You are doing what post-modern philosophers claim to be the ideal, but which nobody seems to be really doing anywhere.
Thanks! The discussions here have always been the way that I thought "research" was supposed to work--people freely exchanging ideas. RS2 actually originated on my Antiquatis site, which was applied the same principles to researching philosophy, spirituality and the paranormal. If those topics interest you, the link is: http://forum.antiquatis.org
For instance, as Hempel discusses in the link, our ear will change the phase relations to create a melody. Our brain does its own Fourier analysis on a complex waveform . There obviously is in perception always some complex tempering of phase relations across the spatial/counterspatial boundary. Is there some projective geometry concept that could help explain this?
I actually have never thought about the acoustic equivalent of projective geometry, but yes, the principles are similar.
The root of PG is based on the cross-ratio (a ratio of ratios) that remains projectively invariant. What that means is that the "shadows" cast by a projection always have that cross-ratio the same value, since the cross-ratio accounts for distortions (phase relationships). What you would need to identify is the acoustic equivalent of the cross-ratio, that one value that remains constant, regardless of the source of the melody or the one listening to it. With that identified, you can then determine what the ears and mind are doing to the incoming signals (the projection it creates) to bring it into its own frame of reference. I'll have to think about it some more, as this seems to be the basis of what John W Keely was doing with his acoustic machines--he found the invariant.
A problem indeed. If anyone could help me here, I will be so grateful. This has haunted my mind for the past year.
It is a problem of "datums." Conventional physics assumes a zero datum (end of their tape measure), so when you take the reciprocal of zero, you get infinity, and things become impossible. In RS/RS2, the datum is unity (1). Take the reciprocal of 1 and you get 1 -- coherence. Larson's "speed ranges" addresses this. In a 1-dimensional system, which is what most physics uses, the range from 0-1 is measurable (1-x, as Larson puts it), but as soon as you go over the limit, you are in the 1-infinity range, so the math no longer works. What they do not realize is that the 0-1 is in space, whereas the 1-infinity is NOT that, but 1-0 in time. Also finite. That is why Larson uses the 1-x, 2-x and 3-x notation (for a 3D system), to show that you DON'T start at zero, but at unity, and work down in either direction--space or time--and NEVER actually reach zero. To refer the video you linked (pretty good explanation, BTW), the bandwidth for coherence is centered around unity, not a range offset from zero.
But to attempt an answer at your question, frequency cannot be the property of a photon. It must be a differential that that gets averaged out to conform to the arbitrary definition of a photon standardized for the per/second time measure. Which brings me to another question.
I've been digging some more into this today, and found that there are four factors involved: the intrinsic speed of the rotating system (Larson's "primary magnitudes are absolute"), the properties of the source, the properties of the destination, and the surrounding environment that contains the source, destination and photon. For an analogy, consider two people throwing a baseball between them. Works fine in the back yard, but try it in scuba gear underwater--the parameters change considerably. Then put one person on the shore, and the other underwater and throw the ball. This would be analogous to a photon crossing a gravitational limit. The baseball would be deflecting in its path, even though it was going straight, due to the change in medium. I believe this is the situation we have, since we are gravitationally-bound observers on Earth. The siren on a passing police car sounds different because it is originating in a different "medium," the moving vehicle, which then has to traverse the air, and enter your head--another different medium--to be processed. Doppler shift.
Aren't all quantities differentials? In RS2 how are there any real primary magnitudes that exist outside the 3 dimensional coordinate frame?
Larson calls a "differential" a "displacement."
The primary magnitudes are the rotations that define the motion. If they were to change, If they were to change, than we would see the motion as something else, for example, nitrogen changing to carbon.
Don't you need 3 dimensions to make any magnitude--an object, and observer, and a reference point?
A magnitude is inherently 1-dimensional, since it is just a single number. You need a 3D system in order to resolve those magnitudes into a coordinate system, and for that, you need an object, an observer, and a reference point to determine which ways is "up." That is based on the nature of human perception. The 3D coordinate system is an agreed-upon convention based on physical senses.
Isn't phase always involved even if not explicit in every strata?
