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 19 guests online.
ISUS, Inc.1680 Atkin Ave FAX: 1-801-761-5975 |
Recent comments |
There are many things that aren't understood by the people.Some things have a deeper meaning that's why its too hard for us to understand the real essence of it.No matter what kind of situation we are into,one thing is for sure,we can surpass all of those things.Like in mathematics,you can not just guess a certain answer for a particular equation,you should have a deeper understanding on how to solve it.It's like in life,you should dig the very essence of it to be understood.Am I right?It only boils to one point,things become complicated if we allow it to be.I've read an article in the Wall Street Journal,saying that "The only impossible thing to do are those you think you can't do.Yes,indeed! It's absolutely right!
I am very glad to know that your site is upgrading from the simplest to more faster and synchronized form. I am quite familiar of a lot of sites since I work as a freelance writer and one of the sites that I find evolve is your site respectively. I am looking more on your site progress as well as new version that is more convenient and helpful to the members like me. I really appreciate the move that you made. Thanks a lot!
Very nice and informative article! It's like in life,you'll really never know the answer if you won't ask.Every detail of life is life itself and it's connected to our existence.Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called for changes to be made in the US mortgage market at a recent press conference. He didn't announce any regulatory deadlines or strategies, though. However, it is anticipated that he could be telling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to get their houses in order within the next year. Geithner also admonished the United States cannot afford to pick the tab up for them again.
This theory is really hard to understand untill you don't apply it practically. Moreover theory requires to be describe in most simplest way so everyone can understand what actually he wanted to say here
Karmaloop codes |Search Engine Optimization Software
Hell,
I'm seeking to renew my ISUS membership. Is Rainer Huck stil the point of contact for this?
Russell Kramer
I will keep digging and let you know if I find anything else or think of something after reading Larson's books further.
Well, it was bound to happen. I've been cut off from continuing my blog here by the powers that be. When I try to enter a new post, there is no way to do it. Instead, I'm presented with the message, "You are not allowed to post a new blog entry." I don't think this is just, or in accordance with the ISUS Bylaws, but that doesn't matter.
What does matter is that I have challenged one of Larson's conclusions, something he said was perfectly acceptable:
As long as this condition is met, taking exception to Larson's "previous conclusion" that the "direction" reversals are 1D, instead of 3D, is "entirely in order." It is my burden to show that my "different conclusion," that the "direction" reversals should be regarded three dimensionally, follows from the fundamental postulates. This I have done, and, since it is the simpler conclusion of the two and leads to new scalar mathematics to boot, there is no valid reason to suppress its discussion in ISUS forums, especially in ISUS blogs, which exist for the purpose of expressing personal opinion.
In LST physics, the fact that scientists have abandoned scalar magnitudes in favor of vectorial magnitudes is perfectly understandable. Physics is based on motion and the only motion recognized by the LST community is vectorial. Thus, with the advent of the differential calculus, Newton's program of research, in which the goal was to find the fewest number of interactions among the fewest number of particles, was spectacularly successful.
However, to deal with quantum phenomena, the program had to be adapted to deal with multi-dimensional scalar magnitudes. One way to do that, they discovered, was to delve into the infinitude of unit distance. On the number line, this is the region between 0 and 1 that can be divided infinitely. The adaptation was ingenious: They used the square root of -1 and complex numbers to bootstrap the mathematics into the next higher dimension, without compromising the magnitude only property of scalar magnitudes.
By means of the magic of 1D complex numbers it was possible to obtain an infinitude of scalar magnitudes, in the form of sets of rotations, which then could be used with the wave equation to adapt the differential calculus to these non-vectorial magnitudes, via gage theory. This worked well for 1D electromagnetic phenomena, and eventually for 2D particle radiation, but there was quite a struggle to us it in connection with 3D nuclear forces, even though they evetually managed to cobble it together.
In the meantime, while all this was going on in the LST community, Larson was busy developing a new approach, a purely scalar approach, recognizing that the equation of motion was not necessarily tied to particles and their interactions. This redefined space and time and necessarily the associated concepts of motion and energy. Larson insisted that both motion and energy are concepts that prefigure particles and forces of interaction between particles.
