Today's selection of need-to-know updates from the world of physics

Categories: Conventional Science

ISUS, the *International Society of Unified Science*, has decided to change its name, mainly because ISUS sounds a bit too much like ISIS. I just completed the paperwork and we are now the *Reciprocal System Reserach Society* (RSRS or RS2).

I'll be doing some major site upgrades in the near future to address this, so I can make some changes.

Question: is this forum structure (Drupal 7 "advanced forum") adequeate, or should I switch over to something like phpBB3, which is software designed explicitly for forum use? Let me know your thoughts.

Forums:
Categories: RS2 Research

In other words, in what reference system are these collisions (motion superpositions) evaluated?

All three... coordinate space, coordinate time and the scalar dimensions.

That reference system should be universaly applicable to all motion collisions/superpositions (even cosmic motions) because at this stage it is not even astablished whether the observer's motion is material or cosmic.

The way I was able to resolve it (in programming) was to treat the material and cosmic sectors as being 90-degrees out-of-phase with each other, and "zigzag" between scalar and coordinate motion. What I mean is that when you are doing a material comparison of coordinate locations, the temporal aspect of that motion is progressing/gravitating. Once you complete the material comparison, you progress/gravitate the spatial aspect and do a cosmic comparison of temporal, coordinate locations. (On the scalar side, coincidence occurs when there is zero speed between two motions--which is why a molecule stays together.)

It is actually quite an existential dilemma, because you require an observer to create a 3D coordinate system in both space and time in order for the system to "exist." Remove the observer from either the material or cosmic sector, and the entire Universe freezes in its tracks...

Is it possible for two motions to be concurrent in one reference sytem but not in another?

Yes.

Categories: RS2 Research

1) The 3 axis in the TU are not continuous (in the real numbers domain) but only contain discrete quantities, i.e. the possible s/t values for each of the 3 dimensions of motion. So along each "s/t" axis are only defined the points 1/n in the (0,1] interval (s/t=1/n) and the points "n" in the [1,infinite) interval (s/t=1/(t/s) and being the possible values of t/s=1/n, s/t=n). Is that assumption correct?

If by TU you are referring to the scalar dimensions (three ratios that form the projective invariant of the system), then it does not have any axes because it has no inherent geometry. The magnitudes in the numerator and denominator of those ratios (dimensions) are the whole, counting numbers, 1..n, where "n" is always finite--there is no zero nor infinity.

Larson always fixes one aspect at unity and varies the other, so the ratios are always in the form of 1/n or n/1. Because there is no geometry, it does not matter which aspect (numerator or denominator) is named "space" or "time" at this point. All that matters is that an invariant, cross-ratio of 1:1::s:t is being defined that can be used to project into the material or cosmic coordinate systems.

2) When the postulates of RS state that the universe is Euclidean, do they refer to the MS or the TU?

Refer to the diagram I made in: RS2-102 Fundamental Postulates (last page). Since "Euclidean" is a type of geometry, and the TU has no geometry, it therefore refers to the consequences drawn from the second postulate to define the MS and CS. Coordinate relationships are Euclidean (Larson included this because of all the non-Euclidean theories that were coming out when he was publishing his books.)

3) A point in the TU (identified by its coordinates in the 3D space defined by the 3 scalar motion directions) is univocally mapped, or "projected" if you want, to a "location" (a 4-coordinate point, 3 spatial + 1 temporal) in the MS? My understanding so far is that a point in the TU identifies a displacement from the unit speed of 1 along each of the 3 motion axis, defining not a location in the MS but a TYPE of particle (or force?) in it. (BTW how is it possible that a point in the TU identifies both a particle type and a force?)

I'm confused by your use of "point." To get a location, you need a projective plane to establish a coordinate system (or in a 3D+T system, a "projective volume"). The TU has no such assumption. All it has is *magnitude*. Only a single, scalar dimension (ratio) can be projected into a coordinate system as a structure (photon, particle or atom). The structure then has the property of "location" in the coordinate system. The 2nd and 3rd scalar dimensions then modify the behavior of the projected dimension, adding behavioral properties.

Regarding "force"... see the topic: Force and Force Fields. (Old topic, but still applicable.)

4) The "natural progression" or "natural reference system" the RS talks about is in the TU or in the MS?

