## General Discussion > Element 118

Hi Sam,

To be sure there are many things yet to be worked out and many questions to be answered in the new system of theory. It's a condition envied by the legacy folks, who are constantly hungering for "New" physics.

I have just returned from a 6 month retreat, so as soon as I am settled in, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

Hi Doug,

Thank you for your reply. I hope the move goes smoothly for you.

Sam,

Thanks for your patience. We are slowly getting back to normal here. I took time to reply to Mildred first, because that was easier. It's wonderful to have young people interested in the universe of motion. We need all we can get. Most of us in ISUS are really getting old.

I have been pondering lately what we can do to attract more young minds to the LRC. The ideal thing would be to get them involved in teaching and research, but with the world headed to disaster it's hard to plan.

Your interest is inspiring. I have also lost sleep over the RST, so I know what you mean. As far as element 118 goes, it's position would have to go in the next ring, above Xe, the beginning position in a ring of 4*5^2 = 100 slots.

This not likely, at least at our present scale of existence. Even now the unstable condition of the higher elements attests to the difficulty of glomming so many nuclei together.

But let me ask you a question, "What do you think about the Scientific American article by Don Lincoln in light of what we have accomplished here at the LRC?"

Doug,

I am a medical physicist, currently working in Radiation Therapy in a hospital. About 20 years ago I had an experience that set me on a journey that led to my own discovery of spacetime and motion. Please read the article I wrote in Quest Magazine back in 2005 at http://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/1620 and let me know what you think. It's called "Timeless Epiphany" and I think it

illustrates the same basic premise as RS (at least as far as space-time and motion are concerned).

Since then I have been busy with my naval career, but I am going to retire in a couple of years and hope to get back to research on this theory. I didn't have a name for it, but since I discovered RS a few weeks ago, I realize that it may be the same theory.

Since I received my MS in physics (in 1995) I have been working on developing a methodology that uses the mathematics that other physicists will recognize to derive both the classical wave equation and Schrodinger's wave equation from the basic reciprocal relationship between space and time. If you want RS theory to be accepted, it will help to speak the same language, at least enough to communicate the validity. That will convince others that it is worth their time and effort to study the RS method.

Please contact me via email. I hope to submit an article to Physics and Philosophy journal and would like your opinion on it before I send it. I would also appreciate information on opportunities to get involved with LRC.

Sincerely,

Ted

Thanks for your comment Ted.

I read your article. It was well informed and well written.

ISUS has a history of attracting theosophy enthusiasts, including Dr. KVK Nehru, of India, who used to lecture regularly on the subject.

My focus is on the physics and mathematics of the RST. Its mathematics and geometry are simple but profoundly fundamental.

You will be interested in KVK's work with the Schrödinger equation here, but we have taken a different route here at the LRC, recognizing that the "periodic reversals" in the progression must be three-dimensional.

Now, this has nothing to do with the LST concepts of potential energy, but, while analogous to the fundamentals of energy-momentum relations, it is better treated using the 3D math of volume oscillations, which don't exist much outside our work.

The reason for this is obvious: A pendulum can swing from side to side, exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy in the presence of gravity, but how does one apply this to an expanding/contracting volume?

The bottom line is potential energy depends on location and we don't have locations in the same sense. Without a V(x) function, what good is omega(x)? It might be useful to have a pure wave solution, but it would be very unorthodox and I don't think many trained physicists would be attracted to it.

The thing is, Ted, the RST is a new system of theory. The fundamental assumptions are revolutionary and hard to get a handle on, at first. The best approach is to start over and not try to adopt the LST concepts that apply to a system trying to reduce reality to a few interactions among a few particles, based on f = mx (you have to imagine the two dots over the x, sorry.)

It's not just Newton's program of research that has to be left behind (including its relativistic modifications,) but even the fundamentals of the LST mathematical dimensions must be abandoned!

Imaginary numbers and their use to increase the dimensions of numbers from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3, through rotations in the complex plane and in quaternions and in octonions, must be recognized for what they are: detours on the road to understanding the reality of nature.

Admittedly they are indispensable for LST theory, but in spite of the remarkable progress the LST has enjoyed, we find that we can't get there from here: Nature cannot be described adequately with two, incompatible, physical theories, or something so baroque and convoluted as string theory.