Energy, as inverse motion, is simply a reciprocal relationship of time and space and the law of conservation of energy is really the law of conservation of space and time in the equation of motion. This view of space and time is not only iconoclastic, but revolutionary in the way the leaders of the LST community have long suspected it must be. Yet, the nature of this expected revolution hearkens back to the simplicity of the number line and the trouble the world has long had in understanding negative and imaginary numbers.
The square root of -1 does not exist. While its adoption has proven to be the key to unifying rotation and multi-dimensional scalar magnitudes, the unification thus achieved has come at a high cost, as the world has now discovered. What Larson has done, or what he could have done, is to show the world that there is another way: Multi-dimensional scalar magnitudes do not have to be cloaked in rotations of size one.
However, instead of sticking to his scalar guns, he reverted to something he called "scalar rotations," which in the end are nothing more than oxymorons. Even so, he was able to use the concepts of scalar magnitudes to construct the world's first general physical theory, a stunning achievement. Yet, the world is not going to be impressed, until the new approach can be used to calculate the atomic spectra and the anomolous magnetic moment on par with the LST approach, which so far it has faild to do.
I believe that the way forward is to recognize that scalar rotations have to be replaced with scalar vibrations. When we do this, a whole new world of multi-dimensional scalar mathematics appears that promises to not only deliver the requisite calculations, but also propel the understanding of the new system beyond what has heretofore been achieved.
Of course, I may be totally off base in thinking this way, but it definitely needs to be discussed, and, since such a discussion is "entirely in order," I can see no valid reason why the leadership of ISUS should feel justified in suppressing it. This is expecially true, when one considers that the alternative proposal is to follow the path of the LST community in adopting the concepts of complex number rotation in the region of unit distance, and to change the fundamental postulates to accommodate such a move.
I guess it's just easier to squelch a challenge to a previous conclusion than to answer it forthrightly, no matter how reasonable it might be. Fortunately, the new development of the consequences of Larson's fundamental postulates can be followed at the LRC.
It has been around ten years since I graduated in Mathematics. Still, I am very much like an alien to the topic discussed here. May be it comes in the later stages of Mathematics, probably at PG or Research Level. Anyways, It seems to be a thoroughly carried work.
Thanks for providing such useful information. I really appreciate your professional approach.
Miami Web Design
Hi Horace,
Sorry, I've been looking for your emails. Maybe they got shunted off into another folder. I'll take a look tonight, when I get home.
Thanks for the questions. I welcome them.
First, you wrote:
The theoretical reason was just a guess, in the beginning, because they were inverses, but then we found physical evidence in oscillons. These are what they call the stable combinations of peaks and craters (3D inverses) in beds of small vibrating media. From the Wikipedia article, we read that the peaks repel peaks and craters repel craters, but they attract each other over small distances:
The fact that they then form these geometric patterns that the article refers to is very interesting, as well.
Second, you wrote:
Yeah, there is this big difference in the theory of the photons between Larson's development (RSt) and mine. In my development, the SUDR propagates in time, because all three dimensions of space (below unit speed) are vibrating, negating the forward progression of space, while the TUDR propagates in space, because all three dimension of time (above unit speed), are vibrating, negating the forward progression of time. Thus, it's the 3D reversals that bring the speeds of the SUDRs and TUDRs to zero-speed. When they combine together, however, they constitute a vibrating unit of space/time propagating outward from the source (point of combination perhaps) at c-speed, in a random direction.
Third, you wrote:
When Larson says the photons don't have independent motion, he means in terms of their propagation, but they actually have 142.222... degrees of freedom in terms of rotation. In my development, when a location of the progression is continually reversing spatially, it ceases to increase in space, because of the 3D space reversals. This means that the space progression is now expanding beyond it at c-speed, while it is carried along with the time progression. The inverse is true for a location continually reversing temporally. It ceases to increase in time, because of the 3D time reversals. This means that the time progression is now expanding beyond it at c-speed, while it is carried along with the space progression. From the perspective of either of these, we can construct a reference system of motion, but, at this point, we have two vibrating entities that are progressing orgthogonally relative to one another (one "in" space, and one "in" time), as shown in the graph below:
Figure 1. Space and Time Pseudoscalars Progressing Orthogonally
It's clear from figure 1, that a combination of these two oscillating entities will result in the combo's propagation along the diagonal; that is, the expansion of time in one, and the expansion of space in the other, produces unit motion in the combination.