The progression is just a scalar expansion at unit speed (the speed of light). It defines the datum of measure (1/1) that forms the "end of the tape measure" to which we measure displacements. It is not a *thing *unto itself--just a property of the Universe to want to fly apart at the speed of light.

Astronomers had to invent "dark energy" to account for this natural property of scalar motion. But there is no actually *energy *there (a non-unit displacement of t/s)... that's why they will never find it.

If it was in the TU it would be a simple, static sphere of radius 1 (s/t=1 along each of the 3 motion axis), but you seem to treat it like an expanding sphere (at the speed of light) in the MS, on which the galaxies and thus all observable matter is located, so it seems to be in the MS. But if all the MS's matter is on this "natural reference system", how is it possible that gravity pulls the matter towards the center of this expanding sphere like the RS states? Besides, the experimental astronomical evidence claims that the observable universe expansion is accelerating, meaning that the "balloon" is currently inflating at a fraction of *c*.

Not exactly... to understand how the progression behaves in a coordinate system, take a grid of points separated by unit distance (units don't matter, inches, cm, etc, just as long at they are 1 unit apart). Now "progress" the system by *doubling *the distances between the points. Now if you've stretched your ruler along with the graph paper, doubling the length of the ruler as well, you will find that all the points are *still *one unit apart, because the mechanism with which you were measuring that distances also "progressed."

Gravity does the opposite, it is a net, inward motion at the speed of light, so it wants to half the distance for each step of the progression. That gives the appearance of all the points pulling together.

Now there are two "levels" to gravity that Larson does not make clear. In his system, the first level of gravitation (inward motion) is the direction reversal, that neutralizes the outward progression. In other words, the progression doubles the distance, and the reversal halves it... 2/1 x 1/2 = 1/1 -- no change. Then he takes that "line" formed by the direction revesal and does a "inward scalar rotation" on it, to get that 2nd unit of gravity, so you end up with 2/1 (progression) x 1/2 (reversal) x 1/2 (inward rotation) = 1/2 -- everything wants to move *towards *everything else.

Combine these outwards and inwards motions and you get the *appearance *of "force"--though no two objects are actually pushing or pulling on each other, any more than two cars on the Interstate, heading towards each other, are being pulled together by the individual masses of the cars. It is just inherent velocity--in the scalar sense of inward/outward, rather than along a vector.

Besides, the experimental astronomical evidence claims that the observable universe expansion is accelerating, meaning that the "balloon" is currently inflating at a fraction of *c*.

Considering that their telescopes cannot see further than 357 light years, probably true... see topic: Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem).

Categories: RS2 Research

The RS2-105 seems to be missing from the above list, though I've found it on the website with the title "Quantum-PI". Did you leave it out on purpose?

No, just an oversight. I've added it. Thanks.

Categories: RS2 Research

Bruce wrote at http://forum.rs2theory.org/comment/2185#comment-2185

After you calculate the expansion due to progression and the inward motion of the rotating systems involved, you check the **distance between every pair of locations** to see if it is zero. For example, if you have 2 locations that are 1 unit apart. Progression will double it to 2 units. If each rotating system at those locations has a net, inward motion of 1 unit, that is 2 units inward. 2 out + 2 in = 0 = concurrent.

@Bruce

"Distance" in what reference system?

Since these collisions/superpositions are the ones responsible for creating the material or cosmic reference systems, they cannot establish references for themselves yet - there seems to be a chicken vs. egg conundrum here.

In other words, in what reference system are these collisions (motion superpositions) evaluated?

That reference system should be universaly applicable to all motion collisions/superpositions (even cosmic motions) because at this stage it is not even astablished whether the observer's motion is material or cosmic. The orientation of the crossratio does not define a distance...

I was mulling this question for months before asking you so please take it seriously.

P.S.

Is it possible for two motions to be concurrent in one reference sytem but not in another?

Categories: RS2 Research

Yes, I would agree. When the absolute location of a photon becomes coincident with the absolute location of a proton, then depending on the motions involved, it can either: aggregate (remain stuck in the time region of the proton--a charged neutrino does this to make hydrogen), compound (add motion to existing motion, like vibration on rotation to get rotational vibration) or combine (add to the magnitude of an aspect).

What would the code be to detect such collisions in your simulation ?

IF .... THEN ?

