## General Discussion > Here We Go (Again)!

The last post I was able to write was replied to by bperet. I was not permitted to answer. His post follows below:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Douglas Bundy wrote:

The question is, what is the consequence of introducing the "direction" reversals into this initial condition? In Bruce's theoretical development, he asserts that rotation is a view of time progression from the spacetime sector, if I understand correctly; that is, 1D spatial vibration is a consequence of 1D temporal rotation, which does not involve a "direction" reversal at all, since it is a linear progression, like a spiral into infinity, but it is perceived as a linear vibration, "a perceptual artifact" of the linear progression of time, I believe.

Technically, it is not "rotation", it is a "turn" (an unbounded rotation... angle can go from 0 to infinity, just as a linear translation can). The vibration arises from the birotation, and can be defined by Euler's relation, where linear vibration "y(x)" is defined by the two counter-rotations, expressed as exponents, "-i kx" and "+i kx":

But that is MY view, based on Nehru's research, not what Larson describes. I find it to be more comprehensive, however, since it easily accounts for polarization, birefringence, the Zeeman effect and others that are unaddressed by the simpler model Larson uses.

The advantage it has over the direction reversal that Larson uses is that there is no ambiguity at all about the waveform--a direction reversal, in a "discrete unit" sense, can only be of integer magnitude, which would result in a square wave. Operating in a linear geometry, one could assume a linear interpolation between changes of direction, resulting in a triangle wave. Larson refers to it as the "projection of a circumference upon a diameter", which is exactly what birotation is.

The Euler relation is also nice because the driving birotation of SHM is not an accelerated motion, as Larson's SHM is--it is a continuous and uniform change of angular magnitude, just like the progression of the natural reference system.

Also, the use of the natural exponent matches nicely with the work on inter-atomic distances in Basic Properties of Matter, where again, the natural log is used as the basis to compute the effective distance between atoms, based on temporal rotation.

Douglas Bundy wrote:

"In Nothing But Motion, Larson wrote:

There have been some suggestions that the number of possible directions (and consequently displacements) in three-dimensional space ought to be 3 x 2 = 6 rather than 2³ = 8. It should therefore be emphasized that we are not dealing with three individual dimensions of motion, we are dealing with three-dimensional motion. The possible directions in a three-dimensional continuum can be visualized by regarding a two-unit cube as being an assemblage of eight one-unit cubes. The diagonals from the center of the assemblage to the opposite corner of each of the cubes then define the eight possible directions."I repeat again the important point he makes here: "It should therefore be emphasized that we are not dealing with three individual dimensions of motion, we are dealing with three-dimensional motion."

"...in three-dimensional space", not time-space or space-time. The context here is extension space, where a randomly distributed scalar motion (of ONE scalar dimension) is expressed as a 3-dimensional motion. This is why the electric displacement requires 8 units to increment a magnetic displacement (has to fill up the cubes, so to speak).

Douglas Bundy wrote:

If we denote the dimensions of these pseudoscalar/scalar ratios, we get two possibilities: ds^3/dt^0 = 1/2, or dt^3/ds^0 = 1/2. In other words, the "direction" reversals create the fundamental entities, or speed-displacement units of the system. Except for the dimensions of the pseudoscalars, this conclusion follows Larson perfectly

Are you sure about your dimensions here? dt0=1 (for any value), so doesn't ds^3/dt^0 = 2/1?

Douglas Bundy wrote:

Larson used 1D oscillation to get his fundamental entities, his fundamental speed-displacements. Thus, the dimensions of the unit spatial speed-displacement were ds^1/dt^1, so he wrote it ds/dt = 1/n, the exponent 1 being understood, as is customary. His next step was to rotate this oscillation two dimensionally; that is, his concept was that the 1D oscillation provided something to rotate.

The dimensional problems here are interesting, because technically, the SHM only reduces ONE dimension to zero--the other two are still progression at unit speed and cannot be discounted, so you have 1/1 x 1/1 x 1/n = 13/(12 n1)

Douglas Bundy wrote:

Scalar motion is motion by definition of changing space and time alone.

Changing the magnitudes of space and time, not space and time, per se.

Douglas Bundy wrote:

The second dimension of algebra takes us into the world of complex numbers by virtue of the ad hoc invention of the imaginary number, but Bruce insists that, by attributing the "imaginary" axis to the temporal aspect of unit progression, there is a great fit.

That's not exactly correct. A complex quantity is still 1-dimensional, not a "second dimension of algebra". That is one of the advantages of using a complex quantity to represent motion: you have the "real", spatial axis, which is translational and rectangular-Euclidean, and the "imaginary", temporal axis, which is rotational and polar-Euclidean. It is still a 1-dimensional equation. When it comes to atoms, which have a linear-Euclidean spatial position and a polar-Euclidean rotational system, it's a breeze to calculate.

And the "ad hoc" imaginary quantities in this respect work wonderfully with the equations for inductors and capacitors, since they are already represented as complex quantities--it just adds some new meaning to those equations, bringing the concept of "coordinate time" into the imaginary realm.

But again, this is MY APPROACH, not Larsons. To get around some of the difficulties a purely linear system imposes, Larson had to come up with a few devices, like multiple "reference points" and eventually having to introduce 1/2 quantities (which, IMHO, breaks the discrete unit postulate).

Douglas Bundy wrote:

As he wrote above, we spent a lot of time discussing these fundamental aspects and had a great time doing it, but in the end, I think, rotation is the wrong way to go.

The Reciprocal System is built upon rotation... every particle and atom, every isotope, every magnetic and electric field is rotational. Apparently Larson did not reach that conclusion...

Douglas Bundy wrote:

The reason I think this is that there is no such thing as scalar rotation. Rotation requires a changing angle, but to define an angle one must have two lines, and to have two lines one must have four points. If the angle is to change, the points have to change locations, and that brings us back to vectorial motion.

That's only true if you try to apply LINEAR rules to a POLAR region... if you stick with polar rules in a polar region, it makes a lot more sense. Can't bake an apple pie with oranges!

Douglas Bundy wrote:

A 3D spatial, or temporal, expansion/contraction cannot be cubical, but must be spherical, since it is scalar (actually pseudoscalar), which means change in all directions simultaneously.

The geometric appearance will be defined by the geometric rules of the environment; a polar realm will give you a sphere, a rectilinear realm will give you a cube.

MODERATOR NOTE: No one can speak FOR Mr. Larson, nor definitively say what he meant in his works. They are ALL our OWN VIEWS and interpretations. Nothing is to be gained by knocking other people's research, or trying to invalidate theirs in favor of your own. Please keep that in mind when posting--I will not allow this go to back to a flame war again. That benefits NO ONE. Please be considerate of others, their ideas and feelings.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I will reply in subsequent post.

The only reason that I can see that Bruce cut off the discussion here is that he didn't want to spend the time and energy to answer my assertions. I can understand that, but it shows how much we exhibit the same attitude that we diss in the LST community. They feel that they don't have the time to defend "nonsense" challenges, and so just dismiss them with the power of their "authority."

Of course, their "authority" places them in the position of being the sole judges of what is "nonsense."

Bruce's point, which he uses to relegate my comment to the "nonsense" category, and which he enforces with his "authority," is that the three-dimensional motion to which Larson refers applies to one scalar dimension only. That is, one, displaced, scalar dimension forms a three-dimensional system in "extension" space, which is the 3D motion of Larson's cube.

It's a clever argument, and one I'll bet Larson himself might even have supported. Alas, however, we will never know in this life.

Nevertheless, my argument is not based on Larson's authority, but on mathematics. Scalar, or pseudoscalar, magnitudes, by definition, do not have the property of direction. Instead, they have a "direction" property only. That is to say, they can be positive or negative, increasing or decreasing, but they cannot have "eight directions" that have any other meaning than they do in this sense of polarity.

As a scalar magnitude, the eight directions referred to are:

+ + + +

- - - -

+ + + -

+ + - -

+ - - -

- + + +

- - + +

- - - +

However, these are not simultaneous directions that yield a resultant vectorial direction, or one summed direction in extension space, but simultaneous "directions," or polarities, that cannot be reduced to a resultant, because they are parts of a whole. They are 8 parts of a single description describing the components of one, 3D motion, which can expand or contract, over time, as one motion.

This is a crucial distinction to make, and it is why Bruce cut me off. In another thread, he illustrates Larson's concept of three independent scalar dimensions:

Larson's concept of three scalar dimensions

Notice that Bruce inserts the word "independent" in the chart of the first postulate, which is not part of the wording of the first fundamental postulate of the RST, but clearly it is interpreted this way in Larson RST-based theory, his RSt.

Again, the reason for taking issue with this interpretation of the fundamental postulate is mathematical, and logical. It's the only consistent conclusion we can make, which is what my work attempts to show.

The trouble is, of course, is just that following this line of thought eliminates the concept of rotation as a fundamental motion in an RST-based theory. However, the illogical concept of "scalar rotation" is fundamental to Larson's RSt, Bruce's RS2, and LST-based quantum theories, which makes its elimination just too iconoclastic for words.

I'm sorry about that.

Bruce asked:

Are you sure about your dimensions here? dt0=1 (for any value), so doesn't ds^3/dt^0 = 2/1?

referring to my comment

If we denote the dimensions of these pseudoscalar/scalar ratios, we get two possibilities: ds^3/dt^0 = 1/2, or dt^3/ds^0 = 1/2. In other words, the "direction" reversals create the fundamental entities, or speed-displacement units of the system. Except for the dimensions of the pseudoscalars, this conclusion follows Larson perfectly

Obviously, he doesn't understand the issue. The question is "What are the space/time dimensions of the progression?" The fundamental postulate posits motion existing in three dimensions and in discrete units, with two reciprocal aspects, space and time. In the ordinary equations of motion, vectorial motion, the space involved is measured as distance, a one-dimensional unit of length, d = s^1.

Since the time aspect of the equation is a scalar quantity, by definition the dimension of its unit is t^0. But, in the velocity equation, v = d/t, as it's usually written, all three terms are one-dimensional, assuming that the missing exponents are equal to one.

Writing them out, v^1 = d^1/t^1, one can see that this is dimensionally incorrect, since the exponent of the denominator must be subtracted from that of the numerator. To be dimensionally correct, it should be written v^0 = d^1/t^1.

Yet, velocity has direction, which means by definition, it can't be scalar. The only answer is, of course, to recognize that the time unit entering into the equation is a scalar, or dimensionless, unit, so the dimensionally correct equation is actually v^1 = d^1/t^0.

In the case of undisplaced scalar motion, clearly the motion is not one-dimensional velocity, since it is motion in all directions, by virtue of the fundamental postulate. If we let sm be 3D motion, then the equation sm^3 = s^3/t^0 is the only dimensionally correct form.

The measure of this motion, over time, generates an expanding volume, rather than an increasing length, from any arbitrarily selected point of origin.

There is no escape from this conclusion. It is proven by inspection. Consequently, when the "direction" reversals are introduced, the ratio of space to time is changed from 1s^3/1t^0 to 1s^3/2t^0, because the unit volume, the space aspect of the equation, reverses "direction" at the unit boundary, contracting back from 1 to 0, while the time aspect continues increasing normally.

Thus, at t0, the equation is 0s^3/0t^0;at t1, it is 1s^3/1t^0; at t2, it is 2s^3/2t^0. But at this point, the radius of the 3D space volume is 0, not 1, just as an oscillating length would be 0 at this point, even though the elapsed time would be equal to 2 units at this point.

In other words, the expansion/contraction of the 3D SHM confines the 3D volume to one unit over time. Hence, in x units of elapsed time, the space/time ratio will always be equal to 1x/2x.

Simple enough, but one has to think carefully about it, due to customary assumptions that are normally forgotten.

Bruce wrote:

Douglas Bundy wrote:

The second dimension of algebra takes us into the world of complex numbers by virtue of the ad hoc invention of the imaginary number, but Bruce insists that, by attributing the "imaginary" axis to the temporal aspect of unit progression, there is a great fit.

That's not exactly correct. A complex quantity is still 1-dimensional, not a "second dimension of algebra".

That is one of the advantages of using a complex quantity to represent motion: you have the "real", spatial axis, which is translational and rectangular-Euclidean, and the "imaginary", temporal axis, which is rotational and polar-Euclidean.

This is a good example of misunderstanding the mathematics involved. The real numbers are the scalars, the first dimension, 1^0 units if you will - the counting numbers. The problem with counting numbers is that there are no negative numbers, since any counting number squared is positive.

To get a negative square root, mathematicians invented an imaginary number completely *ad hoc.* This enabled them to add a second dimension to the scalars, They call them complex numbers, because they have two dimensions. The thing is, though, they can use them as one-dimensional numbers, 1^1, since a unit line (1^1) is one-dimensional.

We call this, then, the second dimension of algebra, because it is one dimension up from the 0D scalars. The third dimension of algebra is the quaternions, while the fourth dimension of algebra is the octonions.

However, Bruce uses the complex numbers in strange way, at least strange to the LST mind, but strange even to the RST mind! I don't want to knock his approach, I just don't understand it at all. Maybe it's perfectly understandable to some, but it's confusion to me.

Even if it does make sense somehow, it is easy to see that the pseudoscalar/scalar algebra of the octonions, the fourth dimension of algebra, is far more powerful in a 3D universe of motion. Bruce is excited about the success of applying complex numbers to electrical theory, but the fact that Maxwell's four equations can be written in one, very simple equation, using the fourth dimension of algebra should be even more impressive.

It is, at least to me.

Bruce wrote:

Douglas Bundy wrote:

As [Bruce] wrote above, we spent a lot of time discussing these fundamental aspects and had a great time doing it, but in the end, I think, rotation is the wrong way to go.

The Reciprocal System is built upon rotation... every particle and atom, every isotope, every magnetic and electric field is rotational. Apparently Larson did not reach that conclusion...

No duh! Isn't that the point? Scalar rotation is an oxymoron. In a scalar system, everything is scalar or pseudoscalar. Rotation cannot occur fundamentally in such a system. It can only emerge from it, after physical entities are able to take up positions relative to one another.

Just as the LST community found out to their utter dismay, points (i.e. scalars) can have NO extent, by definition. Until an RST-based theory is developed that deals with this fact, we will have no more ultimate success with our system than they have had with theirs! As witnessed by the utter failure of Larson's RSt photon concept.

What Bruce and Nehru have done recognizes this "lacuna," but their turning to rotation, albeit in a different form, will not solve the fundamental problem of the point anymore than the LST community's turning to rotation solved their fundamental problem with the point. It can't. It can only delay the inevitable.

It's too bad I get cut off for daring to say that the emperor has no clothes, but I'm sorry, he's quite naked here!

Hi,

Sorry to say im not a mathematician/scientist like you are.

i just wanted to post a note that i found you in a quite bizar way..

i was reading 'the Ra Material / The Law of One' (1981) which is the work

of llresearch.org. it is a exact transcript of sessions where

the research group communicated with an external entity through

a person which was in trance (while she/the instrument was unconscious).

The questioner referred to Dewey's RST, where the 'ra's answer was along the lines of:

RST approaches Creation better than popular science does.

The entity(Ra) tries to be an 'humble messenger of the Law of One',

(only replying on questions which the questioner asks, thus not simply giving us everything, and not forcing information upon us)

'Ra' actually wants to inform us on laws of Creation.

Where actually this LoO provides insight in Creation to such an extent that (all) popular religions seem to be a perverted version of this info, suddenly

RST pops up and gets even more credit than popular science :)

Yeah, I got to admit that's really weird.

RA and the RA Material are the bailey wick of Bruce Peret, who use to work for llresearch, and one of his pet peeves is that the RST acronym should be RS (which means the same thing as BS in Europe), not RST.

To have someone refer to Dewey's work as the RST in this context, rather than the RS, would be a cruel blow I think!

Hi Doug.

Sorry but im dutch, so i cant exactly follow your sayings like 'bailey wick, cruel blow, pet peeves'.

The name 'Bruce Peret' does not sound familiar. LLresearch authors are:

Don Elkins, Carla L. Rueckert, James McCarty.

Bruce Peret is not mentioned in these pdfs

I've searched "the Ra material / The law of one" pdf books on 'RST', but i couldn't find it.

Both the questioner(Don Elkins) and 'Ra' mention "physics of Dewey B. Larson" and "physics of Larson" multiple times, but no 'RST'.

So i must have found the incorrect abbreviation RST somewhere else. sorry.

These are the books i'm referring to "Ra material/ Law of one" by llresearch.org

'Ra material' transcripts as free pdf

But they're als available as paperback.

There's acually quite a nice review on amazon:

Reviews on Book One (five in total)

ps.

I guess you've read about pyramid shapes and their affect on

chi/prana/diamagnetic/aether/orgone..

im now reading book 3.

here they get detailed on how/what the Gyza pyramid can do. also other shapes

are talked about.

and i don't think this is some crazy mumbo jumbo(I've seen spiri-wiri stuff.)

Maybe the descriptions here could get you somewhere?

its sessions 55-58.

Doug,

Are you still active on this topic ?

Horace

Several years ago, I disabled this discussion board because I got tired of fighting the spam, but I want to re-enable it now, because I am not allowed to post my views on the ISUS discussion board again.

The reason for this is, obstensibly, because I allegedly submitted a "series of posts [containing] wildly inaccurate and misleading information regarding Larson's concepts [that] is designed to be inflammatory in nature and flame-baiting, in violation of the ISUS terms of service."

The link to these posts they refer to is broken, so I have to guess which ones they are, but it's fairly obvious. I tried to answer the accusation, but they won't even permit my defense to be published.

The only recourse I have is to continue the thread here, even though I hate the discussion software on this site. Regardless, here we go!

I will first link to thread on the ISUS site and then post my replies (from now on) here. The thread is:

Euclidean versus Cartesian geometry