In NOTHING BUT MOTION, Larson presumed the primary motion of the universe is the progression of space-time, which is a three-dimensional translational scalar motion manifested as the expansion of space and clock time to us. By direction reversal from the primary motion, we get oscillating photon moving inward and outward periodically. By adding motions to photon we finally get rotational base, a single rotating system which is the basic structure for all particles.(i am not sure i got this logic right although i am quite sure i got it before i read RS2)

In RS2, rotation is primary. Then what is the progesstion of space-time? Is it means that there is two basic motions, rotation and translation? The translational motion is the progression of space-time and the rotation manifested as bi-rotation in expansion space?

Besides, the expression"RS2 uses the term “yang” to represent the linear, translational aspects of motion and “yin” to represent the polar, rotational aspects of motion" is really confused me. From my understanding, processing motion into Yin-Yang aspect is something like define good and bad person. It is a tool to learn about motion just like how we learn about people. Space/time have two traits, but these two traits is reciprocally related? What is the relationship between translational/poar and space/time?

Forums:

Categories: RS2 Research

I am checking Larson's inter-atomic distance calculations and getting different numbers than the ones he has published. For example, Larson's inter-atomic distrance for table salt is 2.77 Angstroms (Basic Properties of Matter, page 26). My calculations show 2.82. I am using the LN function in EXCEL to do these calculations which have more significant digits than Larson may have used. But I am sure Larson would have had an excellent calculator to do his work. So this difference is still a mystery too me.

Forums:
Categories: RS2 Research

I am having real difficulty understanding Larson's theory of chemical bonding in Division IV. Take Nitrogen Trichloride for example. He says that Chlorine is positive to Nitrogen and therefore three atoms of chlorine balance the negative three valence of nitrogen. But theres a big problem here. We still have an overall negative electric displacement of 6. His basic premise is that real positive displacement offsets negative displacement resulting in zero relative motion with respect to that natural datum. I dont see how Chlorine become positive if its really negative, even though its relative negativity is reduced by the higher magnetic displacement. I have the same problem with another example he uses, Phosphorus Sulfide.

Doesnt it make more sense to argue that chlorine is positive and therefore can be "enhanced" by adding two to its negative one valence to get plus one which is real positive displacement.

I am reading through Nothing But Motion and this is the first time I cannot follow his logic.

Forums:

Categories: RS2 Research