Thus, in this model, any entity that is located at a point later in the time progression (i.e. all enties in our material sector), may be intercepted by the propagating combo, and any entity that is located at a point later in the space progression (i.e. all entities in the cosmic sector), may also be intercepted by the propagating combo.
Finally, you wrote:
Referring to the plot in figure 1, it's clear that a diagonal path increases in both space and time. All entities capable of independent motion in the material sector progress vertically (i.e. in time), while all entites capable of independent motion in the cosmic sector progress horizontally (i.e. in space).
Therefore, an entity that is not capable of independent motion progresses diagonally (that is, in space and time.) Hence, a combo (photon,) progressing (propagating) relative to the vertical and horizontal is capable of contacting entities coming up from below it and to its right (that is, previously existing in time in the material sector and at the correct spatial location), and it is capable of contacting entities coming from the left and above it (that is, previously existing in space in the cosmic sector and at the correct temporal location,) as time and space progress.
In other words, the propagating combo can collide with any stationary object that is at the right time and place. This would be obvious for waves expanding in 3D, but as the photon combo is constrained to 1 dimension by the bonding of the inverse entities, whether or not the collision takes place depends on its direction of emission.
As far as the "memorization" issue goes, it's clear that there cannot be a preferred orientation of the axis between the two oscillating pseudoscalars relative to matter aggregates, which mark different spatial or temporal locations relative to the emitter. The orientation is going to be random, but it is subject to change via the usual diffraction, refraction processes.
The polarization of the "spin angular momentum" of a photon is the result of the oscillation of its two, inverse, components (in the case of LST theory, this is rather vaguely, if not embarrasingly, referred to as the electric and magnetic field vectors, even though the transverse magnetic field vector is only implied by the changing electric field vector.) In the case of the SUDR|TUDR combo, we have two oscillating, inverse, magnitudes, and a variable phase relationship between them. If the phase difference is more than or less than 90 degrees, the photon can actually have "orbital angular momentum," as well, which is really interesting, since this is not restricted to "up" and "down" spin states, but an infinite number of orbital states (I don't know why they call them orbital - they should be called phase states, I think.)
In Larson's development, this is problematic, as there aren't two, vibrating, components in his model of the photon, but only one. In the new model that I'm working on, however, there are two components, the SUDR & TUDR, which can vary in spin up and down, as well as in relative phase, but exactly how they interact to produce the total angular momentum is still a matter under investigation. See here and here for some interesting aspects involved in the research.
In a P.S., you write:
Well, that is the question that launched a thousand ships, so-to-speak (not really, just two, I think - LOL.) Actually, it's not just a question of a sinusodial wave, which Larson's model can't answer to, but also the 720 degree spin cycle that neither Larson's nor the LST's model can answer.
Nehru's answer was his concept of bi-rotation and bi-direction, while my concept is the SUDR and TUDR combo's expansion/contraction. In both cases, one full cycle takes 720 degrees of rotation, accounting for the nature of quantum spin. The difference is that Nehru's model consists of two, quadrantal cycles (2 * (4 * 90) = 720), while mine consists of two bi-cycles (2 * (2 * 180) = 720).
Well, that's not the only difference, of course, but it's the difference in how quantum spin is accounted for in the two models. In the case of the expansion/contraction of my two inverse pseudoscalars, a 1 unit expansion/1 unit contraction includes the expansion/contraction of the diameters (1D), the spherical surfaces (2D) and the volumes (3D), corresponding to the electrical, magnetic and momentum (hopefully) properties of the photon. The first of these is sinusodial, when plotted, while the other two are sort of sinusodial (and very interesting to say the least.)
I hope this gives you something to go on, Horace. Great questions.
Doug
Hi Doug,
You are an elusive man, you don't answer my emails and if I did not stumble upon this blog of yours I would forever watch the LRC or the rstheory.org forums or my inbox.
Anyway, I asked you these questions to refine your thinking. I hope you did not take it as hostile criticism of your thinking process, which you seem to endure a lot.
Although I do not negate its existence I have difficulty understanding how a SUDR and TUDR can be combined in a stable manner. I'd like you to elborate on this point of "hip-joining".
Doug wrote:
"...they can only propagate in one direction, if they are to remain intact. The direction is defined by the three, orthogonal, dimensions of space, or time. The ultimate direction is, of course, random..."
