resolve problems with the Farad. Appears he had the right idea, but just implemented in the wrong place.

Forums:

• General Discussion

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are flashes of gamma rays associated with extremely energetic explosions...

It occurs to me that when a cosmic star becomes a supernova, the core of that star would be exploding in space (the outer layers being ejecta in coordinate time). Space is what we observe and measure, so a cosmic supernova should show up in space as a huge burst of radiation and ejecta, corresponding with the cosmic supernova. As Larson describes in his astronomical research, the radiation emitted by white dwarfs and pulsars initially falls in the gamma ray, then X-ray bands, before cooling down sufficiently to start emitting light and radio waves. This has been detected by the BeppoSAX satellite for the Gamma Ray Burst.

There is a lot of guesswork regarding GRBs, and they are assumed to take place at extreme distances, and hence be extremely energetic. Larson, in Quasars & Pulsars, points out this fallacy that is based on an incorrect measurement of the redshift. Like quasars, the GRB is a cosmic event and is being displaced substantially in coordinate time, a factor not considered by conventional astronomy. Therefore, they would be significantly closer than believed because the radiation is still moving it time--in other words, the radiation is moving faster than light, but on a coordinate space vector. The amount of energy released would be on the scale of a supernova.

Because temporal motion has no direction in space (just as space has no direction in time), the burst will not be a ray, as theorized, but a spherical distribution.

It is likely that the association with distant galaxies is just a coincidence. Anyone who has looked at the NASA deep field knows that no matter where you point that telescope, you get a field full of galaxies. Stare long enough at any spot in the sky, and you're bound to spot a galaxy far behind any celestial event.

GRBs will not be limited just to supernovae, but to any cosmic event that generates motion in the inverse, ultra-high speed range, which includes the cores of cosmic galaxies and the resulting quasars.

Forums:

• Astronomy and Cosmology

The normal operation of a star produces considerable radiation, some of which is in the intermediate and ultra high speed ranges, meaning that 1 or 2 dimensions of that motion is in time, rather than space. The stars we see are therefore flooding the region of coordinate time, the Cosmic sector, with a kind of background radiation.

Larson recognized this situation and concluded that the Cosmic Background Radiation we detect is the conjugate of this operation: Cosmic stars (stars aggregated in coordinate time) are dumping their intermediate and high-speed radiation back into the material sector. Larson assumed that space is nonlocal to coordinate time, and that radiation will have a uniform distribution--it will not emanate from point sources, but be of the same intensity no matter where you looked in the sky.

In RS2, the reason for uniformity is different, which also results in the microwave distribution to be slightly non-uniform.

Stars are not evenly distributed around coordinate space, but are aggregated into galactic systems. Cosmic stars would have the same behavior, aggregating into cosmic galaxies. These galaxies would act in a fashion similar to an "area light," a surface of radiation rather than point sources. Those emissions back into the material sector would then be carried outward by the progression of the natural reference system, distributing the background radiation like a bunch of florescent panels illuminate a room. There would be few "shadows" in this background radiation contour, but there WILL be lighter and darker spots, depending upon the placement and orientation of the cosmic galaxies making these area emissions. So the background radiation would have a "splotchy," but fairly uniform pattern due to the mixing from the progression and the extreme ages of the emission sources. (Plenty of time to spread it around).

Forums:

• Astronomy and Cosmology

A supernova occurs in RS2 from a single cause: age-limit destruction of heavy elements at the stellar core. The age limit is the point at which the atom has accumulated sufficient isotope as to destabilize its rotational structure, destroying the rotating system and emitting it as particles and EM radiation, in massive quantities. This can occur under two, different conditions:

1. Class O (blue supergiant) stars that have reached their maximum mass, and as a result, the magnetic ionization level of the star becomes sufficient to cause age-limit detonation at the Nickel-Iron-Cobalt layer within the star, causing a supernova. These are the Type II supernovae of conventional astronomy.
2. A later-generation star. These supernova reconstructed stars start with a high concentration of heavy elements, already near their age limit and may become a supernova in any stellar class. These are the Type I supernovae.

(Larson labels stars with generations; the first generation is an aggregate that has not yet gone through the supernova and stellar reconstruction. The 2nd generation are normally the binary star pairs, the reconstruction of supernova debris back into stars. 3rd and later generations form multiple star groups. Larson also labels the spatial explosion the "A component" and the temporal explosion the "B component.")