I know this sounds harsh, but it's something that has to be faced by anyone wanting to enter the world of research into the universe of motion. The language is different, because the system is different. Researchers who cannot understand that, will, in my experience, have limited success.

On the other hand, it's well worth it, because learning to appreciate the unity of the tetraktys, in mathematics and geometry, as manifest in Larson's Cube, is one of the most exhilarating experiences I have ever had, illuminating not only the mistakes of the past, but the road ahead that is full of promise and adventure.

At any rate, I appreciate your interest and will be happy to comment on your paper. I will send you an email directly.

Hi Doug,

Thank you for the thoughts on Uuo. I assume you mean the preview for "The Inner Life of Quarks"? I'll paste the text here so I can refer to it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-inner-life-of-quarksIn 1869 Dmitri Mendeleev created the periodic table of chemical elements by noticing that elements' properties fit into a repeating pattern, which physicists later explained as a consequence of atomic structure. A similar story may be playing out in particle physics again today.

The 12 known elementary particles have their own repeating patterns, suggesting they are not truly fundamental but actually tiny balls containing smaller particles, which physicists tentatively call preons.

Other evidence argues against this possibility. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, along with several lesser-known experiments, may finally settle the question.

The comparison between the periodicity of elements and the particle is an insightful observation. Logic suggests two possibilities: either particulate matter is fractal, with atoms splitting to fermions, fermions splitting to the next level of periodic particle structure, etc, in an infinite regress - or, the preons comprising the fermions are *not particles*. (And not "tiny balls" either.)

And, as I see from what I've read so far in the New Physics blog... the latter is what emerges in the LRC RS theory. So preons are S|T combinations. (I haven't quite got my head around how I can visualise the displacement ratios against the unit progression background - I could use some help with that.) The fact that preons cannot be thought of as particles may account for the "other evidence" that "argues against this possibility".

(I hope this was the article you were talking about!)

I am about five years behind on the LRC research, by the way! I'm systematically reading through the *New Physics* blog and have got to the 2007 May 4 article. It's very well written and exciting, just a bit of a stretch for me to get my head around. (I've read more since I criticised the particle zoo in the above post - now I know it emerges in the RS.) Also getting into some of the cosmological scale work from Larson, Peret and Nehru.

As far as getting young people involved - I've told a few people in school about it and am putting links and thoughts on Facebook. Hopefully once I get a broad enough understanding of the work being done on the RS, I can talk about the system more competently without misrepresenting it!

I suppose I have a few questions...

**"Is the RS complete and coherent enough to bring to the table in the world of science?"**

**"Do we have a simple and accurate decription of the fundamentals of the system and current progress with the theories that the general public, especially young scientists, can easily understand it?"**

and **"How are we going to deal with the opposition that will inevitably arise from people who are substantially invested in the legacy system and have the power and will to shoot it down and not give it a fair chance?"**

If we can answer yes to the second question then we have the key to addressing the third question. We need to get this information spreading quickly into the public domain so people will start asking questions, and be there to offer answers. We need to be "wise as serpents, harmless as doves" - ie. not shoot ourselves in the feet by ignorantly attacking the established theory. Information is our armour and reason is our sword, to be very cheesy about it. (Not to fight people with - just old paradigms). That is why I asked the first question.

Of course, we need another armour as well. This system provides the basis for understanding the technologies that will massively benefit humanity in the next age. Some of these technologies, I understand, have been shot down (new energy) or kept secret (military FTL tech, Philadelphia expt) to keep the world enslaved. But I don't believe we'll go down like Tesla did. I believe God is now phasing out this world system and we must seek His guidance on who we need to inform about the RS, how we go about facing the adversary, and most importantly **when**.

It's all very exciting.

Hi Sam,

I'm pleased that you are reading the blog material and investigating the RST. Your excitement is convincing evidence that Larson's work will not be in vain.

I'm afraid the blog is rather disjointed and incomplete, I really write it for myself, to keep a record of ideas, during development, but if you can make sense out of it and it helps you progress in getting a grasp on the RST, that's great news.

As you probably know by now, Larson's work has two parts, his RST, a new system of theory, and his RST-based theory. We refer to his RST-based theory as the first reciprocal system theory, or RSt, making the distinction between the new system of theory and the theories based on that system.

Our work here at the LRC is to preserve his new system of theory and to use it to develop our own RSt, based on it. Larson's RSt is the first general theory of the physical universe and in my opinion is a master piece.

Unfortunately, we think he made an error early on in assuming 1D periodic reversals, when they should have been 3D, and this has set us off trying to follow his example, but in a different direction. Hopefully, we will be able to connect up again with his development at some point in the future.

Yes, I was talking about that article by Don Lincoln, and I give a link to it under another name, in my latest post to the Trouble with Physics blog, so you can read the entire article there, without buying it.

The best way to think of the unit displacement ratios against the unit progression is mathematically and then geometrically. The unit progression is an outward, eternal, progression of two numbers, s and t, reciprocally related, delta s/delta t, such as,

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

That is, if we pick any point in the ongoing progression, we can represent it with those numbers. But as soon as we pick a point, at s/t = 0/0, it expands from the point to a unit sphere, at s/t = 1/1. Now, where is the original point?

Obviously, we can't say because it has expanded to a sphere of many points. We can say how big the sphere is, what its radius is, what its surface area is, what its volume is, but to get to s/t = 2/2, the radius, volume and surface expands once again, and it is impossible to identify any one point on the surface as the original point, for they all proceed from it.

Yet, we can pick any one of the points on the unit surface at s/t = 1/1,and follow its expansion to s/t = 2/2, where we will again have a unit expansion, from 0 to 1, but its unit radius, surface and volume, will be distinct from the originals, now increased to 2 units.

In fact, one point on the new unit surface must contact the original point, regardless of which point on the first surface we choose. Thus, we see that we have a choice. We can continue to follow the expansion of the first point to n/n, or we can keep selecting a new point on the surface, each time the progression increases by one unit.

Now, since choosing to follow the expansion of one point on the surface can lead us back to the original point, and we are free to once again choose that point as the expansion point, we see that we can repeat this process indefinitely.

To be sure, this is a different mode of oscillation than the one we are currently positing, but in effect it is the same and it's clearly an easily grasped demonstration that the scalar oscillations can occur at various points in the unit progression, while it continues on normally.

Yet, I wouldn't say that this concept is clear and coherent enough in every case "to bring to the table in the world of science." The world of science, or the community of scientists, by definition, explains to the world how nature does what it does. This concept is so foreign, they normally dismiss it out of hand. We have to develop it into a useful science, not deliver it to existing science that has no use for it.

That said, the honest investigator, who recognizes the trouble with modern physics, can learn much from Larson's epitome "New Light on Space and Time," which is available for free online here and is selling like hotcakes here, before delving into his definitive work, *The Structure of the Physical Universe*, a revised edition in three volumes.

As far as opposition is concerned, we don't pay any attention to it. We are not competing for funds or recognition, but trying to develop the consequences of the system. If our efforts are successful, people will flock to us to understand it. If not, we had fun in the sun for a while.

The future place of the RST in society will be determined by the natural course of events, but I don't think we have to campaign in its behalf. If we enjoy it and the understanding and the growth that comes from it, the world will soon follow.

What I enjoy doing is explaining the trouble with physics, which was captured in Lee Smolin's book by the same name. Then, explain how the new system contrasts with the legacy system.

Like you said, "It's all very exciting."

Doug,

Thank you for a refreshing new perspective on the philosophy front.

I had a look at the article and your post and I'm encouraged by the similarity of the LRC preon combinations to the Harari and Shupe model. Well, what I mean is that when I saw the preon table you'd taken from the article I immediately assumed it was the LRC's!

OK. I get the idea of the point (0|0) expanding to a unit sphere (1|1) of points in all directions. Now let's say we take each and every point on the unit sphere and expand them in the same way (call them secondary unit spheres). Superimposing them all, we get our two-unit sphere (2|2) - of the same shape as if we simply continued expanding the sphere from the original point (0|0).

Now this is where I start extrapolating. Each point on the surface of the two-unit sphere has originated from only one single point on the surface of the one-unit sphere - that is, only **one** secondary unit sphere expanding from a point on the first unit sphere "touches" any particular point on the two-unit sphere. These points form a straight line: origin; point on unit sphere; point on two-unit sphere. Or, to put it yet another way, there is only one point on the two-unit sphere separated from a particular point on the first unit sphere by a distance of one unit.

Meanwhile, what about all the other possible points inside the volume of the two-unit sphere? Each of these points can be arrived at from exactly **three** secondary unit spheres expanding from three DIFFERENT points on the first unit sphere. To get to these points though, you have to turn through a certain angle after the first motion.

Except for one point - that is, the origin. **Every** secondary unit sphere expanding from the surface of the first unit sphere converges at the original point. And oscillating reversals from point to unit sphere back to original point (by superposition of secondary unit spheres) in cycles while time progresses on consitutes a SUDR. Vice versa for TUDR. Is that correct?

Am I onto something here or have I taken the analogy too far?

LOL.

You see, understanding the fundamental postulates leads to fascinating possibilities. I'm not sure that I follow your thinking correctly enough to judge the merits of your ideas one way or another, but the important thing is that you're now visualizing some possibility, whereas before, it was hard to get a handle on it.

Now, the thing is, this is not a philosophical exercise! LST physicists all agree: Space is expanding, carrying the aggregates of matter with it. Why they can't recognize this as scalar motion is beyond me, but just as few people in Newton's day could think in terms of inertia, or in terms of F = ma, or in terms of equal and opposite reactions, few people today can think in terms of 3D expansions/contractions in the context of eternal progression.

It is difficult. Maybe, that's why Larson chose not to do it, who knows, but as far as I can determine, it's an unavoidable consequence of the fundamental postulates of the system.

Did you read my FXQI paper on the reality of the point? I wrote that after having posted this article about Lee Smolin's keen insights into the trouble with physics.

Wow, what a mystery, what an enigma, what an adventure!

Welcome aboard Sam!

Thanks Doug, glad to be aboard! I really appreciate you responding to my queries.

I read your paper and I like the explanation of points as the centres of expansion-contraction oscillations. It will probably take me a while to grasp the full scope of the continuous/discrete problem in physics but I can sort of see that the 3D oscillations integrate the two. That's interesting.

Continuing with my attempts to visualise the oscillations in relation to the eternal progression. (!) After reading the paper, I think I can visualise the 3D scalar oscillations quite easily:

Likewise, in the 3D case of oscillation, any diminishing of the volume, during contraction, has to be transformed into the inverse volume, at its point of origin, until the entire volume has been inverted, whereupon the motion reverses.

Just one question to clarify - does the unit sphere in 3D space collapse to a point before it starts expanding in 3D time, or do the processes occur simultaneously? Conservation would need them to occur simultaneously I suppose.

Oh wait... this thing is oscillating in both space and time now - that can't be right, can it? So how do SUDRs and TUDRs relate to this? (I have a feeling it's not going to be so simple since they're ratios, not hyperdimensional bouncy balls. But maybe I'm closer than I think.)

Well, moving on.

One other thing I'm having trouble with is the nature of the units of space and time (which Larson gave definite lengths). I can understand them in terms of the scalar oscillation having unit amplitude. I'm not sure how they relate to the eternal progression, in the absence of any other motions. I.e. how can coordinate space progress one unit in all directions - is coordinate space full of little expanding bubbles? I can only visualise either space stretching (which doesn't make sense as then all photons, which are stationary, would be moving away from each other, and they aren't), or each unit of space expanding spherically, pushing adjacent units out of the way or overlapping with them.

That's probably far too many questions all at once (again)!

Hi Sam,

You wrote:

Just one question to clarify - does the unit sphere in 3D space collapse to a point before it starts expanding in 3D time, or do the processes occur simultaneously? Conservation would need them to occur simultaneously I suppose.

Yes, that's right, just as kinetic energy grows, as potential energy diminishes, and vice versa, in a swinging pendulum.

You wrote:

Oh wait... this thing is oscillating in both space and time now - that can't be right, can it? So how do SUDRs and TUDRs relate to this? (I have a feeling it's not going to be so simple since they're ratios, not hyperdimensional bouncy balls. But maybe I'm closer than I think.)

Yeah, well it's all conjecture until the consequences lead to observation. There is no doubt that the observed entities of nature are oscillating entities. In our system, the oscillation of a SUDR has to be 3D and that means it (a volume of space) must contract to a point, but if it does, then there has to be an inverse increase of volume to match its decrease, otherwise, like you said, it violates the symmetry, or law of conservation. The only inverse of space is time, but, if that’s so, how do we distinguish between a unit of oscillating space (SUDR) and oscillating time (TUDR)?

Well, the best answer I can come up with is that the only difference, from a unit (numbers) standpoint, is one of phase: If we use numbers, then the unit space oscillation might be:

s/t = ...3/3, 2/4, 3/3, 4/2, 3/3, 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 = 24/24,

while the unit time oscillation might be:

t/s = ...3/3, 4/2, 3/3, 2/4, 3/3, 4/2, 3/3, 2/4 = 24/24

Of course, this would be a God’s eye view. Material beings have to be on one side or the other of unit motion, therefore, the space unit is the inverse of the time unit, and which one is in the denominator depends on whether the observer is in the material sector (less than the speed of light) or the cosmic sector (greater than the speed of light).

But then, it’s confusing, because any observer will regard his sector as the material sector (displacement < c), while the other guy’s world is in the cosmic sector (displacement > c). The reason this matters is because the inverse volume is 27 times greater than the reference volume! So, it takes 27 volumes of space to fill one volume of time. I wish this were not the case, but that's how the math and geometry work out.

You wrote:

One other thing I'm having trouble with is the nature of the units of space and time (which Larson gave definite lengths). I can understand them in terms of the scalar oscillation having unit amplitude. I'm not sure how they relate to the eternal progression, in the absence of any other motions. I.e. how can coordinate space progress one unit in all directions - is coordinate space full of little expanding bubbles? I can only visualise either space stretching (which doesn't make sense as then all photons, which are stationary, would be moving away from each other, and they aren't), or each unit of space expanding spherically, pushing adjacent units out of the way or overlapping with them.

Everyone has the same problem explaining the expansion of space/time, whether in the LST community, or the RST community, so don't feel alone. My approach is pragmatic: Since we can't think of more than one point at a time, then just try to follow that one.

Think back to the surface of points that we discussed earlier. It's not possible to pick more than one point at the instant the surface magnitude reaches one unit (radius length), because, if it takes any time whatsoever to pick a point, there is no time left to pick another before the expansion moves beyond the one unit (or reverses.)

So, if every point is as likely as another to represent the original (every surface point being associated with its own radial out from the origin), then the logical situation is very similar to the probability and wave collapse concepts of quantum mechanics: as soon as we observe the expansion, or expansion/contraction, it collapses to one point and we are left with the dilemma of knowing either the size of the expanding surface that has no identifiable point location, or knowing the point position with no surface information. The two aspects of the expansion are mutually exclusive.

BTW, an interesting lecture on this by Feynman is available here.

Hi there :)

I discovered your website a few days ago and would just like to say that it has been responsible for several late nights over the past week (including tonight)! Putting it another way, RST is very exciting!

To give you some idea of my age, I'm in my final year of school in the UK. So I've a lot to learn. But at the current stage of my reading through the LRC site, I am beginning to understand some of the concepts. I suppose the "elementary particle zoo" is somewhat analogous to the zoo of legacy physical theories, embroiled in confusion and conflict of Tower-of-Babel proportions! To discover a theoretical system as elegantly simple as RST is a breath of fresh air for me personally (I was dreading the complexity of string theories), even though it'll take me a while to get my head around the it. I hope it does turn out to be the unified theory it certainly appears to be, from what you have written here.

To cut to the chase, I thought I might start a discussion on the "discovery" a few years ago of element 118. I wondered if anyone had a perspective on this event, given that RST predicts the highest possible atomic number to be 117.

Of course, it could be that the discovery will prove to be erroneous. If I remember correctly, the announcement of 118 and 116 was made and later retracted, then another claim was made.

Or is it possible that 118 could actually fit into the Wheel of Motion, at the very top (in position 5-4-0, written above Xe)? Or am I correct in thinking that the four "periods" (WoM as opposed to Mendeleev periods) are critical to the theory (because of Bott periodicity) and a fifth "period" is illogical or impossible?

Whatever the case, I suppose what can be said for sure is that half lives of these synthesised transuranic elements drop off to microseconds towards 117, and this must be strongly in support for RST given that 117 elements are not empirical but a natural result of the theory! Perhaps physicists have reached a limit to how accurately they can detect the synthesis of these elements in the nuclear collisions...

Anyway, if I don't end here I'll never get to sleep!

Best regards

Sam