The Larson Research Center

Hi all,

This is the first time I post here, and I'm desperate to understand better how the reciprocal theory works. I'm reading again and again the material found at http://www.reciprocalsystem.com but don't understand everything yet. I get the general feeling on how it works, but not the exact understanding.

In particular, I think equations might help me somewhat. I tried to imagine what would be a 1 dimensional time-space, and tried to move to two but failed. My basic understanding is as follows:

- The universe is composed of a D-dimensional (D=3) scalar field, called motion. What this means in a physical sense is quite difficult to tell.
- Motion can be decomposed into space and time. In our world, we have a D-dimensional space (coordinate space) with a 1-dimensional time (clock time). We can compress time to just one dimension because we choose a specific path in the coordinate time (D-dimensional) and graph the coordinate space against it.
- Because we experience time progression, and space and time are related to a scalar motion, we can easily deduce that when time progresses (clock time), space progresses by expansion. I can understand that quite easily.

To summarize, we have :

- a scalar field called motion
- a representation of this scalar field that we call coordinate space and clock time, it can be produced by graphing all elements of the motion field against a specific path in the coordinate time (this specific path is called clock time)
- reciprocally, a representation of coordinate time and clock space

Tell me if I'm wrong.

With this in mind, I don't understand how things could ever move. the motion scalar field is obviously constant (because if it's progressing, against what is it progressing ?). And if motion is always constant, we just experience constant expansion of coordinate space while the clock time passes by.

The other solution to get things moving in coordinate space is to have the clock time constantly changing its path in coordinate time. But overall, the whole world is unchanging. it's just our vision of it that is changing.

Or perhaps, there is a progression of motion (the motion is no longer constant). And we then have to deal with two notions we call time. The first being the progression of the motion, the second being the clock/coordinate-time.

I'm confused ...

Please help me,

Mildred

Hi Mildred,

Thank you for your inquiry. I have just returned from a 6 month retreat and will gladly try to help you clear up the RSt, as far as I am able.

It will take me a little while, as I am still involved with moving chores.

In the meantime, you may find this essay I wrote interesting:

http://www.lrcphysics.com/storage/documents/What%20Is%20Reality%20Point.pdf

Ok, the first thing to understand in Larson's new system, is that it is a system of physical theory. Newton's system of physical theory is used to explain the behavior of matter, but not its origin.

Space and time in Newton's system contains matter and his system is used to explain the interactions between particles of matter, from planets to electrons. Larson's system on the other hand, begins with nothing but motion.

Consequently, the motion cannot be the movement of anything. It is simply a universal increase of space and time, the very definition of motion. We can understand it in numerical terms as the eternal increase of two numbers, s and t, one the inverse of the other, s/t.

We can understand still more, if we give the numbers s and t geometrical meaning, by assigning dimensions to them, s^3/t^3 for instance. Thus, we can conceive of a uniform eternal progression,

s^3/t^3 = 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, ...n/n,

as simply an eternally increasing number. In order for something to come out of this perfect uniformity, however, there must be some deviation from unity. The only way that this can occur is if there is a periodic reversal in the denominator or numerator of the number,

s^3/t^3 = 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, 2/4, 3/5, 2/6, 3/7, 2/8, ....

Here, we see the reversals in the numerator, meaning that the space aspect of the motion at this "location" in the progression is not increasing, but oscillating, while the reciprocal, or time, aspect continues to progress normally.

In a sense, the spatial non-progression at this point in the progression creates a stationary entity that is progressing in time only. If the periodic reversals had commenced in the denominator of the number, or the time aspect of the motion, the oscillating entity would have been stationary in time and progressing in space.

As more and more entities of these kinds are created, the distance between them, whether space or time is determined by the space/time distance between the instances occurring in the uniform progression, the amount of progression between the instances of the commencement of periodic reversals.

Thus, in effect, coordinate space and coordinate time are created by the initiation of periodic reversals in one or the other aspects of the uniform progression. How, when or why this happens is impossible to say, but the system requires it.

Now, in Larson's development of the RST, the periodic reversals occur first in one of the three dimensions, while the remaining two dimensions continue progressing normally. We have taken another route of development at the LRC, which assumes that the reversals occur in all three dimensions simultaneously.