The primary factor in the evolutionary speed of a star is the amount of matter available for it to consume. The more matter, the faster it will grow. As a result, stars present in nebula and dust clouds quickly move to the blue giant range and become supernovae. The most common example of this is when a globular cluster becomes trapped in the dust-filled galactic disk, becoming an open cluster. Red, globular clusters predominate outside the galactic disk and blue, open clusters predominate inside because of the availability of dust. Supernovae in red, globular clusters will be rare. Supernovae in the galactic disk will be common, and in the galactic core where there is a considerable quantity of heavy elements, very common (though not easily observed).

 

Forums:

• Astronomy and Cosmology

Conventional astronomical principles are based upon the assumed stellar combustion process, namely fusion. Reciprocal System astronomy is based on a different process that is deduced directly from atomic physics--the age limit of atoms, or fission. As a consequence of these opposite approaches, the interpretations of stellar and galactic evolution in the RS are reversed from those in conventional astronomy. Curiously enough, when one takes the time to look at it, it makes a lot more sense using Larson's evolutionary sequence.

Most of Larson's concepts are still valid in RS2. The primary areas of difference are in solar system formation and the influence of the Cosmic sector on Material events. (Coordinate time plays a much larger role in RS2 than in the RS).

The primary differences between RS/RS2 and conventional astronomy is the evolutionary process. In the Reciprocal System versions:

1. Stars are formed from dust being compressed by gravitation and heated up, forming an infrared protostar.
2. After a sufficient aggregate is formed, the thermal limit of atoms begins the process of atomic fission in the star, forming a red giant.
3. Stars continue to pull in, via gravitation, dust and matter to continue this fission process, heating the star into the main sequence.
4. Heavier elements gravitate to the center of the star, where they accumulate, moving up the main sequence towards blue giants.
5. Isotope build up in the stellar core from all the neutrinos being released from the fission processes going on.
6. Isotopic mass builds until the rotational stability of the atom is destroyed, resulting in the age-limit destruction of the atom, a process far more violent than the thermal limit.
7. When a sufficiency of age-limit detonation occurs, the star explodes as a supernova with the outer portion of the star exploding into space and the inner core, being confined, is accelerated past the speed of light and explodes in time (implodes in space).
8. The spatial result of a supernova is a large cloud of dust and debris, ejected along the polar axis (3-x speeds), the equatorial plane (2-x speeds) and a sphere of dust and rock (1-x speeds).
9. The temporal result of a supernova is a small, highly compact object in space, that is invisible and a source of X-rays.
10. After a period of clock time, gravitation again takes over and forms a new, red giant star from the spatial rubble that remained from the old star.
11. Temporal gravitation is also operating, causing the matter that exploded into time to compact and the invisible, X-ray source in space to cool and expand to a white dwarf star.
12. Eventually, the red giant heats up and the white dwarf cools down until they both enter the main sequence, where the process repeats. The only difference between the stars is the distribution of elements; the red giant having more lighter elements and the white dwarf having more heavy elements.

As a consequence of the thermal and age limit destruction of atoms, the stellar evolutionary sequence is backwards from the conventional approach. Stars begin as hot balls of dust, pulling in matter via gravitation to build mass and temperature, becoming red supergiants, red giants, orange giants, then on to the main sequence yellow, yellow-white and white stars, where they start to build further size to become blue giants, then explode in a supernova. The entire process is analogous to heating a piece of metal with a blowtorch. First, you get a dull, red glow, then orange, then yellow, then white-hot, then blue-hot, then it breaks apart.

The galactic situation is analogous to the stellar one. Since we start stellar evolution with the red giant, the first of the galactic evolutionary stages will be an aggregate of red giants--globular clusters. Since red giants and globular clusters are the first stage of evolution, they would be the most common objects to be found outside of galaxies (which NASA has stated now).

Galactic evolution then proceeds to gravitate globular clusters into irregular galaxies, barred spirals, large spirals, ellipticals, then giant spherical galaxies, which then explode in their own version of a supernova; a result of the blue giants in their core doing the same thing as heavy elements in the stellar core. The byproducts of a galactic explosion also pair off, the radio galaxy (explosion product in space) and quasi-stellar object (explosion product in time).

