Reciprocal System of Theory

Legacy: This article describes a concept that has been superseded in the course of ongoing development on the Organic Design wiki. Please do not develop this any further or base work on this concept, this is only useful for a historic record of work done. You may find a link to the currently used concept or function in this article, if not you can contact the author to find out what has taken the place of this legacy item.

Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physical theory, a Theory of Everything that is based on the concept of motion, rather than matter. With only two, fundamental postulates, Larson was able to construct a theoretical universe based on just the inverse relation between space and time, that he called "motion." (It has nothing to do with something moving--"motion" is just a ratio between space and time - i.e., change.)

Larson's universe, referred to as the Universe of Motion, has some different premises than conventional theory:

Because mathematical relations are based on the multiplicative inverse (not the additive inverse), the condition of rest is unity -- not zero. Larson calls this motion the natural datum, and is the speed of light. In Larson's universe, change is measured as a displacement from unity (the speed of light). A simple analogy to understand this concept is the see-saw, where the fulcrum is unity and distances are measured outward from the center, towards the far edges. Conventional science starts at the edges, measuring towards the center.

Because of this inverse, see-saw relationship of space and time, Larson's universe also contains two "halves" that he calls sectors. The first is the material sector, the one of our everyday experience, consisting of 3-dimensional space and clock time. Because of the reciprocal relation flipping across unity, he discovered the cosmic sector, the realm of 3-dimensional time and clock space. These two halves of the universe sit in opposition to each other, and are connected through his concept of motion. As a result of this structure, the Universe of Motion tends to look inside-out to those with a conventional, scientific background--whom are usually the first to ask, "How can you have motion, without something moving?" Larson describes this as the "actors on the stage" approach, where you have things in a setting, and the two are entirely different from each other. Conventional science has "atoms" playing parts on the space/time stage of the Universe. In the Reciprocal System, however, the actors and stage are the same stuff--motion--acting in relative relation to each other. As such, the only fixed reference in a universe of motion is a speed--the speed of light, which Larson refers to as the "progression of the natural reference system."

Larson's Universe Of Motion is fundamentally a different natural geometry that is radically alien to Cartesian notions of space, or even Einsteinian notions of space-time. It is important to grasp that in the UOM, space and time do not independently exist, therefore a principle challenge to the newcomer is to let go of the familiar space-as-container conceptualization. This is really not that hard when one considers the mental gymnastics required to accept non-Euclidean (curved) space, as in the Einsteinian model.

Scalar Motion

The major innovation of the RST is the acknowledgement of scalar motion, generally not recognized in conventional thought. Scalar motion is simply an omnidirectional, 3-D expansion or contraction. An example of this is what Larson calls the Progression, which accounts for the omnidirectional recession of galaxies, as well as the radiation of light. Gravitation is then understood as simply the inverse (reciprocal) of the Progression as a result of Mass. Mass, in turn, is another form of scalar motion at the atomic scale that is merely the inverse of velocity.

The UOM is Euclidean, so the contrivance of curved space is not needed to explain the forces of gravity and electromagnetism. However, inverse space (actually, an aspect of inverse motion) is perfectly legitimate, and is variously referred to as inverse space, time-space, or counterspace. This is somewhat analogous to the imaginary plane of complex numbers. The discovery of Geometric Algebra, derived from Clifford Algebra, is a major advance in grasping such a concept. Also required are GA concepts such as subspaces and pseudoscalars.

Thus, the UOM is monistic in the sense that all forces, energy, and properties of matter are reducible to complex combinations of scalar and vectorial motion.

• http://www.lrcphysics.com/faq/ introduction to RST
• http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/385 - comparison

Summary of differences from conventional thought

• The natural datum from which things are measured is unity, the speed of light.

• Measurements are made in natural units, which are just the aspects of motion: space and time. Every measure can be expressed as a relationship between space and time; no other units are needed, though Larson's natural units can be converted to conventional units. Note that these are not the same natural units as conventional physics.

• The Reciprocal System is based on the reciprocal relation: the multiplicative inverse, with a minimum quantity of one. Speed is measured relative to this unity as displacements, either an increase (n/1) or decrease (1/n) from unity.

• Because of the inverse relation, scalar motion has no zero or negative values. These ratios are always counting or natural numbers.

• Larson refers to the reference frame of our conventional experience as “extension space,” containing three coordinate dimensions of space and clock time.

• Because of the reciprocal relation between space and time, the Reciprocal System also includes another view that contains three coordinate dimensions of time and clock space, the Cosmic sector. This is analogous to the concept of “antimatter,” though it would technically be “inverse matter.”

Notable Actors

• Dewey B. Larson - the original inventor of the theory and author of many books related to the RST. Most notably, Larson developed the theory in the slide-rule age, before computer science revealed the discovery of fractal geometry or permitted computer simulation of physical properties.
• Ronald Satz - one of the original members of the ISUS. Satz is very proud of the fact that he is a credentialed scientist and is loudly critical of other researchers who are not. In spite of his off-putting arrogant treatment of other ISUS members, particularly Douglas Bundy, he has contributed many valuable papers and independently carried out research validating the RST. He remains an active defender of RST against unfair criticism.
• Douglas Bundy - Current president of ISUS and perhaps one of the most visionary contributors. Bundy has no science degree but must be given credit for extending research of the RST beyond Larson's conception, integrating it with domain of fractal geometry, geometric algebra, Fullerian geometry, and developer of Reciprocal Mathematics. He has had many valuable insights into the subtle geometry of RST and is credited for discovering the relationship between the RST and the Bott Periodicity - PDF. Bundy is active in the Larson Memorial Research Center.
• Bruce Peret - Bruce departed from ISUS to re-evaluate the RST and has reformulated it as RST2 that addresses some of the shortcomings of the original geometrical interpretation with new understanding. He remains webmaster and curator of the many RST websites. He is one of the great thinkers of the system and articulated the differences between the standard model, RST, and RST2 .
• K.V.K. Nehru - author of many peer-reviewed scientific papers developing the ideas of RST and co-contributor of RST2.
• Xavier Borg - engineer and independent researcher http://www.blazelabs.com/index.htm

