General Discussion > MD X engineer

question? If the universe is not flat but we are just going past a flat portion of an expanding-contracting cyclic universe, does this mean that the speed of light is NOT constant? Could light be accelerating or decelerating now and we can't detect it because the cycle frequency is billions of years long? Since this theory rest on velocity of space-time progression being constant only if Omega equals one, if it is not then light speed is not a constant. I don't think this would change the theory's validity in general but would certainly add a new twist. Of course this would be a universe that experiences deaths and rebirths on a monumental(universal) scale. This theoretical 'breathing' universe would see at peak expansion and peak contraction the speed of go to zero! Could this be the 'pattern' for our atom? I would like to imagine the atom to be the fractal pattern for the universe. The toroidal atom, the toroidal tornado,hurricane, galaxy; the toroidal universe... Any comments? Is this at all consistent with Larson's theory?

October 21, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis Collazo

These are interesting speculations, but the genius of Larson's new system of theory is that it is a deductive theory; that is, we start with the fundamental postulates and deduce the consequences of them.

This forces us to justify our conclusions logically and then compare them to observations for confirmation. While this approach is inflexible, it provides us the invaluable benefit of consistency and testing for validity.

For more on this, see Larson's explanation here.

October 24, 2011 | Registered CommenterDoug

Can you explain how light from distant object ever reach us if photons have no individual movement but are carried along in the space-time progression? would not these stationary photons always be moving away from everything else, including us? This is a sticking point in my understanding of Larsom's theory. Can it be that the photons emit em waves that reach us? If so, then any object or distant galaxy that is at distance A (light years) away emitted that photon A/2 light years ago. Is that correct? please straighten out my thinking. Thanks.

November 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis Collazo

This is a question that was often asked of Larson (see here.) His answer is that the inward scalar motion of matter, gravitation, relative to the outward scalar motion of the natural reference system, effectively produces independent sources of outward expansion, forming separate spheres of expansion, such as that which is seen when several rockets explode in the air simultaneously, during a fireworks display finale.

Since photons themselves are em waves, I don't think it makes sense to speak in terms of their emitting em waves.

Hope that helps Louis

November 2, 2011 | Registered CommenterDoug

I now understand. Thank you Doug for clearing this up for me (great visual with the rockets). Can I ask you to comment on what I wrote under "what's moving" yesterday and today. I you tell me it's rubbish I'll go on with my study of the theory. Regards, Louis

November 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis Collazo

I try to imagine this in terms of light standing still, while WE are hitting IT. The consequence of gravitation is that matter (i.e. us) counters the spacetime progression and we therefore jump from one spce location to the next.

November 11, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJeffreyET

Can anyone explain to me why the andromeda galaxy is blue shifted? Is it possible that we are gravitating towards it and will eventually collide with it?
Is it possible that a galaxy greater than 3 mil light years away is within our milkyways gravitational equilibrium?

Other questions for Larsom's Theory:
Does a photon have mass? How is it emmited?
What is magnetism in this theory?
How is EM radiation emmitted?
Where does the energy for s-t expansion come from?
What happens to gravitational constant, planck constant, coulombs constant?
Does Larson address 'vacume' energy?
What is Larson's Cube all about if the theory does not allow for geometry of space?

I strongly suspect the something has to be moving and what is moving is Light. That is, recursive light, which is the reciprocal of circular coordinate time.

Regards, Louis.

November 11, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis

Hi Louis,

These are some very good questions.

Louis wrote:

"Can anyone explain to me why the andromeda galaxy is blue shifted? Is it possible that we are gravitating towards it and will eventually collide with it?
Is it possible that a galaxy greater than 3 mil light years away is within our milkyways gravitational equilibrium?"

That's the only explanation I can see.

"Does a photon have mass? How is it emmited?"

No, a photon has no mass. If it did, it would travel at less than the speed of light. Nevertheless, the LST theory attributes momentum to the photon, but it's energy that derives from its quantum spin (angular momentum), which depends on its frequency, not its velocity and mass. However, the LST community cannot explain what "quantum spin" actually is. They have no clue.

The photon is always emitted from matter, either when an electron is accelerated, annihilated, or relaxes from atomic excitation.

In an RST-based theory, the electron does not occupy orbits around the nucleus and does not have spin. Here at the LRC, the electron is composed of preons called "S|T units" which are composed of units of 3D space oscillations (SUDRs) and 3D time oscillations (TUDRs). These entities of combination of motion contain less than c speed and greater than c speed components that, when combined equally, travel at c speed, as in the case of the photon and neutrino, but possess intrinsic oscillating 3D motion and inverse motion (think mass and inverse mass), which is manifest as energy nonetheless.

"What is magnetism in this theory?"

In an RST-based theory, we live in a universe of motion, so everything we observe is either a motion, a combination of motions, or a relationship between motions. In the case of the observed "forces" of nature, they are quantities of motion (the definition of force), differing in their dimensions: electrical force is one-dimensional; magnetic force is two-dimensional; and the force of mass is three-dimensional.