The extreme acceleration of quasars do not allow them to cool and return to the spiral galaxy status, as do their white dwarf counterparts. The continue to accelerate (recess) into time, and eventually disappear from Material sector view, leaving behind a giant, cosmic "bubble", since the temporal acceleration causes them to recede in a scalar fashion. Think of it as a "Hubble contraction." The quasar literally shrinks out of existence, leaving behind a void with a shell of matter (other galaxies).

Details of Reciprocal System astronomy can be found in Larson's book, Universe of Motion.

Forums:

• Astronomy and Cosmology

I have been evaluating Miles Mathis' papers on PI: What is Pi? and The Extinction of Pi, which cause considerable controversy with his conclusions that PI is an acceleration and has a value of 4.0, not the conventional 3.14159... As to what is correct, my answer is "all of the above," with the caveat that they are reference system dependent.

If you consider the basic tenants of the Reciprocal System, "units of motion" are discrete, like links in a chain. Larson, during his discussion on "direction reversals," states that the only time you can change direction is at the unit boundary. In the Euclidean projection, there are three, orthogonal axes that are divided in 1 natural unit intervals--to use an old computer graphics term, the Euclidean reality is "pixelated" in a fashion similar to what computers do to draw on a monitor. Pixels have gotten really small these days, but if you take a magnifying glass to your monitor, you will see that it is composed of a bunch of square dots of color, and that a diagonal line actually looks like a staircase--it is not smooth. The same happens with curves--they are approximated, because the monitor is made of tiny, illuminated squares. (This was a big problem in the early days of computer graphics, as designers were used to the smooth lines of a drafting board and raised a big fuss over the jagged lines of the lower-resolution displays back in the 1980s.)

Pixels can only be used as a unit, in the sense that a blue pixel will be ALL blue; you cannot start with red on one side and end up with blue on the other. This is analogous to Larson's "discrete unit" postulate. You can only change color (intensity, etc) after you exit one pixel and start another. Angled lines and curves therefore appear jagged. (A technique called anti-aliasing helps reduce this, by fuzzing out the jagged portions by dimming adjacent pixels, as an optical trick).

Consider the same situation in Nature. The observable, measurable universe is also "pixelated" because of the Reciprocal System's discrete unit postulate and the absolute scaled, orthogonal, Euclidean projection. It's a grid of cubes--we just call it "quantized" rather than "pixelated."

Now what happens if you try to draw a circle on a computer monitor that has a radius of 1 pixel? Well, you get a 2x2 square, with a circumference of 8 pixel units (assuming a 1:1 height:width ratio), diameter = 2 units, and PI, the ratio of circumference to diameter, is therefore 4 (not 3.14), due to this pixelation. Programmers that dealt with the early computer graphics, where you programmed at pixel level, know that the perimeter of a pixelated circle is 4x its diameter and that had to be accounted for when a user tried to pick a location on a circle, because it was approximated. It was "light pens" or "tablets" in those days, and the best resolution you could return to the computer was the size of the pixel selected.

Kick the radius up to 2 or 3. You get a series of squares, since the curvature of the "real" circle is still too steep to clip any of the corners. Make the diameter a million, and considerable clipping occurs, and the ratio of circumference to diameter starts to approach the accepted value for PI.

It was this knowledge of pixelated circles that gave me an understanding of Mathis' "pi = 4" concept. By assuming that the limit=1 (rather than lim->0), you are quantizing the system into linear, "pixelated" components, and there is no such thing as a curve--only an approximation of a curve, made with stair-stepped lines. That stair-stepping adds the extra distance to the perimeter to bring PI up to 4.0.

In the yin-yang terms of RS2:

1. PI = 3.14159... when using the yin, temporal aspect of measurement (curved or polar). In Larson's "time region," where there is only time and rotation, speed is defined as (1/t)2, not s/t. The "1" in the time region means that space is fixed at unit speed, so the correct units would be (1s/t)2 for speed in the time region. This is in agreement with Mathis' concept of PI as an acceleration, and orbital velocity having the units of v2, not v.
2. PI = 4.000 when using the yang, quantized spatial aspect of measurement (linear). Motion in space will approximate a curve, due to this quantization (discrete unit postulate). The value of PI is higher because you cannot make an arc, nor a diagonal, without resolving it to its x,y,z components for measurement (cannot change direction except at a unit boundary, so you cannot "cut through" and take a shortcut across a unit of space).