Categories: RS2 Research

Discovery could boost resolution of space telescopes

Categories: Conventional Science

Want to know what Hubble is up to right now? There's a tweet for that.

Categories: Astronomy

Some never-before-seen features come to light.

Categories: Astronomy

Ceres: a world that just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Categories: Astronomy

Results could shed more light on processes during the solar system's formation

Categories: Conventional Science

There's an exoplanet as close to us as one can get. So how will we get there?

Categories: Astronomy

What was thought to be an old star is likely a baby star 12,000 light-years from Earth.

Categories: Astronomy

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-british-scientists-new-physics-theory-a...

EmDrive: British scientist's 'new physics' theory accidentally proves controversial space propulsion worksBritish physicist Dr Mike McCulloch of Plymouth University has presented predicted results on a new theory of inertia that match the order of magnitude of thrust on all experiments done so far on the controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology EmDrive.

McCulloch's research involves violating Einstein's Equivalence principle by stating that there is a new acceleration extracted from the zero-point field by horizons, and that if inertia were to be quantised at small accelerations, this would explain the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716

EmDrive: Nasa Eagleworks' paper has finally passed peer review, says scientist in the know

Categories: RS2 Research

Decision overturns a 2004 ruling, but university representatives disagree with verdict

Categories: Conventional Science

@Bruce
I've tried to follow the discussion above, but being a newbie I seem to lack the basic premises, so bear with me.
My understanding so far is that we can start from two spaces: the "conventional" universe we perceive with our senses and instruments (what RS calls the "material sector" or "MS"), and a "true" universe ("TU") made of three directions of scalar motion, containing if you want the "hidden variables" of a Bohm-esque universe. There's also a third space, the "cosmic sector", but for the time being we can ignore it.
My questions are:
1) The 3 axis in the TU are not continuous (in the real numbers domain) but only contain discrete quantities, i.e. the possible s/t values for each of the 3 dimensions of motion. So along each "s/t" axis are only defined the points 1/n in the (0,1] interval (s/t=1/n) and the points "n" in the [1,infinite) interval (s/t=1/(t/s) and being the possible values of t/s=1/n, s/t=n). Is that assumption correct?
2) When the postulates of RS state that the universe is Euclidean, do they refer to the MS or the TU?
If they refer to the TU, it simply means that the 3 motion directions in the TU are orthogonal "axis" (i.e. their dot product is null)? It wouldn't make sense because the Euclidean space by definition is R^n and its metric (dot product) is defined over real numbers, not discrete quantities like we find along the 3 TU axis.
If they refer to the MS, do they mean that its 3 space dimensions are Euclidean, or that its 4 dimensions (3 space + 1 time) are? Because as you surely know, in the Relativity Theory, the MS is modelled as a 4-dimension Riemann manifold with non-Euclidean (Minkowski) metric, so definitely not Euclidean.
3) A point in the TU (identified by its coordinates in the 3D space defined by the 3 scalar motion directions) is univocally mapped, or "projected" if you want, to a "location" (a 4-coordinate point, 3 spatial + 1 temporal) in the MS? My understanding so far is that a point in the TU identifies a displacement from the unit speed of 1 along each of the 3 motion axis, defining not a location in the MS but a TYPE of particle (or force?) in it. (BTW how is it possible that a point in the TU identifies both a particle type and a force?)
4) The "natural progression" or "natural reference system" the RS talks about is in the TU or in the MS? If it was in the TU it would be a simple, static sphere of radius 1 (s/t=1 along each of the 3 motion axis), but you seem to treat it like an expanding sphere (at the speed of light) in the MS, on which the galaxies and thus all observable matter is located, so it seems to be in the MS. But if all the MS's matter is on this "natural reference system", how is it possible that gravity pulls the matter towards the center of this expanding sphere like the RS states? Besides, the experimental astronomical evidence claims that the observable universe expansion is accelerating, meaning that the "balloon" is currently inflating at a fraction of *c*.

Categories: RS2 Research

Hello Bruce,

thanks for your papers which I'm reading with great interest. The RS2-105 seems to be missing from the above list, though I've found it on the website with the title "Quantum-PI". Did you leave it out on purpose?

P.S.: the papers did raise some questions which I'll ask you when I'm finished reading all the tutorials.

Categories: RS2 Research