Hence, whenever 1D scalar motion (electrical phenomenon) interacts with the 3D scalar motion of mass, the relation manifests a certain quantity of 2D scalar motion (magnetic phenomenon) or force. Conversely, when 2D scalar motion interacts with 3D mass, the relation always manifests a quantity of 1D scalar motion or force. (See Larson's Basic Properties of Matter, Chapter 21, here.)

"How is EM radiation emmitted?"

The LST's nuclear model of the atom does not work in an RST-based theory (see Larson's The Case Against the Nuclear Atom here.) In an RST-based theory, the atom is a combination of scalar motions, which do not maintain their identity and move, vectorially, within the atom. So, when an atom absorbs photons, the energy is absorbed by the combination of scalar motions that constitute the atom, not by a electron in orbit.

Larson attempted to work out, in his RST-based theory, just how this absorption and subsequent emission takes place, but became bogged down because of the abundance and complexity of the empirical data that would have to be used to verify his conclusions. Consequently, he abandoned the effort. It is the current goal of the LRC to complete this work, but right now it is still a work in progress.

"Where does the energy for s-t expansion come from?"

In the RST, the fundamental assumption is that the universe consists of one component, motion, in discrete units, with two reciprocal aspects, space and time. Therefore, all the fundamental units of physical constants reduce to units of space and time (see here.)

For instance, Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2 is t/s = t^3/s^3 * s^2/t^2 in units of space and time. Therefore, the "s-t expansion" is ultimately the assumed origin of all things, including scalar energy, which is the inverse of scalar motion (s/t). Consequently, it makes no sense to ask the question, what is the source of its energy, since it is energy.

"What happens to gravitational constant, planck constant, coulombs constant?"

When the quantities of physical equations are expressed in terms of the fundamental units of space and time, the physical constants reduce to unity and vanish (see Larson's Nothing But Motion, Chapter 13, here.)

"Does Larson address 'vacume' energy?"

No, "vacuum energy" is a logical concept of the LST community that has no place in an RST-based theory. The so-called Casimir force, like all forces in an RST-based theory, is a quantity of motion, but it has nothing to do with the "Dirac sea," or the Zero Point energy concepts such as quantum foam and the virtual particles of quantum mechanics.

In the RST, "vacuum" phenomena stem from a concept called "equivalent space," which is due to an interaction between vector motion and scalar motion, where no motion in space is possible within unit distance. Therefore, all motion within this distance must take place in time.

What is Larson's Cube all about if the theory does not allow for geometry of space?

The second fundamental postulate of the RST states that the geometry of the universe of motion is Euclidean, so I don't know what this question refers to.

I hope this helps.

November 12, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDoug

Yes, very helpful.
From E=mc^2 I have been about obtain a relationship between E and time. This partial equation is expressed as E^2 ~ 1/(time^2)^2. This 4 dimensional time I equate with light that folds back (recursive), gaines angular momemtum to form mass (gravity). Three dimensional time (coordinate time) I equate to EM light (photon). It has a spiral, cork screw motion that is a combination forward S/T progression (1-dim electric component) and a perpendicular, circular 2-dimensional magnetic component. Therefore, I see EM as traveling forward in 3-d time spiraling motion as a 'photon'. When this photon travels back on itself and gains angular momentum we have mass. EM radiation is moving 3-d time and mass is inward rotating 4-d time. This extra dimension is tossed back to space in radiation when 3-d space adds the dimension of expansion. This is the oscillating interplay of mass and energy; space and time. S/T = UNITY. E/M = UNITY^2. Is this a valid deduction in your estimation? Regards, Louis.

November 13, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis

Let me clarify the above statement. I'm calling 4-d time mass but it is just 3-d time accelerating and decelerating as space contract (unfolds) and expands, repectively. That is why I refer to this added dimension as being 'shared' between time and space. With time the acceleration phase is balanced with the deceleration phase of the cycle. With space, conversely (reciprocally ), there is expansion and contraction. I hope this is clarifies my idea a bit. Regards, Louis.

November 13, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis

Additional thoughts:
Time being equivalent to light as I had defined it, is a phi sine wave, a 3-dim spiral. Phi = 7/5 X Pi/e, ALL transcendental constants. Therefore time and light are transcendental constants, only able to accelerate or decelerate in the angular momentum related to the two dimensions (magnetic component) governed by Pi. Euler's constant e progresses by counting and is the one dimensional electrical component of motion of light-time(electromagnetism). Space and time are also related by Pi and e is related to the prime number sequence that orders the electron shells. I think that is pretty neat. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is illustrated in these relationships since it is obvious that the universe cannot be defined precisely, no more than Pi can be defined exactly.
I must conclude that time, light, energy, electricity, magnetism, chemism are all the same and it's in there interplay with space and mass that make up the physical world. They are all transcendentals. Sorry to get so philosophical.
Let me know what you think. Regards, Louis

November 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis

You could be right. Now all you have to do is convince others. That's not an easy thing to do. One way, though, is to use your ideas to construct a theoretical universe that conforms with physical observation.

That's a tall order, but if your ideas are correct, it should be possible. In the case of Larson's ideas, he was able to deduce many things that enabled him to delineate the structure of the physical universe in terms of nothing but motion.