There is a third value of PI, shown on the diagram, that is computed by the relationship of Area / radius2. This value starts at 4.000 with the minimum, natural radius of 1 unit, and approaches the conventional value of PI as the radius gets larger, reaching it when radius=infinity.

To check my reasoning, I wrote a short program to pixelate a circular area, and count the number of pixels that defined the area, then divide by the radius. As expected, the larger the radius, the closer to 3.14 the value for the ratio came.

So there are actually three different concepts for this ratio we refer to as PI:

1. Analog circumference / diameter = 3.14159... in all cases (yin aspect).
2. Quantized perimeter / diameter = 4.000 in all cases (yang aspect).
3. Quantized area / radius2 = 4.000 -> 3.14159... as radius->infinity ("Tao of Pi", I guess).

Here are the results:

Radius Total Filled Pi (area) 1 4 4 4.00000000 2 16 16 4.00000000 3 36 36 4.00000000 4 64 60 3.75000000 5 100 96 3.84000000 6 144 132 3.66666667 7 196 172 3.51020408 8 256 224 3.50000000 9 324 284 3.50617284 10 400 352 3.52000000

The value bounces around a bit, depending on how much of the squares stick outside the perimeter. And some larger values...

Radius Total Filled Pi (area) 100 40000 31812 3.18120000 200 160000 126424 3.16060000 300 360000 283892 3.15435556 400 640000 504220 3.15137500 500 1000000 787344 3.14937600 600 1440000 1133308 3.14807778 700 1960000 1542092 3.14712653 800 2560000 2013768 3.14651250 900 3240000 2548164 3.14588148 1000 4000000 3145544 3.14554400

I did not define units for the radius, other than "space." In vacuum, a unit of space is approximately 45 nm. Any temporal displacement would reduce that value, so the presence of matter would make the natural unit much smaller. So you can see that the conventional value of PI is approached very quickly with object sizes we are acustomed to.

While doing these programs, I decided upon a label convention, using "circumference" to describe the analog, yin perimeter of PI, and "perimeter" to define the linear, yang measure, because perimeter is conceptually associated with the measure of land, as a series of linear distances.

So pick your piece of PI by the reference system in use: yin circumference, yang perimeter or area.

Forums:

• General Discussion

RS2 is an active research project based upon Dewey B. Larson's original research known as the Reciprocal System of physical theory. RS2 is NOT Larson's Reciprocal System, nor is it associated with ISUS, the International Socety of Unified Science. RS2 is a private research project, privately funded. The information on this site constitutes active research into the extension and development of the concept of a universe of motion, the premise of the Reciprocal System. As an active research project, MANY perspectives are considered as we attempt to find better ways to represent the concepts of a universe of motion.

We are always looking for ideas and concepts that improve the accuracy, representation and explanation of the concepts behind a universe of motion. And there have been many excellent contributions by many people.

I am very disappointed that I have to make a post concerning conduct, I would expect people interested in research to act in a professional, courteous and respectful manner but that is apparently not the case in this day and age. Flaming, trolling, spamming, rude or insulting comments on this site are NOT acceptable, and such comments (and all replies) will be deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the site moderators.

New ideas, better ways to express old ideas, and even questions about concepts all assist in the development of this research project. Nehru and I have found that trying to answer questions makes you think more deeply about a concept, which often finds flaws or strengths in the system. Helpful questions and comments are always appreciated. Unqualified attacks on people or concepts are pointless, inflamatory and a waste of everyone's clock time.

Please keep comments helpful, considerate and respectful of your fellow researchers. It is just "common courtesy"--which, from what I've seen across the Internet, is not very "common" anymore.

Forums:

• General Discussion

We have Time and Space.

How many dimensions does it take to think?

Can I think in space?

Can I think in time?

If I think in Time do I move in Space?

If I think in Space do I move in Time?

If I Space in Time do I move in thought?

If I Time in Space do I Think to Move? 

If I Space in Thought do I move Time?

If I Time in Thought do I do I move Space?

 

Is the imaginary component of RS2 Thought?

Is thought a vector through space and time?

Is thought Scaler?

Thanks for listening.

Pilot

Forums:

• General Discussion

I have been reading this RS Theory lately. Please verify my understanding of it and elucidate some questions.

1) The universe consists of multiple units of motion

  a) How many units are there in the universe? ...one, three, finite, infinite, unknown...