Achievements

• http://www.lrcphysics.com/rst/ - summary

Unification of Periodic Table

http://www.lrcphysics.com/wheel/

Natural Units

Larson is the first to reduce the known physical quantities to natural units of space and time:

• http://library.rstheory.org/books/nbm/13.html - original publication
• http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/spu/spuappa.htm
• http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp - expanded

Difficulties

The RST suffers somewhat from a lack of distinguished taxonomy, thus many terms that appear synonymous with their conventional usage, are not. Likewise, because the geometry and mathematics are alien to more traditional thought, confusion can result from ambiguous notation.

Sites

http://rs2theory.org/books/rs2/Introduction.html

Notes / To-Do

Bundy

• http://www.lrcphysics.com/wheel/http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/spu/spums3.htm
• http://www.lrcphysics.com/part-v-larsons-new-system/

Bott Periodicity and GA

• http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/7628/bott-periodicity-and-algebraic-geometry
• http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/154909/8-periodicity-clifford-clock-bott-periodicity-ko-dimension-in-noncommutative

From The Neglected Facts of Science by Dewey B. Larson:

For application in physics, force is defined by Newton's Second Law of Motion. It is the product of mass and acceleration, F = ma. Motion, the relation of space to time, is measured on an individual mass unit basis as speed, or velocity, v, (that is, each unit moves at this speed) or on a collective basis as momentum, the product of mass and velocity, mv, formerly called by the more descriptive name "quantity of motion." The time rate of change of the magnitude of this motion is then dv/dt (acceleration, a) in the case of the individual unit, and m dv/dt (force, ma) when measured collectively. Thus force is, in effect, defined as the rate of change of the magnitude of the total motion. It can legitimately be called "quantity of acceleration" and this term will be used in the following discussion where it is appropriate.

Summary

Notice how simple it is now:

	m=1	equivalent	m>1
1st derivative*	velocity v; change in distance/time = ds/dt; 'motion'	= mv	momentum mv; mass times velocity; 'quantity of motion'
2nd derivative	acceleration a; change in velocity = dv/dt	= ma	force F = ma ; mass times acceleration; 'quantity of acceleration'

* Traditionally, this is the first derivative of position, however it is important to note that in a Universe of Motion, position is merely the resultant 'snapshot' of motion when framed in spacial geometry, but this distance or interval has no objective reality. Position is an artifact of imposing this subjective construct of space on the objective reality of motion. In Larson's concept where motion is fundamental, it would perhaps be more accurate to refer to position as the integration of velocity (or its 'inverse derivative') and hence, acceleration and force would be re-framed as the first derivatives of velocity and momentum, respectively. But conventional physics is so hopelessly confused with its arbitrary units and ad-hoc forces (and other imaginary quantities) that this change in notation would be quite difficult to accept.

You don't find this clear explanation in any college science book.

Force is a property of motion

Back to Dewey:

It follows from the definition that force is a property of a motion; it is not something that can exist as an autonomous entity. It has the same standing as any other property. The so-called "fundamental forces of nature," the presumably autonomous forces that are currently being called upon to explain the origin of the basic physical phenomena, are necessarily properties of underlying motions; they cannot exist as independent entities. Every "fundamental force" must originate from a fundamental motion. This is a logical requirement of the definition of force, and it is true regardless of the physical theory in whose context the situation is viewed.

In the absence of an understanding of the nature and properties of distributed scalar motion, however, it has not been possible to reconcile what is known about the "fundamental forces" with the requirements of the definition of force, and as a result this definition has become one of the disregarded features of physics, so far as its application to the origin of the forces is concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that force is specifically defined as a property of motion, the prevailing tendency is to treat it as an autonomous entity, existing prior to motion. The following statements, taken from current physics literature, are typical:

"So forces provide structure, motion, and change of structure."

"The gravitational force, the electric force, and the nuclear force govern all that happens in the world."

"The electric force is perhaps the fundamental conception of modern physics."

"As far as anyone knows at present, all events that take place in the universe are governed by four fundamental types of forces."

It is commonly recognized that the usual significance attached to the concept of force is in some way incomplete. Richard Feynman's view is that force is something more than the defined quantity. "One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin," he says, and he emphasizes that "this is not just a definition." Further elaborating, he adds that "in dealing with force, the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present." This is unacceptable in an "exact" science. If a definition is incomplete, it should be completed. But, in reality, the definition is not incomplete. The prevailing impression that there is something missing is a consequence of the refusal to recognize that this definition makes force a property of motion.

The status of motion as the basic entity is the reason for the "material origin" that Feynman emphasizes. Without the presence of a "physical body" there is no effective motion, and consequently no force.

In other words, the so-called fundamental nuclear forces - even the force of gravity, are simply artifacts of our ignorance. These are merely the secondary effects of the interaction of particular motions of matter.

See also

• Speed of gravity measured - experiments that say gravity travels at the speed of light, but even GR advocates are not happy with Fomalont and Kopeiki's approach