Regardless, however, the result is the same in both cases, as far as the emergence of coordinate space and coordinate time is concerned. The coordinate locations in space and time are created by the effective cessation of progression in one aspect or another of the unit progression at a given point in the progression. Once these positions are occupied by non-progressing, oscillating entities, the postulates of geometry can be satisfied for the set of them.

Of course, once these coordinate positions are occupied by oscillating entities, there is nothing preventing them from changing these coordinate positions, if they are acted upon in some way consistent with their properties.

It is the logical development of their properties, consistent with observed properties of matter, that we are seeking to accomplish at the LRC.

I hope this helps. More later.

Now that we have established non-progressing, oscillating, entities of scalar motion in coordinate space (time) simply by introducing periodic reversals into the uniform progression, we need to consider how they behave and interact and how this behavior and interaction changes as they combine into more complex entities of scalar motion.

Before delving into this fascinating subject, however, we should understand that since the non-progressing oscillation of the entities is three-dimensional, in the case of the LRC development of the consequences of the system, and their non-oscillating, reciprocal, aspect is three-dimensional, the coordinate space (time) between them constitutes the space (time) aspect of the scalar motion that has occurred between their instantiation, at the onset of the periodic reversals:

A -------> B -------> C

However, since the uniform progression is three-dimensional, this is not as straight forward as a linear progression, A->B->C, would be. Consider the progression before point A for instance, the progression at point A-1, we can say. The 3D scalar increase from A-1 to A creates a one-unit ball, and point A-1 therefore becomes a spherical surface at “point” A in the progression. The question is, therefore, where on this surface is point A?

Clearly, any point on the sphere qualifies as the next point in the progression! Consequently, since the instantiation of A by the reversal process must collapse the previous expansion back to the previous point A-1, the entire surface must collapse back to point A-1. Thus, the 3D oscillation is a one-to-many, many-to-one periodicity, while the non-oscillating 3D progression is a continuous many-to-many process.

This development has many implications, but the most important to understand at this stage is that since the continuous time (space) expansion of the entity is the inverse of its oscillating space (time) aspect, its effect on the behavior of the entity is inverse; that is, its 3D increase of time is equivalent to a 3D decrease of space.

We can view this as the effect of the oscillation, which, in effect, prevents the entity’s space aspect from progressing and thereby creates an imbalance in its space/time progression, causing it to continuously increase in time only, which is equivalent to a decrease in space, since time is the inverse of space.

The result is what we call gravity: Oscillating entities of scalar motion are, in effect, consumers of space, causing them to appear to attract one another at all times.

More later

With this much understood, we have two types of oscillating entities, those oscillating in space and progressing in time, and those oscillating in time and progressing in space. Since the progression of one is in time and the progression of the other is in space, and space and time are reciprocals in our system, we can plot their progressions on two orthogonal axes.

This means that it is possible that a space oscillation can be in the time future of a time oscillation, and that a time oscillation can be in the space future of a space oscillation. Thus, contact between the two becomes possible and since the reciprocal of a space/time oscillation is a time/space oscillation, the two entities can combine into one ((space/time)|(time/space)) entity that both oscillates in space and in time, while progressing both in space and in time.

We identify this S|T unit with the observed photon of light. While both the space and time progressions of this unit are 3D, because its oscillations confine it to one unit of space and time, it can only propagate in one direction defined by the three dimensions, relative to non-propagating space or time oscillations located in the coordinate space (time).

From this point on, it’s a matter of combining the S|T units into the bosons and fermions of the standard model. There are three possibilities for combining them: S|T = n|n; n|m; m|n; where m > n. These combinations are the preons of our RST-based theory, referred to as the LRC RSt. It differs from Larson’s published RSt, as already mentioned.

The preons of our RSt can be combined in two configurations: a linear configuration (bosons), comparable to a parallel stack or bundle, where the Ss are always combined with other Ss and Ts always combined with other Ts:

Ss<-->Ts,

And a triangular configuration (fermions), where the Ss combine with other Ss and Ts, and Ts always combine with other Ts and Ss:

Ss<-->Ts|Ss<-->Ts|Ss<-->Ts| (the three legs of a triangle)

When these three S|T units are combined as fermions, with all three possible S|T combinations (n|n, m|n, n|m), all of the known particles of the standard model (neutrinos, quarks and electrons, together with all their anti-particles) and no others, are formed, with two helicities.

This is a very encouraging result, to say the least. The correct “charges” for these particles appear for the electron, positron and up and down quarks. The neutrino is its own antiparticle and both are charge neutral. There are also other important properties that are an inherent part of these entities and when they are combined into protons, neutrons and elements, the numbers work out as they should.

The challenge now is to overcome the bain of preon theories: Explain the relative masses of the observed particles. We hope to be able to do that too.

More later.

I don’t know if Mildred is following this series of replies, as she hasn’t answered yet, but I think I will continue with another post on the LRC development of the RST anyway.

I think the best way to understand the S|T units without an image is to imagine them as bar magnets. If you stacked three of them together,

N<--->S
S<--->N
N<--->S

the bars would lie flat together and the ends would cling to each other tightly, making them difficult to separate. However, if you placed them end to end,

N<--->S N<--->S N<--->S,

it’s easy to see that the two ends can be easily brought together to form a triangle.

Now, the two poles of magnets are always equal but opposite, because there are no magnetic monopoles, just as there is never one side of a coin, but there must always be two sides to every coin.

In the case of the S|T units, though, the inverse poles are independent monopoles of space or time oscillations, called SUDRs (Space Unit Displacement Ratio) and TUDRs (Time Unit Displacement Ratio). We can illustrate them textually with plus and minus signs.

The 3 stacked S|T units of the bosons can be shown as,

(-)<--->(+)
(+)<--->(-)
(-)<--->(+)

and the 3 connected (triangle) S|T units of the fermions can be shown as,

(-)<--->(+)(-)<--->(+)(-)<--->(+)

We can shorten this even more, by assigning numbers to the possibilities. For instance, the neutrino triangle is illustrated by the three units shown above. We can assign it the number 0, because it is balanced (each of the three S|T units of the triangle legs have one SUDR and one TUDR.)

The next S|T unit would be the down quark:

(- -)<--->(+)(-)<--->(+)(-)<--->(+)

We can assign it the number -1, because it has one extra SUDR (compared to the neutrino.) Next is the up quark:

(- )<--->(+)(-)<--->(++)(-)<--->(++)

We can assign it the number +2, because it has two extra TUDRs. Finally, is the electron:

(- -)<--->(+)(- -)<--->(+)(- -)<--->(+)

We can assign it the number -3, because it has three extra SUDRs.

Now, the positively charged proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark:

+P = (+2) + (+2) + (-1) = +3

The uncharged hydrogen atom (protium) is formed by adding an electron to the proton:

P = (+2) + (+2) + (-1) + (-3) = 0

The uncharged neutron consists of two down quarks and one up quark:

N = (-1) + (-1) + (+2) = 0

The uncharged deuterium atom consists of a proton, electron and neutron:

H = [((+2) + (+2) + (-1)) + (-3) + ((-1) + (-1) + (+2))] = 0

And so on it goes, around and around the wheel of motion.

Of course, there’s much more to it than this: anti-matter, quantum spin, quantum gravity, mass, charge, magnetic moment, etc, but with the new preon article in the November issue of Scientific American, which I discuss here, it’s a great time to be studying the universe of motion.

I don't know what happened to Mildred, but I wish she would come back! This amazing young English woman, Emma, reminds me of Mildred:

Emma

Hi Doug how are you now-a-days. Well Mildred may not have come back, but I am very interested in learning more, and hearing more of what you have figured out. I am very intrigued how you go from scalar motion to a reasonable explanation of how electrons are manifested. Please continue.

Hi Jeret,

How are you?

Yeah, I was kind of disappointed that she never came back. It's always helpful, when someone's interest is piqued enough to provoke explanations that can clarify concepts.

I am pleased that you are volunteering to step in and take her place. LOL

This comment editor is limited to text, so it's difficult to use (like going back to the old usenet days!)

To explain how we go from scalar motion, where discrete units of space and time expand in three dimensions, to electrons, which are point-like entities with 1 unit of electric charge, requires a few definitions, not the least of which is motion.

In the universe of motion, everything is motion, a combination of motion or a relation between motions. That's the first and most important definition to understand.

The second most important definition is unit. A unit is a quantity. It can be a quantity of scalar motion, or a quantity of distance, or a quantity of space, or a quantity of time, etc. We can use the concept of quantity to measure, but this requires us to choose a datum. The definition of datum is the reference point for measuring quantity. This can be zero or unity, in our system, just as it is for integers (1/1=0), and for rationals (1/1=1).

In the first case, the mathematical operation is subtraction, in the latter, it is division.

The third definition we need to understand is "direction." This too is best understood mathematically. -1, 0, +1 is an expression of positive and negative "directions," using integers. 1/2, 0, 2/1 is also an expression of positive and negative "directions," using rationals.

Actually, however, they both state the same thing: One unit on one side of a balance is equivalent to one unit on the other side in terms of magnitude, but they are opposite in "direction."

So, fundamentally, in our two most basic number systems, we have units of magnitude and these units of magnitude can be expressed in two, opposite "directions."

Finally, we must define the term dimension. In our system, there is a maximum of four dimensions, counting from zero. Each dimension has two "directions," except the 1st dimension, which only has one "direction." The one "direction" of the first dimension can be either in or out, but not both at the same time.

We can express the unit magnitudes and their combined "directions" in all four dimensions in a mathematical equation:

1x(2x2x2) = 8

This is the fundamental equation of the system, but it needs a kinematic expression. The best way to envision it kinetically is as a point (2^0 = 1), expanding in one unit of time to a 2x2x2 stack of unit cubes.

Given determinant units of space and time, this 3D expansion continues as the unit expansion; that is, one (0D) unit of time for one (3D) unit of space. The pseudoscalar/scalar expansion of space/time, we might say.

Of course, this unit expansion, s/t = 1/1, is what we call the unit progression in our system, and it is perfectly uniform or symmetric. The very definition of nothing. Breaking this symmetry, however, gives us something, and we can break it in two "directions," for each dimension, or eight "directions" in three dimensions.

In one dimension, this is expressed mathematically as 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, which is equivalent, in one respect, to -1, 0, +1. Yet, we can also write it as an expression of three dimensions:

2^0/2^3, 2^0/2^0, 2^3/2^0, or

1/2x2x2, 1/1, 2x2x2/1,

where each term in the 2x2x2 expression is an orthogonal magnitude.

The question is, of course, how is the symmetry broken? The only way this can be accomplished is by introducing a reversal in the "direction" of the expansion, at a given point in space/time; that is, a one unit expansion from a 2^0 point to a 2^3 (2x2x2) stack of 8 unit cubes, followed by a contraction back to a point. Thus, a continuously oscillating unit, in this way, three dimensionally, constitutes what Larson called a time (space) speed displacement.

Depending on whether the oscillation is one of space expansion/contraction or time expansion/contraction, the unit symmetry is broken in one of two "directions," forming two, inverse units, that are on either side of the unit progression, just as we see the two number systems formed.

Naturally, the physical expansion/contraction is not cubical (discrete), but spherical (continuous), and there is a lot to learn about the relation between them, but suffice it to say that these two units of space/time (time/space) oscillation are the basic building blocks of the universe of motion, as we are developing it here at the LRC.

Combining two or more of these fundamental units into one S|T unit, as we call it, forms the bosons and the fermions of the standard model of particle physics.

See here to understand how.

Hope this helps.

Thank you so very much for your prompt replay. I have read Larson's "Case Against the Nuclear Atom", started to read his "Structure of the Physical Universe", then jumped to "Nothing But Motion." I also watched his black & white video from 1977. Then I found this web site, and I have read a lot of what you have wrote.

My education only good, but only to the beginnings of calculus, and some elementary physics, and an attempt at getting an Electronics Engineering degree from ITT Tech. I graduated in 1988, but needed another year to get my Associates degree, but could not afford to do this. I am mentioning all this so you know what kind of a mind set if have.