 

2) One unit of motion has two reciprocal aspects and this unit can be represented by a ratio of two natural numbers which constitute these reciprocal aspects.

  a) Two units of motion A and B have four aspects collectively: A.s, A.t, B.s, B.t

  b) The A.s and A.t can have only one relationship, the 1/1 ratio

  c) The B.s and B.t can have only one relationship, the 1/1 ratio

  d) Can A.s and B.t (or A.t and B.s) have any relationships ?

 

3) The two units of motion, A and B, do not possess a common property of position in respect to some container or universal background.

  a) Do these units of motion possess any property relative to each other, or are they oblivious to each other?

  b) Do the A.s and B.s aspects (or the A.t and B.t aspects) possess a property of position relative to each other?

     i) if  3b==FALSE then how can they superimpose interact (collide, reflect, etc…) ?

  c) Do the A.s and B.s aspects (or the A.t and B.t aspects) possess any property relative to each other, or are they oblivious to each other?

Forums:

• Models (theoretical and computer)

I have been attempting to integrate Miles Mathis' ideas of the "diagrammatic universe" (universe defined by diagrams versus reality) into an RS2 model, to see if I can determine exactly how a universe of motion (nothing but ratio between space and time) drops to concepts such as distance and clock time--measurements that are NOT ratios.

The problem arose when trying to determine the frequency of a photon. Frequency has space/time units of 1/t, due to the relationship: frequency x wavelength = c. Wavelength is meters, s, c is a speed, s/t, so frequency MUST be 1/t (not a speed as proposed in several RS papers). 1/t is not "motion," and therefore cannot be a part of a "universe of motion."

The same problem arises for the wavelength, a spatial distance, s/1. Again, not a ratio of space:time, so based on Mathis' comments, that indicates we've fallen out of "reality" and onto a sheet of paper--the diagrammatic universe. It makes sense, since one can draw a length on a piece of graph paper, but one cannot draw a speed on it. Computer models open up an interesting possibility to getting out of the diagrammatic universe and back to something reflective of reality because a computer monitor CAN draw a speed, as computer graphics are dynamic (whereas paper is static).

What is happening is that, in order to communicate what we have learned in a "paper" society, we must break apart the ratio of space to time and represent each component separately, usually with the assumption that the denominator (time) is normalized to unity and can therefore be omitted from the line graphs (space) we draw to exchange knowledge. This is what happens to the concept of frequency: cycles PER SECOND--time is normalized to unity.

Larson recognizes this situation because he makes a distinction between scalar motion and "extension space"--the 3D coordinate system. It is the same distinction that Mathis makes between his static, diagrammatic universe and the dynamic, "reality." And I believe static and dynamic describe the situation clearly: a universe of motion cannot be accurately described by static principles (integrating static to dynamic will introduce an arbitrary constant), but a universe of motion can be projected to a static system without the introduction of arbitrary values (constants). So it appears that projective geometry, extracted from a ratio-based model, is the proper procedure to follow when attempting a computer model of the RS.

I have come to the following conclusions:

• There is a static, diagrammatic, "extension" or "coordinate" universe that is the final stage of projected motion, that our consciousness uses to interpret and communicate structure and relationships.
• This static universe is composed of points (locations), lines (distances, lengths) that describe the spatial aspect of a universe of motion, where time has been normalized to unity. (Planes as locations when dealing with forces.)
• There is a dynamic, "scalar motion" universe that is the initial stage of motion, where all is a ratio between space and time. The aspects never exist by themselves.
• There is a system of assumptions that are made in the mapping of a dynamic to static universe, that we define as projective geometry.
• The Projective stratum is dynamic.
• The Euclidean stratum is static.
• The strata between are the layers of assumption.
• Anytime space or time are encountered, without a ratio between the two, you are in the diagrammatic universe.
• Clock time is a necessary construct to normalize the temporal aspect of motion to unity. It is essentially providing an ordering sequence (ordinal numbering) to the changes in speed, so they can be diagrammed.
• Spatial distance is the result of motion having time normalized. In essence it is taking the derivative one step too far... x1 -> 1x0 = 1. The power of unity is the dynamic, natural reference system; the power of zero becomes the static, diagrammatic reference system (the variable is gone).

This would indicate that any of the "natural units" that reduce "s", "t" or "st" are not actually natural units, they are diagrammatic ones--shadows on the sheet of graph paper and should not be used in a universe of motion, but only as an "output" for conventional reference.