Most people rejected this work outright, but over the years many fundamental discoveries, that cannot be fit into a universe of matter, have been found to conform to the theoretical universe of motion, which compels more people to take a serious look at it. You and anyone else who aspires to accomplish the same, will have to do as he did to demonstrate the soundness of your ideas.

I'm trying to use Larson's RST to calculate the atomic spectra, which he was unable to accomplish in a timely manner that would not unduly delay the progress of his work. Unfortunately, in doing so, I've found it necessary to modify one of his early deductions, which makes it difficult to use a lot of his subsequent work, yet it remains an indispensable guide nevertheless.

The reason this is so is because the fundamental assumptions are so powerful. They go beyond building physical theory on laws of motion, as we have come to regard them, by ushering in a whole new system of constructing physical theory, based on the laws of motion, as we have never regarded them.

To grasp the meaning of this is to open a whole new world of possibilities, but not possibilities based on ad hoc assumptions, but rather possibilities based on deductive science.

Inventive science is really a waste of time, as the LST community has discovered: It has led to wild speculation about the nature of the universe, posing as science, which so many of its members now lament.

See also Larson's "Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion," for more details.

November 18, 2011 | Registered CommenterDoug

Doug, I have yet to see anything as promising as this theory of Larson's. I have but a few reservations, mind you I am a rank amateur, but I like to consider myself a clear and logical thinker. I cannot conceive of a Universe that does not rotate about a center. So any theory worthy of Larson and a universe of motion must have not only primary motions of expansion (now observable) but also contraction as it cycles with time. I feel funny about this 'cosmic thing'. The other primary motion is rotation around this center. Consider the wall of galaxies rushing toward the 'great attractor'. I propose that we are for the ride in this vast circle of the cosmos. This rotational inertia may explain the dark matter-energy we cannot account for. This complex of motion must be an attribute of the microcosmos as well. The atom must also be seen as a rotating motion combined with expansion and contraction at appropriately greater frequencies. In addition, space (3d) and time (3d) would then necessarily require additional aspects to their motion, that being acceleration and deceleration. In keeping with Larson, during expansion, space would be in acceleration and time would exhibit deceleration. Conversely, in contraction, the reverse is seen (the proton). Ultimate contraction is the neutron. Expansion phase is associated with increasing energy, decreasing mass, discharge (electron), decreasing gravity, decelerating time, accelerating space and radiation. Contaction is the inverse. Yin Yang. At the atomic scale this of course very rapidly and explains quantum behavior. The center of rotation is the vacuum zero point for lack of a better term. I am not qualified to evaluate these possibilities as to how they would affect the theory as to its history of predictive power but I just wanted to throw them out for consideration.
Regards, Louis.

November 19, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis

The wavelength of em radiation is 860 times the diameter of the size of the emitting particle. Those energies emitted at the very start of the electron cycle, at beginning of expansion, are of higher frequency than those emitted when the atom has decelerated to a much larger volume. The proton representing the contracting cycle of the atom where mass is increasing, the gravitation cycle. It's one particle, the atom, phasing through positive then negative charge, gravitation then radiation, that is why the proton, electron and neutron all have the same inertial mass! They. are one and the same, just representing a different part of the cycle. That's what I think, my two cents worth. Regards, Louis.

November 19, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLouis


The proton/electron mass is 1836.152.

November 22, 2011 | Registered CommenterDoug

Hi Doug, thought of another question for RS Theory. Why are elements technitium and promethium unstable and don't exist in nature? Does RS have an explanation for this oddity?
Regards, Louis

January 23, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterLouis

Is the reflexion of light a discrete or continuous process? Try integrating this inversion process of light (integral of 1/x dx = 1/0). oops. They laughed at Liebniz until it was shown that there was a solution to this awkward infinity. The natural log x. There is a general connection between the reciprocal numbers and the natural logarithms but only the reciprocal prime numbers are important. Promethium and Technicium have prime atomic numbers and are unstable. I'm curious about this riddle. Is there a connection.
Regards, Louis

January 27, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterLouis

Hi again: I want to help you with your discrete vs continuous thesis. Reflection can only be accomplished by inverting. To do this process you must integrate the dual light (birotational photon of Nerhu) to first achieve the still light of oneness and then differentiate the still light into motion once again as it remerges as dual light of motion but inverted (photon of birotation but reverse polarity). This process is strange to science because it requires the solution of the integral of 1/x which is 1/0. Scientists abhor this inconvenient Truth because it cannot allow infinities to exist. But, they will gladly accept the solution to this integration as the natural log x. Just another infinity! This is what I call stubbornness to the nth degree. This whole process must occur in infinity, where integration can be done infinitely and instantaneously because of the nontemporalness of infinity. Therefore, the universe is continuous and appears to be discrete right down to Planck's values but the finite universe interacts with infinity through the process of inversion and that is why reciprocal relationships are a birthmark of creation. I apologize if my writing is unclear but I'm just one of those armchair lay theorist that is not use to thinking about these topic.
Regards, Louis

January 28, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterLouis