RS Theory
Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physical theory
RS TheoryDewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physical theory |
|
User loginNavigationWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 8 guests online.
ISUS, Inc.1680 Atkin Ave FAX: 1-801-761-5975 |
Recent comments |
Thanks. I will keep digging and let you know if I find anything else or think of something after reading Larson's books further.
Unfortunately, I do not. There may be some esoteric studies in the vast subject of modern math, but if so I don't know of them. For me, the tetraktys provides the starting point of scalar studies. On the other hand, the starting point of authoritative non-scalar studies begins with the right triangle and the Pythagorean theorem. Euclid realized that the square root of 2 could not be equated to a number, so he kept geometric and algebraic proofs separate. Once Descartes was able to show that any continuous length could be represented by a symbol, and a symbol representing the square root of 2 was at hand, algebra took off and has never looked back.
For me, however, to study Larson's ideas, we have to go back to the beginning, before the secret of the Pythagoreans got out and destroyed them and their idea that the universe is all number. What Larson gave us was a new door to science that views the hypotenuse of the right triangle as a unit ratio of its sides, and the discrete displacements in that ratio constitute the basis of a scalar algebra. The square root of 2 plays an important part, but only later, when geometry and algebra become one.
If you are looking for some mysterious definition of scalar dimension, I don't think you will find it. The physical and mathematical concepts of magnitude, dimension and "direction" are captured in the tetraktys. As far as I know, there is no where else to go, and that's why it is the domain of all physics and mathematics today. If you find an alternative, please let me know.
Doug,
Your observation that the mathematics of the tetraktys fits Larson's scalar progression is quite intriguing, especially given the history of the tetraktys. However, I am most interested in getting a better mechanistic conceptualization of the second and third scalar dimensions and how their existence and effects have been or can be experimentally proven. Other than the fact that Larson's model using 2nd and 3rd scalar dimensions does a good job explaining many physical phenomena, I have not been able to find a good stand-alone proof of them or a mechanistic description of them in Larson's books. Maybe I have missed it somewhere. Do you know of such a reference or any other studies that might address this?
Hi RAB,
Those are very good questions. They come from making a real effort to understand the written words of Larson, who provided very little in the way of illustrations, so it's difficult, in the beginning, to understand exactly what he means by his words. Rest assured that all who have studied his works have struggled, and still do, to convince themselves that they understand his new concepts the way he understood them.
One of the best ways to quickly grasp Larson's concepts is to get a copy of Ron Satz's booklet called "The Unmysterious Universe." However, it won't answer your questions of how scalar dimensions can be perpendicular to one another. It just assumes that they are.
For me, to get a clear idea of what scalar dimensions are, it's necessary to understand numbers. There are four dimensions of numbers that correspond to the four elements of geometry: 0D numbers (corresponding to geometrical points), 1D numbers (corresponding to lines), 2D numbers (corresponding to areas), and 3D numbers (corresponding to volumes).
Each dimension, whether numerical or geometrical, has 2 "directions." These are the three sets of "directions," left and right, up and down, forward and backward, and then the fourth one, in and out, which is the scalar "direction" that Larson refers to so often. However, it is clear that the other three sets can be in and out as well. For example, it takes three magnitudes out from 0 along the x, y and z axes to define the direction of a vector, but a scalar increase from 0 along the x axis would increase in both of the left and right "directions" of that dimension. In this case, no vectorial direction is defined. The point simply expands in both the left "direction" towards -1, and in the "right" direction towards +1, as time increases.
In one unit of time, therefore, there are two units of spatial expansion, along the x axis, +1 - (-1) = 2. In the case of two dimensions, x and y say, the scalar expansion/contraction is in the 2 + 2 = 4 "directions" of area, like zooming in and out of a map on a computer screen. In the case of three, x, y and z, the scalar expansion/ contraction is in the 2 + 2 + 2 = six "directions" of volume, like expanding/contracting a balloon.
However, this can be deceiving if we are not careful, because 2x2 = 2+2 = 4, but 2 x 2 x 2 = 8, it does not equal 2+2+2 = 6. To understand the mathematics of the scalar progression, we have to understand the mathematics of the tetraktys, which is the expansion of the 2 "directions" of three dimensions (four counting 0), which will be the subject of my next post. The topic of the article will be "the new light on space and time, as viewed through the prism of the tetraktys." I still haven't figured out a title for it. In a nutshell, it will explain how the fundamental science of numbers relates to the RST and the LST concepts of physics.
Eventually, what I hope to be able to explain, is how the three scalar dimensions of motion differ from the three spatial dimensions of motion, using multi-dimensional numbers. Essentially, this entails showing that the existence of two oscillating pseudoscalars, or aggregates of oscillating pseudoscalars, separated by a distance, constitute a 1D reference system, while three can constitute a 2D reference system, if they don't lie along a line, and four or more can constitute a 3D reference system, if they don't lie along a line and don't lie in the same plane.
The bottom line is, though, the mystery of scalar versus vectorial dimensions is not difficult to sort out, once the nature of discrete and continuous magnitudes, and how they relate to each other, is understood. Though this is the mystery of the ages, Larson provided the key to unlocking it, when he redefined the concept of space, as the reciprocal aspect of time, in the equation of motion.
Doug,
I think you have provided some interesting mathematical analogies. I still am having trouble exactly understanding the true concept of 2nd and 3rd scalar dimensions. For one scalar dimension, motion is either inward or outward, which is easy to conceptualize. Is the second scalar dimension perpendicular to the first scalar dimension? If so, how would that be represented? Likewise with the 3rd scalar dimension? Other than some of the physical phenomena that fit Larson's model, is there any direct standalone experimental evidence of a second scalar dimension? Could an experiment be constructed to prove it? Just because we can experience 3 vectorial dimensions of space does not seem to me to be sufficient evidence for the existence of 3 scalar dimensions of space. Or are 2nd and 3rd scalar dimensions essentially also postulates?
I am a student of business. So, this blog is not useful to me. But I think you have done some extensive work.
miami web design
Rainer,
It is now Feb 2010 and the meeting called for has not yet been held. I understand that Bruce is ill, and this must be the reason, but do you have any information on his recovery or indication that the meeting will be held soon?
Also, your suggested prepatory discussion forum has not been established, as far as I can tell. I agree with you that a dedicated forum to discuss the proposition prior to the meeting would be very helpful.
Doug
Hi Bruce,
Hope your recovery is going well.
Rainer wrote
When can we expect to see this new forum?
Doug
In lieu of any other instructions on how to submit abstracts of papers to be presented at the conference, I will post it here:
Title: The "Glaring Lacuna"
Author: Doug Bundy
Abstract:
The failure of Larson’s RST-based model, to provide a means for calculating the atomic spectra of the elements, in any way comparable to the success of quantum mechanics, has long been an embarrassment to students of the new system of theory. It is shown here that this failure is most likely due to the fact that Larson lacked the scalar mathematics needed to adequately describe discrete units of scalar motion, which would allow the mathematical definition of these units, combinations of them and relations between them, such that an atomic structure rich enough to accommodate the observed spectral behavior could be constructed as a consequence of the fundamental postulates of the system. It is explained how this insight supports the contention that the second postulate is indispensable to the new system of theory.
Have the instructions referred to above been posted? I can't find them, if so.
The creator of the Reciprocal System of physical theory, Dewey Larson, built an unprecedented structure of understanding based on two postulates which he called "Fundamental" postulates.
These are as follows, taken from New Light on Space and Time, the book which first introduced me to the Reciprocal System in 1970:
First Fundamental Postulate
The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, space-time, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and in two reciprocal forms, space and time.
Second Fundamental Postulate
The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.
The first expresses the meat of the theory, embodying all of the novel concepts that provide the extraordinary ability of the RS to solve the problems that have baffled legacy physicists for generations.
The second is of an entirely different sort; it doesn't contain any new or revolutionary ideas. Rather, it is merely a limitation on the operators allowed in the development of the first.
I believe that Dewey created the second postulate to clearly define the divergence of his theory from the three theories that dominated physics during the period of his creative work: The Special and General Theories of Relativity and the Quantum theory.
The inferences are direct and unmistakable: "ordinary commutative mathematics" is directed toward Quantum Mechanics, "magnitudes are absolute" toward Special Relative, and "geometry is Euclidean" toward General Relativity.