Yes, it is. The material and cosmic sectors, under ideal conditions, are 90-degrees out of phase so that the maximum of one sector is overlapped with the minimum of the other, rendering the reciprocal aspect unobservable. Atoms, with both spatial and temporal rotations involved, cause that alignment to shift off the ideal, and that is what we see as phase relationships.
How is scalar motion anything quantitative at least without some type of cross-ratio?
Scalar motion IS the cross-ratio, where one ratio of the pair is unity (1:1), the natural datum, and the other is a speed (s:t), giving a displacement (differential).
Hope this helps! Interesting idea with projective acoustics... thinking about that may lead to a more generalized idea of projection, overall.
Pressure of what?
Katirai refers to it as "ether pressure." Aether (the old word for "ether") is still a mystery, even to aether researchers. But RS2 can clarify the concept, which is basically this (from the upcoming --daniel paper, Part V, which I am proofreading):Æther Theory “There is no space without aether and no aether which does not occupy space.”– Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, astrophysicist, 1882-1944
The Reciprocal System is based on a reciprocal relation between space (s) and time (t) that we conventionally refer to as the ratio of speed (s/t) or energy (t/s). In the universe of motion, that is all you have to work with—space and time—nothing else. With only two choices it greatly simplifies understanding, particularly since we already know all about 3D space with clock time. We observe space as a vacuum, with stuff (particles, atoms and molecules) in it. Since space is empty, that “atomic stuff” cannot be space—so the only other choice is time.
Larson’s atoms are simply a temporal rotation in three dimensions—in other words, the “stuff” of the atom is a physical structure in 3D time that is given a coordinate location (a point) in our observable, coordinate grid of space. The location is in space (yang), the structure is in time (yin). This also tells us something important: we consider atoms to be solids (in various states) and atoms are time, so therefore time appears as a solid—and that is the stuff of æther—the “solid of time.” All of our material particles, atoms and molecules are basically little balls of solid æther stuck on a 3D, empty spatial grid, exactly as the 19th century researchers said.
Now consider the reciprocal perspective. Larson agrees with Eddington in that everything that exists in space also exists in time and everything that exists in time also exists in space. And that includes three dimensions of space, three dimensions of time and clocks: clock time and clock space. Observation tells us we have locations in space and structure in time, so the reciprocal must also exist: locations in time with corresponding structure in space. This is what the early researchers called the ætheric realm and what Larson calls the cosmic sector.
The aether researchers call aether a "fabric of space" which is essentially true; it is spatial structure (angular velocity, instead of the observable, linear velocity). This is what Larson calls "equivalent space" (yin space). Since it is all angular, this spatial structure can be visualized as a sphere of zero radius (no linear dimensions of space to give it size), so it is invisible/unobservable.
To answer your question, the "pressure" is therefore the progression of the natural reference system, trying to push cosmic atoms apart that are less than unit distance from each other, operating the same as its material counterpart, except invisibly. Astronomers call this "dark matter" instead of "aether," even though it is the same concept.
Note that the same obsever can observe two photons of different frequency, and if that observer moves then both photons change their apparent frequencies but those frequencies still remain different.
That thought had also occurred to me, later the same day. For both conditions to coexist (internal frequency + affected by external pressure), then the structure of the photon is not what is advertised in the "wave-particle" duality. It is neither a wave or particle--those are projections of the underlying structure as energy (birotation) and speed (location), respectively.
After some discussions with Gopi, we have come up with a viable model based on geometric duality, also discovering that there is more than one "kind" of photon. So far, we have identified six different internal structures that all look the same in the wave-particle projections, but act differently when interacting with atoms. I should probably start a separate topic on that. The six "kinds" are two variants of three classes (depending on 1-3 scalar dimensions composing them). The simplest being "heat," the intermediate being the classic EM radiation, and the most complex being a "biophoton" associated with living structures. I probably need to write a paper on this. But these structures, based mathematically on complex quantities, defines an internal frequency that is altered by energetic pressure, both from the speeds of the source and observer.
