The Larson Research Center

I think the primary difference between Doug's RSt ideas and Bruce's RS2 ideas, is the question "Geometry of What" ?

The original RST 2nd postulate states that:
"Physical Universe's geometry is Euclidean"

Doug states that:
"The geometry of extension-space is Euclidean"
...which according to the original 2nd postulate would mean that Physical Universe IS extension-space.

RS2 states that:
"The geometry of natural-space and natural-time is Projective"
...which according to the original 2nd postulate would mean that Physical Universe IS natural-space and time.


NOTE: that logically extension-space emerges out of natural-space, in the theory development.

However, Doug denies the very existence of natural-space and claims that the only space in existence is the emergent extension-space as defined by his S()TUDRs, and to him the 2nd postulate refers to the geometry of this extension-space.

Doug has an idea that scalar motion can hapen without prexistent geometry, which implies that space and time do not have to have geometrical properties.

To Bruce the idea of motion without preexitent geometry is a logical fallacy.


No wonder these guys can't even talk to each other.


Regards,
Horace

Horace,

What I have labeled the Space Unit Displacement Ratio (SUDR) and the Time Unit Displacement Ratio (TUDR), are not anything new. Larson called the SUDR, the "unit time displacement," and he called the TUDR, the "unit space displacement," but because his unit time displacement is on the material, or space, side of unity, and his unit space displacement is on the cosmic, or time, side of unity, I chose the names SUDR and TUDR to make it easier to track which is which.

Now the primary difference between Larson's theory developed from the RST and Peret/Nehru's theory using the RST2, is the way they have defined scalar motion, using vectorial motion concepts. Larson rotates 1D scalar vibrations in his theory, and calls it "scalar rotation," which I feel is a mistake and the work at the LRC is intended to address that point

However, Peret/Nehru seek to explain "scalar rotation" in a way that differs from Larson's concept of it. The way they do this is to use the concepts of "scalar space" to define scalar motion," not as a scalar increase in all directions, but as a linear increase. Nevertheless, there are two versions of the scalar increase, one is linear as in a 1D increase and is native to the material sector, while the other is linear as in a 2D rotation and is native to the cosmic sector.

Therefore, both vibration and rotation are regarded as "primary" scalar motions. One is the considered the inverse of the other, because the inverse of Euclidean space is polar space, therefore the conclusion is that if the geometry of the two regions is inverted, then it follows that the motion of the two regions is inverted.

Hence, in the so-called RS2, scalar rotation exists, BECAUSE it is the corresponding motion to linear motion in the duality of projective geometry.

My difference with them is not found in principles of geometry, but in the consequences of the FPs. Instead of following them, they want to change them, but the change that want is profound, because it changes the basis of the duality of the universe of motion from the duality inherent in the two, inverse, "directions" of scalars, to the duality of projective geometry.

However, as you have pointed out, in my view, it is clear that geometry is emergent, and, therefore, cannot play a fundamental role in the development of the consequences of the FPs. The logic is tautalogical.

Neither Bundy nor Peret are working within the confines of the Reciprocal System. They have both gone off on their own tangents.

Let's be perfectly clear here: Larson's new system of physical theory is easy to describe. It consists of the two fundamental postulates and a corollary that assumes "direction" reversals in one aspect, or the other, of a universal space|time progression. This is called the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST).

The objective of the LRC is to apply this new system in developing physical theory. Larson was the first to do this, by deducing the logical consequences of the postulates, and has published his work in three volumes, as the world's first general physical theory, called the Reciprocal System theory (RSt).

In the work of the LRC, we take exception to Larson's development of the system's consequences (the RSt) at an early juncture, but we are convinced that the system (RST), which he discovered and applied, in the development of his theory of the universe of motion (the RSt), is a contribution to science of incalculable value.

Thus, we regard Larson's RSt as a first approximation in the application of the RST to developing RSt. As such, it is the baseline of our work. The general guideline that illuminates the path forward, but which needs to be corrected and extended, whenever any of the conclusions that constitute it are found to be incorrectly deduced from the RST.

Please feel free to point out the evidence of error, defend a different point of view, baased on evidence, or otherwise contend specifically that the LRC's position, as herein described, is incorrect, either in principle, or in fact.

I have found that the best way to visualize the geometry of scaler motion is to take two mirrors, place them perpendicular to each other and place them on a mirrored table like a half opened book. In other words, mirrored surfaces inside a cubed box. Plato's Timaeus first gave me this idea then Larson's cube reminded me of this geometry. Try putting your finger at the point the three mirrors intersect the retract it. My finger and its four reflections radiate away from that point of intersection. Perhaps that Brit who's name I can't recall has something when he refers to a holographic universe. Just food for thought. I can't help but think that any theory must include fractal geometry, phi ratios, sine waves, prime number ordering, reciprocal relationship, hyperboloid-toroidal geometries, symmetries (Platonic solids). The work of Peter Plitchta, Walter Russell and Dan Winter have been helpful to my understanding and I wonder if any in your group are familiar with these investigators.

Personally, I am not familiar with any of them, but I appreciate your mention of them. I will take a look.