...but Larson wrote that any object, such as a photon, that has no capability of independent motion is stationary in natural reference system. Thus the direction of photon's propagation must be the fictitious result of relating it to the motion of gravitating observer (e.g. a material atom).
This leads us to a conceptual confict:
1) All normal matter moves the same way (creating mGRS, except for slow vectorial motions of our everyday lives)
a) All material atoms are all supposed to be a part of the same reference system (the mGRS),
2) All photons are all supposed to be a part of another kind of reference system (the NRS). See: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/refsys.htm
3) Photons are not supposed to have a capability of independent motion in the NRS.
Thus, the natural conclusion is that all photons should move scalarly away from material observers, yet the DO NOT !!!
Also, according to the 3 points above, a photon can never meet with another photon (but it apparantly happens in an interference) or with another atom (but it apparently happens in a reflection) !
Thus, it follows that either/or:
1) The direction of photon's propagation in mGRS is not determined solely by the relative motion of the material observer to the motion of the photon,
2) Photons apparently DO NOT move the same way because they can move toward or away (or at an angle) to matterial observers, albeit always away form material emitters.
3) Photon has a capability of independent motion in NRS (which you seem to suggest)
You seem to mean that photon's direction of propagation is random at the point of emission from an emitter (an atom), but how does it get memorized for later if we dare to propose that photon has a capability of independent motion in NRS ?
The same goes for the photon's polarizarion plane. If all atoms move in the same manner, creating the mGRS, yet we observe different polarizations of the photons, then the polarisations must be defined by the motions of the photons themselves- in other words the motion of the observing atom does not influence the polarization phenomena (nor the direction of its propagation). If we have many material observers, they will all see the same direction of propagation and polarization (except for enanglement, where two observers see the oposite polarization, and three observers see... ).
How does a non-3D phenomenon (such as polarization) arise only from 3D motions, and how does it get memorized if we dare to propose that photon has a capability of independent motion in NRS ?
Horace
P.S.
And why the hell is the photon sinusoidal ?
The superior performance of holographic notch filters proves that photon indeed is sinusoidal. See page 52, at:
http://books.google.pl/books?id=E9peWTnT9TgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=handbook+of+raman+spectroscopy&hl=en&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Bruce's explanation that the sinusoidal behavior is caused by the projection of counterspace turn onto normal space, is the only sensible answer to this question I have encountered so far.
Hi Horace,
Good to hear from you again.
Thanks for the great question. Remember, the photon in my development of the RST is not an oscillating pseudoscalar. It is a combination of two oscillating pseudoscalars, one SUDR and one TUDR. The SUDR (space unit displacement ratio, s/t = 1/2) is a 3D oscillation of space, while the TUDR (time unit displacement ratio, s/t = 2/1) is a 3D oscillation of time. When the two are combined in a 1:1 ratio, the normal progression of time in the SUDR is the inverse of the normal progression of space in the TUDR. So, they have to progress at light-speed, but since they are joined at the hip, so-to-speak, they can only propagate in one direction, if they are to remain intact. The direction is defined by the three, orthogonal, dimensions of space, or time. The ultimate direction is, of course, random.
The difference of this approach viz-a-viz Larson's, is the assumption that the initial scalar expansion, which is 3D by the postulates, can, or cannot be reversed in one dimension only, while the other dimensions continue to increase normally. There are advantages to both approaches. I just want to see how far I can get with my approach.
In the entry above, I was explaining another "inter-regional ratio" that I put in quotes to indicate that it was not Larson's inter-regional ratio. However, apparently some readers didn't understand the difference, and have expressed doubts as to whether I understand Larson's inter-regional ratio. I don't see how that conclusion could be reached on the basis of the post above, but I will take it as a convenient seque into the subject.
As I mentioned above, Larson's ratio is a measured physical constant, but no one knows, as far as I can tell, what was measured or how it was measured. Yet, his theoretical explanation was so little understood by members of ISUS that, in their attempt to grasp it, they decided to challenge each attendee at the 1984 conference, including Larson, to explain their understanding in writing, after the meeting.
I quoted passages from Larson's published response to this challenge in the post, but there may have been other responses published. If so, I don't have any knowledge of them. Peret recommended a paper by Nehru, which may be a response, entitled "Inter-Regional Ratio," but, if it is, there's no indication that this is the case in the paper itself.