Hey Bruce. I have never posted before, but I have been studying your work on here a lot lately and I want to thank you. You are really inspiring me. I am writing a book on the history of ideas with a focus on the culture/counterculture dialectic and have been researching the alternative science field the past few years. It is so great to see people really comparing and contrasting ideas like Feyerabend had hoped would become the science of the future. It is still hard to find. You are doing what post-modern philosophers claim to be the ideal, but which nobody seems to be really doing anywhere. There seem to be a lot of brilliant eccentric engineers in the scientific underground, but for someone like me who switched from electrical engineering to anthropology in my first year of college, it can be hard to get at the ideas behind all the technical jargon. But you are really helping bring the pieces together for me, so I hope you don't mind my questions. Your post here really piqued my interest. Pressure differentials are a key metaphor for me for visualizing what so many in the alternative science scene are talking about.
The pressure differential is certainly one of the common analogies implied in so much of the "consciousness science" theory, I think for good reason. The reason being those pressure differentials are of a medium defined as an objective strata only through the particuar density conditions of the observing consciousness. So as opposed to the old mechanical ether models, the new ether theories are more grounded in the phase conjugation of the observing organism with its object in probability space (or time/space).
I have seen you comment briefly on Ken Wheeler in a previous forum discussion, Bruce. Ken is all about pressure differentials: https://ia802502.us.archive.org/31/items/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf.
But Dan Winter is the most interesting ether theorist to me. I feel like much of what he is trying to say could be made more clear with RS2. I would love to hear if you have an opinion of him and his group. He is obviously less rigorous than other more professional figures obsessed with the goldenmean and fractal cosmology like el Naschie, Mae Wan ho, Notalle, etc., but he is getting a large following in the New Age scene, and seems to be making deeper connections with some of the other fringe theories like Nassim Haramein's.
Then there is this guy Drew Hempel who I have been trying to figure out for years:http://thedaobums.com/topic/5295-the-hempel-effect/. Both Dan and Drew seem to be saying frequency is a consequence of phase conjugation. Drew is fond of making the very concept of frequency in physics out to be some kind of conspiracy to hide the phase relations. He likes to point back to DeBroglie and what he calls time/frequnecy uncertainty. Juliana Brooks Mortenson also is revisting DeBroglie and reinventing the photon in the process:http://www.chronos.msu.ru/old/EREPORTS/brooks_einstein.pdf
As you and Hempel point out, the Doppler effect is a key analogy.
One of my favorite authors on science Jeremy Campbell points out in his book Winston Churchill's Afternoon Nap how frequency, phase, and amplitude are not as distinct as they appear. For instance, as Hempel discusses in the link, our ear will change the phase relations to create a melody. Our brain does its own Fourier analysis on a complex waveform . There obviously is in perception always some complex tempering of phase relations across the spatial/counterspatial boundary. Is there some projective geometry concept that could help explain this?
There seems to be some kind of generalized uncertainty principle going on (here is the best mainstream explanation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOmSyaoAt0), but I can't seem to grasp it in the clear intuitive terms you guys here have seemed to render reciprocity.
There must be some way to simplify and generalize this fundamental relation with RS2 concepts. I just keep coming back to this from Mae Wan Ho's website:
"Under appropriate conditions, the fluctuations of matter and vacuum can be synchronized, thus starting a collective dance reminiscent of the orgasm intuited by Reich. This state of the matter is called “coherent” by physicists. In this state, the number of components remains undetermined, while the oscillation rhythm acquires a more precise definition. This result is the expression of a principle of uncertainty, valid in quantum physics, which states that the uncertainties of the number of oscillators in a physical system and of their phase are in an inverse relation. It is clear that, in order to reduce the uncertainty of the oscillation rhythm of a physical system and make it more coherent, we have to amplify the uncertainty of the number of the participants in the collective dance as much as possible. Therefore, we have to avoid closing the system, which would keep the number of components constant; on the contrary, we need to open it as much as possible on the outside by amplifying the number of the potential participants to the collective dance enormously. Here lies the main problem".*
A problem indeed. If anyone could help me here, I will be so grateful. This has haunted my mind for the past year. But to attempt an answer at your question, frequency cannot be the property of a photon. It must be a differential that that gets averaged out to conform to the arbitrary definition of a photon standardized for the per/second time measure. Which brings me to another question. Aren't all quantities differentials? In RS2 how are there any real primary magnitudes that exist outside the 3 dimensional coordinate frame? Don't you need 3 dimensions to make any magnitude--an object, and observer, and a reference point? Isn't phase always involved even if not explicit in every strata? How is scalar motion anything quantitative at least without some type of cross-ratio?