It is clear that the second postulate is in no way on equal footing with the first. On its face, it appears at best to be more like a corollary. I believe that in his effort to distance himself from the failed theories that were sucking the lifeblood of creative scientists worldwide, Dewey saddled himself and subsequent researchers with an unnecessary and unreasonable impediment to the ultimate and complete development of the promise offered by the first.
It is likely that the lack of significant theoretical progress since Dewey's passing in 1991 can be thus attributed.
The time has come to take a hard look at the status and validity of the Second Postulate. I propose that a general membership and director meeting of ISUS be convened before the end of 2009 to resolve the question:
Should the Second Postulate of the Reciprocal System of Physics, for the purposes of the International Society of Unified Science, be affirmed, or, in the alternative, reduced in status, modified, or eliminated?
All Members and Directors are invited to present papers at the conference describing their evidence supporting one of these options or opposing others.
In the mean time, a special forum will be available on the ISUS website for the publication of papers and discussion of this issue. All postings must be professional and specific to the topic with no personal attacks or innuendo allowed.
All members of ISUS are driven by a unique desire to gain a better understanding of the nature of the physical universe.
This is our common ground. We need to keep this in mind in all our discussions and when formulating our comments. As Dewey so poignantly demonstrated in NOTHING BUT MOTION, emotions and "beliefs" are the main impediment to scientific progress. We must not allow such human weakness to obstruct ISUS as it has legacy physics.
Rainer Huck,
ISUS Director and Treasurer
Hi Gopi,
I'm sorry. I can't accept that. You can assume that it is the case, but you can't maintain that it is so and be consistent. If there is nothing but motion, then you can't consistently assume that there also exists something that is not motion to use as a reference to measure that motion.
Yes, but the point that I'm making here, and it's an important one to note in passing, is that, in the RST, we don't have inertial systems, initially. That's why the surface of an expanding balloon is an imperfect analogy. For example, the size of painted spots on the balloon would increase in size as the balloon expands, because all points on the surface of the balloon, no matter how small, must move away from every other point on the surface, as it expands. The only way that the points themselves would not expand is if they were separate from the surface, i.e., if they were placed on the surface somehow.
However, in a universe of nothing but motion, objects separate from motion do not exist. So, the crucial question becomes, "How do we describe points that do not themselves expand?" More on the answer to that question later, but first you write:
I didn't mean to imply that the independent speed ranges interact, but that the speeds between inertial systems (matter) attain both vectorial and scalar magnitudes, which have to be understood as modifying their observed behavior in ways that cannot be understood without realizing that both types of motion are present. Larson's point, in the Universe of Motion, was that when vectorial speeds approach scalar speed limits, transistions from one range to the other begin to take place, producing very intriguing effects that baffle LST astronomers and astrophysicists.
However, to understand the three dimensions of scalar motion more precisely, we now know that we can use mathematics that Larson did not exploit. For instance, we can modify the fixed reference equation of motion from a 1D equation to a 3D scalar equation of motion:
ms = ds3/dt0
where ms is scalar expansion of space that is substituted for velocity v (and here d is the delta, not the derivative), because it's not a measure of the velocity of an object changing its location in a given direction, defined by three dimensions; that is, the s3 term is expanding (contracting) space, not increasing (decreasing) distance.
Of course, the inverse of this equation is,
mt = dt3/ds0
which defines scalar expansion of time, where the 0D space term is the scalar and the 3D time term is the pseudoscalar. Fortunately, the mathematics is clear. The scalar, in each case, is the point relative to which the expansion takes place in all directions, creating the expanding pseudoscalar, permitting us to avoid the confusion of the balloon analogy.
Of course, the challenge we have is determining how this equation can be correctly applied in the context of Larson's work.
Regards,
Doug
OK, I've added you to the editors list, so you can edit typeos on pages. Let me know if you have any questions regarding procedure. I have a LOT more to add to the site, but probably won't get around to it until this winter. Trying to get out the 50th Anniversary Edition of Structure of the Physical Universe at the moment... it's a lot more work than it appears.
Thanks for your help.
Thus, the 1D vector depicted within the balloon is misleading, because the points used to measure the 1D motion cannot remain points over time, but must themselves expand.