Forums:

• Models (theoretical and computer)

As discussed in the topic on Permittivity and Permeability, the 1D electric and 2D magnetic relations appear to be reciprocals of each other and not two, separate phenomenon. I have been thinking about the issue of why there is a dimensional difference, and based on the (1 s/t)3 unit datum, the answer is that we should be measuring from that unit datum, down, not up from zero. The dimensional sequence should be 3-x, 2-x, 1-x, which is identical to Larson's concept of speed ranges, used mainly with his work in astronomy.

Larson applies the speed range concept to the macrocosm to explain white dwarfs, pulsars, quasars and other stellar phenomenon. Due to the reciprocal relation between space and time, and therefore the reciprocal relation between macrocosm and microcosm, these three, speed ranges must also exist inside the unit boundary--in the time region.

The misunderstanding was that the unit boundary was 10, a dimensionless "absolute location" in the spatial grid. As discussed elsewhere, zero and infinity are not locations, but boundaries (other datums of measurement). When we start from the correct unit boundary, 13, and move through equivalent space towards the zero boundary (or through time to the infinity boundary), we must also encounter the remaining two, discrete dimensional boundaries of 12 and 11, which act as the transition points of "equivalent space" speed ranges. With speed ranges outside the unit boundary explaining astronomical phenomenon in the macrocosm, and speed ranges inside the unit boundary explaining atomic fields, we have a perfectly symmetrical, reciprocal system, as it should be.

One thing that must be remembered when dealing with a unit boundary, is that the directions of inward and outward are with respect to that boundary--not zero. Outward from the unit space boundary that delimits the time region, means outward from that boundary. When two atoms are outside the unit boundaries of each other, the outward motion acts to push them apart (progression of the natural reference system) and prevent the formation of a molecule. In RS2, we would say this motion is yang, pushing linearly outward.  However, when those same, two atoms are inside the unit boundaries of each other, then that SAME outward motion, moving out from the boundary towards infinite time (zero in equivalent space), it acts as a force of attraction, preventing those same atoms from coming apart, keeping them stuck together AS a molecule. This is the RS2 yin, pushing rotationally inward.

The three speed ranges present inside the unit boundary will have similar effects, in essence being reflective around the unit boundary--there will be 3 speed ranges manifest in space surrounding the unit boundary, and three speed ranges manifest in time, inside the unit boundary.

The three speed ranges going outward from the unit boundary, into the macrocosm:

• 3-x: the dimensional, unit boundary, gravitation (the closest and therefore "weakest" force).
• 2-x: the magnetic field boundary.
• 1-x: the electric field boundary (the strongest force).

The three speed ranges going outward from the unit boundary, into the "time region" microcosm:

• 3-x: the perceived "mass" of the atom.
• 2-x: Nehru's atomic zone, the magnetic rotations of the system.
• 1-x: Nehru's nuclear zone, the electric rotations of the system.

As you can see, magnetic rotations inside are at the same speed as the magnetic field outside; electric rotation inside is in the same speed range as the external electric field, as are gravity and mass--"reflections" of each other, as Lou put it in the other discussions. All of them are just "motions," with the difference being the speed range in which they are measured, analogous driving a car down the road and shifting gears. The engine RPM repeats for each gear, but the net, observed speed is vastly different for that RPM. This also explains why Larson states that 8 units of electric displacement can be converted to 1 unit of magnetic displacement--the electric motion reached the maximum speed for 1st gear, and shifted to 2nd, with a corresponding drop in RPM to maintain the same, net speed. It just crossed the dimensional boundary.

There is a difference between an electric displacement and an electron: The electron is an electric displacement within a space region, a particle. The electric displacement is a property of the particle or atom. When considering the atom as an LC circuit, one must remember that the dimensional boundary between the electric and magnetic zones is away or toward that boundary--electric and magnetic displacements will therefore appear to be the reciprocals of each other (+i versus -1/i, on the imaginary axis), around that boundary. The atom will have an internal resonance at this LC frequency. But, the atom can also capture electrons within its temporal structure, and those electrons will not affect the displacement in the nuclear zone, but WILL alter the external, electric field by adding their electric field to that speed. There is also an external LC frequency that we use in tuned circuits, that is independent of the atomic structure, but dependent upon voltage and current (the presence of charged and uncharged electrons in the atoms).