In his paper, Nehru treats the inter-regional ratio's "scalar dimensions" as an abstract space with a certain number of "degrees of freedom." Since there are three, independent, scalar dimensions in Larson's development, his view is that each one of these three scalar dimensions has (2/9 * (8 * 4 * 4)) + 128 = 155.444 possibilities, or degrees of freedom, when manifest in the three-dimensions of vector time.
This would be true for any of the three scalar dimensions, but only one of them can be represented in a 3D temporal reference system, as shown in the figure below copied from Nehru's paper:
Figure 1. Illustration from Nehru's Paper
In the illustration above, the 8 degrees of freedom in the 3D time region are explained on the basis that only one of the three scalar dimensions is representable in a 3D temporal reference system (the circle in the illustration.) Nehru explains that, "if the three dimensions are interrelated, the total number of degrees of freedom, as given by equation [f = pn] is:
I'm not sure what he means by "interrelated," but if he means orthogonal, which is really another way of saying independent, then we can picture the two interpenetrated disks that Larson uses to illustrate the scalar rotations of the atom in his works. Only in our picture, we initially have three interpenetrated disks, one for each "interrelated" axis.
Since each rotation can be + or -, which is tantamount to space or time "directions" in the RST, then there are 23 = 8 possibilities, or degrees of freedom, which the 1D rotations (the three disks) can take (+++, ---, +--, ++-, -++, --+, -+-, +-+). So now, with the three interpenetrated disks whirling away, we can flip them as well, flipping the horizontal disk around either the x or z axis, and one of the two vertical disks around either the y or z, or the y or x axis.
However, since a flipping of one of these two vertical disks is always going to be indistinguishable from the flipping of either the horizontal or the other, vertical, disk, it's only possible to effectively flip two of them, one horizontal and one vertical (that is, there is a degeneracy), so we end up with four flipping possibilities (++, --, +-, -+) in each case (rotating space/time and filipping space/time for each of two, interpenetrated, disks.)
All this is easy enough to understand, but then, in Larson's model of the atom, the degenerate disk is removed and we have two interpentrated disks that are rotating and flipping. The total number of degrees of freedom for this set then, would be 8 * 4 * 4 = 128 degrees of freedom, but, in Larson's atomic model, there are two LVs that are being rotated and flipped, which can be oriented along any of the 3 axes, and, since the atoms are rotations of two LV+ vibrations, this adds 2/9 more degrees of freedom per unit of motion, which gives us a grand total of (2/9 * 128) + 128 = 156.444 degrees of freedom for each atom.
Now, if you have difficulty following or visualizing this logical development, don't worry, you can actually build a physical and/or computer model of it. I have done both. You might have questions about how to merge a physical model of two rotating systems together, or how to align the axes of the two systems in a computer model, but you will at least understand the 156.444... possibilities for configuring the model's state (even though you might wonder why, if there are two systems, there are not 2*(128 + (1/9 *128)) possibilities, but should you decide to ask, you would be the first to do so, as far as I know.)
In my case, it is not a question of following the logic of Larson's explanation, or even questioning it, but it is a more fundamental issue of accepting the prior assumption that a linear, point-to-point, vibration can be regarded as a 1D, scalar, magnitude in a 3D system and how it can then be rotated in two "directions" and yet still be regarded as a scalar magnitude, a magnitude without direction. To my way of thinking, a scalar magnitude cannot vibrate back and forth in two directions, or rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise. Of course, that leaves me with a much more difficult challenge of finding an alternative theoretical explanation for this empirical constant.
In the meantime, though, as I stated in the post, there is another inter-regional ratio that may end up shedding light on Larson's. Only time will tell.
I added a comment to your blog entry in "The First Postulate of Scalar Mathematics"
Being an accountant, all the aspects of Larson's work are not within the scope of my professional activities. However, being a human being, all aspects are utterly valuable and interesting for me. Understanding the world is a fundamental desire of everyone in the world and the function of science should be to help everybody understand. A science which only a few people claim to comprehend is useless to society and is a means of convincing the majority of mankind that their capabilities are inferior and therefore it is justified to treat them as slaves.
If it were possible, I would mark as most important for me: physics/chemistry/astronomy/cosmology - those sections that claim to be "exact" sciences and make us believe that they "know" how things work.
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.