From Astronomy now
Recent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, Irvine.
“If true, it’s revolutionary,” said Jonathan Feng, professor of physics & astronomy. “For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. If confirmed by further experiments, this discovery of a possible fifth force would completely change our understanding of the universe, with consequences for the unification of forces and dark matter.”
The UCI researchers came upon a mid-2015 study by experimental nuclear physicists at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences who were searching for “dark photons,” particles that would signify unseen dark matter, which physicists say makes up about 85 percent of the universe’s mass. The Hungarians’ work uncovered a radioactive decay anomaly that points to the existence of a light particle just 30 times heavier than an electron.
“The experimentalists weren’t able to claim that it was a new force,” Feng said. “They simply saw an excess of events that indicated a new particle, but it was not clear to them whether it was a matter particle or a force-carrying particle.”
And I thought particle physics wasn't relevant? How does RS answer dark matter and dark energy?Forums:
Nothing philosophical about any of this unless you want to hide from not knowing.
It's not that these aren't interesting questions in their own right, they're just not important in the context of scientific inquiry unless the assumptions have some scientific bearing. The labels are, of course, "defined" as variables in the equation of motion. Larson's system is a tool - a limited, mathematical abstraction of nature's behavior. Of course we do not need to know what time and space inherently are in order to have a useful theory or even a more comprehensive theory.
What is space? What is time? a theory of anything must define its "labels". Nothing philosophical about any of this unless you want to hide from not knowing. I am not saying I do know what nay one else thinks they are but I am saying I know what I believe them to be. Want to know what RS or Larson think they are.
At least both groups have real jobs and not just collecting a check.
Never heard them say anything but that everything is moving through dark matter. Call it what you will it amounts to the same. No one has seen aether either nor will they.
Larson (quite deliberatly) defined space and time in the context of the mathematical modelling of motion. In the Reciprocal System, space and time are a modelling device and literally have no other significance. This device is a key feature of his system. You might want to consider your question carefully in the context of scientific inquiry rather than of philosophical inquiry.
Empirical measurement is how we conventionally define space, time and their relationship. Larson's system was developed to provide the underlying mechanism for the precise modelling of any (measurable) phenomena. Because it underlies all measurement, any measurement can be derived from it or expressed by it. So if Larson had defined space and time by some taken-for-granted, experiential construct of "things" he would necessarily also be limiting its useful application. In terms of philosophy, Larson's "nothing but motion" construct was introduced in 1920 by Samuel Alexander, in Space, Time and Deity.
so time - a label - can move - in another label space .... what does that mean?
The idea is that the labels of space and time exist as numerator and denominator of a fraction in the equation of "motion". In the Reciprocal System, motion is primary. All "things" such as matter and photons or "forces" and "fields" of electricity, magnetism, and gravity are composed of motion, not the other way around. So it'd be more correct to restate "time - a label - can change with - in another label space". "Motion" in the Reciprocal System is merely a change of a relation of these labels. This is a purely mathematical (abstract) device. In order to apply this device to the empirically observed domain, the units of motion within its own reference system need to be translated to the desired conventional reference system.
Any conventional reference system one can choose, for example Euclidean space with clock time or "Minkowski space" as a 4D space-time manifold, will necessarily be only a partial expression - a shadow - of the underlying constituent motion.
I thought I was clear - let me try again - what is time? What is space? No one here has posted ANY definitions. Calling them labels is not defining them - it's just using them as some kind of given. Did Larson ever define them? I can't find it any of his papers or books.
I'm definitely one of the daniel paper people you mentioned because I'm not a scientist but can usually handle the concepts if explained without too much tech-talk, but a certain amount of it is necessary to explain things. I keep trying to introduce into conversations the idea of a reciprocal Universe with responses ranging from "that makes sense" to "hmmm" and some more knowledge under my belt would really help me field questions. I'm particularly interested in how reciprocity shows up in areas not related to science per se, such as how myths can be read differently.
I have a strong interest in musical ratios and would really like to know more about how they relate to what Keely was doing. If part of the manual is too technical I can always skip over that part for the time being. You might consider two versions of the book (yeah, more work that's just what you wanted, right?) one for more scientific minds and the other for the more philosophical types like myself who relish in the concepts but reach a point where technical analysis isn't always required (or understood). Or begin with a conceptual framework and move on to more in depth discussions that a beginner could skip past but still feel like he is keeping up with the curriculum.
I would really like to be involved somehow in helping to produce some audio/video presentations involving the RS and RS2. I have quite a bit of audio editing experience but haven't learned to work with video yet. The learning curve would be a little steep for me at first but there is some help at my local library which has a new media lab available to patrons and instruction is available if you have questions.
The idea of a tutorial book is very exciting and I would dive into it without a floatation device, and I don't swim!
You might also be interested in the following website http://www.weatheraction.com
It's run by Piers Corbyn, who claims to model long-term extreme weather and reach accurate forecasts unlike those of any other weather service, such as predicting cyclones, earthquakes, etc. The website's homepage is a bit loud, and could probably benefit from a little simplification, but the methodology is described in their videos. I don't follow his work, but the fact that he models the sun and moon into his Solar Weather Technique, claims more reliable, real-world and practical predictions.
This may be the next interim step, until someone can actually model RS to accurately simulate and match the real solar and earth weather on Earth.
Ps. It was remembering KVK Nehru's paper, upon coming across the article and methodology, that prompted me to post the original press release link.
I would recommend KVK Nehru's paper:
Which explains the origins of sunspots and their cycles, including how there are two magnetic layers that interact to produce the cycles. It only took conventional science 30 years to catch up to the RS... not bad, considering they have astronomy backwards.
isn't there also constant manifestation of motion from the cosmic sector which would also influence material sector motion in a non deterministic manner?
There is a nonlocal influence from the cosmic sector, but it is not random, because the material and cosmic sectors are not "separate," just out-of-phase with each other, so there is a predictable relationship.
Also, how would one determine the material sector spatial location of some faster-than-light motion originating in the cosmic sector?
There are no spatial locations that can express cosmic motion, because of the phase differential. Temporal motion would occur between spatial locations, modifying those adjacent locations. That is why we cannot see a magnetic field--only the effect the field has on space. But, like a magnet, you can determine the spatial locations that would be affected by such motion.