 

Forums:

• General Discussion

Permittivity, ε, is the resistance encountered when forming an electric field in a medium, defined by Farads per meter. A Farad in RS2 is s3/t and a meter is just 's', so the natural units for permittivity are s2/t. (Larson's RS and conventional science consider a Farad to be "s" and the value therefore has no units).

Permeability, µ, is a value indicating how supportive a medium is to the formation of a magnetic field, defined by Newtons per ampere squared (N/A2). In natural units, Newtons are a force t/s2 and an ampere is a speed, s/t, giving t3/s4.

The units for both are a bit strange, until you look at how they are related to a much more understandable value, the speed of light:

or

I know how math people like to factor things out, so I got to wondering what would happen if the c2--a speed--was distributed over both permittivity and permeability, and obtained an interesting result:

-- the units for electrical conductivity, G = I/V.

-- the units for electrical resistance, R = V/I.

We now have sensible, inversely-related, natural units that are commonplace in electrical engineering. The factoring out of the speed from these terms into c2 just disguised what they really are, nothing more than electrical conductivity and resistance.

This implies that electricity and magnetism are just reciprocals of each other, and not two, separate phenomenon, which explains why their behavior is linked in EM radiation.

What is interesting is that permittivity is described as resistance, yet has the units of conductivity. Permeability, which is described as a conductivity, has units of resistance. Since they are the inverse of what would be expected, that would indicate the observer is on the other side of a unit boundary (the 1 in the equation) making these behavioral observations.

Forums:

• General Discussion

One of Nehru's favorite systems is his "Zero - One - Infinity" to explain 1-dimensional motion as offsets from unity. Larson also uses this analogy in his books to describe the 2-unit speed relationship. With both authors, the system is depicted by a line with 0 on one end, unity in the center, and infinity at the other end.

A while back (January, prior to Mathis' papers), Gopi and I were discussing the concepts of zero and infinity and trying to figure out how they fit in to the system. Using the yin-yang philosophy we have adopted for RS2, it became apparent that zero and infinity were nothing more than arbitrary references from which things were measured. It came down to Unity was the natural datum, zero was the yang (linear) and infinity was yin (polar). This fit well with the projective geometry concept of yang being point-wise, and yin being plane-wise. Calculus ran into problems when they selected the wrong reference as measurement. Mathis, of course, clears up that issue.

I had made a diagram to represent the zero-one-infinity concept in a more accurate depiction, compositing both the linear and angular components:

Zero is a point of no dimensions, for a point-based yang system of measure and Infinity is the circumference, representing all dimensions, for a direction-based yin system of measure. The difference with the Reciprocal System (RS and RS2) from conventional systems is that the RS starts with unity, and extends linearly towards zero and angularly towards infniity. Conventional systems start with zero or infinity, and try to measure towards each infinity and zero, ignoring unity.

Forums:

• General Discussion

The server that hosts RS2 hung up last night during a Botnet attack (overloaded by hacker programs trying to break in). As a result, some of the posts got screwed up in the database, and some replies may have been lost. I have run a journal recovery and cleaned up the mess as best I could. Unfortunately, this happens occasionally and there really isn't much that can be done about it. Posting should be back to normal now. Let me know if you encounter any problems.

Forums:

• Website General Information

I have found a conceptual difficulty with Larson's interatomic distance, where he uses the function:

Namely, that in the time region, the quantity 1/t cannot exist!

According to Larson, in the equations of motion, the spatial component (s)  of speed (s/t) is replaced by its temporal equivalent (1/t), resulting in (1/t)/t = 1/t2. In the "time only" region, the three dimensions are 1/t2, 1/t3 and 1/t4. The quantity 1/t can only exist at the unit boundary--not inside the region. Needless to say that all of Larson's work on interatomic distances are based on this conceptual error, which surprises me.

The actual relations would have to be based on integration and differentiation, as Larson uses to determine the time-space region to time-region relationships:

Differential, moving from time-space to time region, where s=1:

Integral, moving from time region back into time-space:

This gives the same, 2nd power relation in the time region that Larson uses, except without the need to substitute 1/t for s. Plus the added bonus of reversing the direction of the motion, as we know that "outward in time" = "inward in space."  But it also says that the natural logarithm is not involved in the interatomic distance calculation.

 

Forums:

• General Discussion

(Original discussion here: http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/408) Discussion of Miles Mathis' concept of time, here: A reevaluation of time and velocity.