The points seen as a spatial representation would remain points, while only their position changes. Hence, if you are looking at the definition of a point as a mark of position, it definitely changes. But the point itself does not expand.
Motion between two points as shown in your balloon analogy is motion between two inertial systems, not motion between two points in a scalar expansion.
However, every point can be taken to be fixed in an inertial system which places it at the origin, so it works well in that way. However, the inverse condition, that every point necessarily needs to be at the origin, is not necessary. So, the inertial systems relation is a special case of the point-to-point relation.
When Larson talks of the three scalar speed ranges, he is referring to speeds between inertial systems, interacting vectorially and scalarly.
Could you clarify how Larson mentions the three scalar speed ranges interacting vectorially? As far as I know, the scalar speed range is just that... a range of magnitudes of speeds. And the three independent scalar ranges are not independent in the sense that they do not interact with each other, but independent in the sense that change in one speed range does not necessarily imply a change in the other speed range.
Gopi
I just updated my email in my profile to an account I actually use.
I've worked with Drupal before. Not an expert, but we use it here at work, so I've authored and edited pages in our internal Drupal system.
Wouldn't mind being in the editors group and correcting typos.
Keep up the good work!
I am bussiness professional after my MBA. But medical side always attract me. After my mcts i can research. Any way very interesting and informative post it is.
Please email me if you still need any help.
I had a contact form at one time, but the 15,000 spam emails a day made it pretty useless. We just updated to a new server with much better antispam software, so I may put it back again.
I checked out Orphus and it looks pretty cool... using Drupal as a CMS right now, and I'll add it when a module gets developed for it. I don't have enough experience with Drupal themes to try to add it myself.
I'd love some help with editing and proofreading. Right now, I'd just have to give you global editing privs (does have a wsiwyg editor) and explain the conventions. I still have several hundred more articles to put out, but they need some basic editing and conversion of the equations to LaTeX,which is very time-consuming work.
I'll contact you via email.
Posting here since I don't see a way to send you a message directly.
I have enjoyed reading the online books, but have noticed typos here and there (or more probably character recognition problems, like "all" when it should be "an").
Also recently, I noticed a website that uses "community driven" typo/language correction. Any visitor can highlight some text, press Ctrl-Enter, and a form pops up where you can type in the correct text. Apparently the webmaster gets informed of the typo through an email or something.
I looked into the tool, and it's a javascript library called "Orphus." Here's a link to the English page about what it is and how to install it: http://orphus.ru/en/
You can test it on there site. Just highlight some phrase that isn't quite correct (they're russian, so there are plenty :), and press Ctrl-Enter. It's the fastest feedback/correction system I've seen so far. I'd love to see DB Larson's works completely error-free!
Hubble view of NGC-4261 shows the 3-x speed range "jets" typical of an exploding galaxy--a quasar. If Larson is correct, those jets will eventually coalesce into a radio galaxy paired with a quasar (the core).
General Relativity never described the Big Bang expansion as if occuring from a single point. GR always used a scalar expansion of space-time, just Like Larson was arguing for. Unfortunate, this was another of DBL's unendearing straw-man arguments.
I have updated the site to the latest version of Drupal.
A new "bookmarks" option is now available to ISUS members in good standing, that allows you to bookmark pages on the site--any content, audio, videos, chapters in books, etc., as a type of personal "research" link. To use the feature, just click "Bookmark this" on the bottom of any page. You can list and manage your bookmarks by clickon on "My bookmarks" in the user navigation menu.
Thanks to the assistance of Bob Tucek, I have completed Beyond Space and Time as an eBook--first time out on the web! Fully searchable from the main search bar.
You may want to read Nehru's paper "The Inter-Regional Ratio", which describes its derivation in detail. It's just a measure of degrees of freedom.
Posting articles and books to the site is currently limited to Editors, until I can get some guidelines written up. There is just a lot of things that can go wrong if someone doesn't follow the conventions, so I'd prefer to wait until I have all the old site converted over to the new format.
As an ISUS member, you can create Blog entries (Create Content/Blog entry), comment on articles and books, participate in polls, and edit any articles that you have authored (click on "My Articles" to see if you have any articles currently online). I just added a bunch of articles to the library this evening, including several of yours, so you should have edit access to them now.