I live in Holland Michigan, and would love to start an LRC charter/chapter/branch here. I am considering on giving a presentation at a local gathering (I think its in October).

Any chance you are on Google+ ? Google+ now has "Communities" or groups where one can post links to pictures and videos. I could start an LRC community. And I would love to do a google hangout (video conference) with you.

Again thanks for your prompt reply.
Jeret

Hi Jeret,

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but to tell you the truth, we are not at a point yet where we could sustain the interest of a community following. Frankly, we are stuck, until we can figure out what a growing set of clues is telling us.

I can't imagine a community engaging in the research and making regular contributions that would be helpful. What I'm afraid would happen is that I would find myself having to spend more and more time defending our work against detractors and explaining it to neophytes.

On the other hand, Johnny Boston wrote on the RS2 site:

we need a Grossman

E=mc2 is not really Einstein's theory. It is as much Fitzgerald's and Lorentz's as it is his. Throw in Maxwell for good measure. Einstein only took the theory and was able to apply it to phenomenon in ways no one had ever done before. However, Marcel Grossman and Hilbert did much of the "heavy lifting" required to actually arrive at an answer. Their genius wasn't in the development of new maths, it was in the application of existing maths to the problem at hand. Given the technology of the time, what they accomplished was nothing short of incredible. Perhaps what is first needed would be identifiable goals to be reached, then a discussion as to how they would be reached. You would think with the latest CERN drama that now would that time. The point of all this is that relativity was a group effort. Trial and error and probably a lot of error, but at the end of the day, what kept them going was their belief in the theory itself. I guess Larson just some how sold me on the RST and that's what keeps me going.

brevity=veracity

Well, that comment makes me leery of disregarding the value of the group effort. Besides, I'm not getting any younger, and I'm one of the youngest members of ISUS, so we need to get more people involved, there's no doubt about it.

I'll have to look into Google +. I've been meaning to anyway.

I primarly see using Google+ communities to help spread the word about Larson and his works. Like I said, I am considering doing a presentation. I have until around October to learn as much as I can about RST, and you are doing an excellent job of discribing the differnt aspects of RST.

I can't imagine a community engaging in the research and making regular contributions that would be helpful. What I'm afraid would happen is that I would find myself having to spend more and more time defending our work against detractors and explaining it to neophytes.

I have learned a lot from you. And I feel I am capable of defending Larson's work to some degree. I would be willing to help. And for the most part, you could just copy from this site and paste it to Google+ community page, to save some time.

One of the things I am still strugleing with is "Scalar" motion and how that can be rotated. Since "scalar" is just a magnatude, a size. Tesla used Scalar waves to transfer electrical energy, so I know there is something to it. I shall keep reading. I am sure someone has asked this question before.

Jeret

Hi Doug. I want you to know that I have created a Google+ community called "Reciprocal System of Theory." So once you do get around to trying Google+, be sure to look that community up. Thanks

Jeret

Hi Jaret,

I sure do appreciate your enthusiasm. I assume that you are a young man (at least younger than I am. Yesterday was my 70th birthday!)

As far as scalar rotation goes, there's no such thing. That is why we formed the LRC. We challenge Larson's concept of scalar rotation, because a scalar vibration, even if it could exist in a single dimension, if it were somehow to rotate, the "points" of the "direction" reversals would be constantly changing positions, relative to one another, over time. This is the very definition of vector motion, not scalar motion.

Like you said, scalar motion involves a change in size, in magnitude. If you compare our LRC concept here, the "direction" reversals are 3D, just as the unit progression. The theoretical entities that develop from these 3D reversals, both in the space region and in the time region, appear to have the observed 1D, 2D and 3D properties of matter, as far as we have developed them.

This is very encouraging, but we have a long ways to go. Like I've said often, our immediate goal here is to arrive at the atomic spectra calculations. This would constitute a coup de grâce of sorts, I think.

I'm about to post a new article on it, probably today or tomorrow.

By the way, the full name of the RST is "The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory." You shouldn't leave out the word "physical," because of the non-physical investigations that it seems to attract, for some reason.

Thanks Doug. I am 45 years old/young. I look forward to your next article. Looks like I need to do some more reading of this site. Thanks for your help.

Jeret