Let me start by quoting Mathis' conclusions, regarding time, from that paper (based on his reevaluation of SR and QED):

As I have shown, time is assumed to be absolute in the sense of being equivalent from one system to another.  We must make this assumption in order to calculate velocities, among other things.  This does not mean that it is absolute, of course.   It means that we must define it as having continuity from our immediate vicinity to any vicinity we want information about.   If we do not assume time and space continuity, we cannot hope to build meaningful equations.  A universe without continuity is a universe without equations, without mathematics, and without science.

But time is not absolute in the sense of absolutely precise, or absolutely known.  It is a concept based on the idea of uniform movement, but the concept allows of only relative measurement.  A movement can be known to be  more or less uniform, but not absolutely uniform. 

Likewise, time is not an absolute in the sense that many "classicists" appear to mean when they mean by it that Special Relativity is wrong.  Objects moving at a distance, including of course clocks, look different than objects at hand.  And velocity and acceleration influence the appearance of distant objects in quantifiable and dramatic ways.  Time dilation is a fact.  A poorly interpreted fact—up to now—but a fact nonetheless.

Time is also dependent upon, and therefore relative to, movement.  In a sense, time is nothing.   Or it is nothing but a second measurement of movement.  Displacement is movement.  Time is movement.  Time is displacement.  Time is the displacement of the reference body.

First off, the Reciprocal System is NOT a branch of the SR/QED tree of physics--the postulates have about as much in common with conventional physics as a tree does with a dog. The premises are totally different--the conventional setting of matter versus a universe of motion. Let me identify some of the key components in Mathis' conclusions, that provide an interpretation in RS2 (projective geometry needed--not as applicable to Larson's RS):

• Mathis' theory, from what I've read so far, is based on the concept of a "universe of velocity", defined by changes in velocity. Larson just calls it "motion" instead of "velocity," having the same relationships of space to time. Twenty years after Larson published his first book, he finally concluded that "we are dealing with nothing but abstract change [of motion] in three dimensions." (See the video Q/A on the rstheory site). Same concepts, different words.
• Time as absolute: appears to be a confusion arising from the projective strata. Mathis does not have the same "viewpoint" as Larson (his camera of observation is in the Euclidean stratum, looking up; RS2 is at the projective stratum, looking down). Using projective concepts, RS2 can conclude that "time is absolute" only in the Euclidean stratum of the projection--in other words, it acts as the same velocity in all dimensions (the Euclidean stratum requires scale to be fixed at unity in all dimensions, which is the denominator of velocity--time). So the world in front of our eyes appears to have time as "absolute."
• Time as not absolute: Once you move out of the Euclidean stratum of the projection of scalar motion, there is no requirement that "time" be fixed at any value, and therefore time appears relative to the reference frame. It appears most of Mathis' comments are in the Metric stratum, where time is dimensionally independent. In his Calculus papers, he wants time to be a vector quantity in the denominator, which IS the case with any measurement made above the fixed, Euclidean stratum.
• Time dilation: Does not exist in Larson's Reciprocal System, as Larson only considers the Euclidean projection of scalar motion (as he postulates). What would normally be time dilation in the RS is adjusted by motion in coordinate time (3-dimensional time, clock space), the Cosmic half of the Universe. In RS2, time dilation only occurs in the non-Euclidean geometric strata, again because "time" is not fixed at unity, as it is in the Euclidean. Therefore, time acts as a scale factor in the relations of velocity, appearing to slow things down or speed them up. Relativity, having no analogous concepts to either the Cosmic sector, nor projective geometry, has to adjust the flow of clock time for this scale factor.
• "Displacement is movement.  Time is movement.  Time is displacement.": Not much to be said on this comment, other than, "Welcome to a universe of motion!"

What I've learned from this paper is that time acts like space--as if that was not obvious already, from coordinate time and clock space. It is easy to draw the analogy between the respective spatial and temporal coordinate systems, but I've not really consider the "clock" aspect in detail, nor the fact that time can express itself either as an absolute scale (Euclidean) or relative measure, with multiple dimensions in space (Metric and Affine). So, is time absolute? Yes. Is time relative? Yes. Does time act uniformly across dimensions? Yes. Does time act independently across dimensions? Yes.

It all depends on the observer--where the camera is located, and where it is looking. That is why I consider the observer effect to be a key factor in RS2.

 

Forums:

• General Discussion