Noble Realms

spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Noble Realms Forum is now closed. It will remain online as a searchable archive of posts spanning 3/25/04 to 2/22/08. Members may still log in to use email functions, but there will be no further posting activity. Thank you to everyone who has contributed over the years. - Tom/montalk

#1 2007-07-26 08:06:14

scalaradii
terran
From: time-to-time
Registered: 2007-07-13

Reciprocal Cosmology

I'm re-reading Dewey Larson's Beyond Space and Time.  Is there anyone here familiar with Larson's Reciprocal System? BS&T is his using the RS as a backdrop to postulate about the metaphysical region.

In BS&T, Dewey says the only innovation of RS theory is that space and time have no independent existence outside of motion, they are simply reciprocal aspects of motion. In the general sense, they are completely reciprocal, time is 3-dimensional and space progresses. In space-time, 3-d space and clock-time, it's easy to see that space progresses witnessing the galactic recession. Regarding timespace, with 3-d time and clockspace, it's easy for me to see this as the dreaming realm, even though Larson doesn't. Emotion and thought have solidity and shape in the dream-time and the ever-changing environs indicate to me a notion of clock-space.

It's interesting in that he did not consider the cosmic (timespace) aspect of universe to be metaphysical, he considered it an aspect of physical universe. Since time and space are not independent, that would follow. He's comfortable stating that events in the temporal region are non-material and physical.

So in BS&T, he considers the metaphysical to be independent of space and time. In this sense, the universe consists solely of motion, and the question for metaphysics then changes from religion's can there be existence beyond the physical , to can there be existence outside of this particular type of motion? Which is not only a different question but a different kind of question.

reciprocalsystem.com

Larson:

"In all essential respects this new theory is just the kind of a product that the scientific world would like to have. It is a unified theory; all of the principles governing all sub-divisions of physical activity are deduced from the same premises: two fundamental postulates as to the nature of space and time. It is a self-consistent theory; there are no internal contradictions or inconsistencies. It is an accurate theory; all of the deductions from the postulates are in full agreement with the results of observation and measurement, within the margin of accuracy of the latter or, at least, are not inconsistent with any of these results. It is an unequivocal theory; the consequences of the postulates are specific and definite and at no point are there any recourse to a “postulate of impotence” or other evasive device to avoid admitting a discrepancy. It is a rational theory; it provides definite and specific explanations for everything that happens, without calling upon ad hoc forces or transcendental agencies. It is a complete theory; the logical and unavoidable consequences of the postulates describe, both qualitatively and quantitatively, a complete theoretical universe, and it is not necessary to utilize any supplementary or auxiliary assumptions, nor is it necessary to introduce the results of observation as a foundation for the theoretical structure, because the theoretical deductions from the postulates provide for the existence of the various physical phenomena–matter, radiation, electrical and magnetic phenomena, gravitation, etc.,–as well as establishing the relations between these entities."
The process whereby the compound unit of motion that we call an atom is produced by applying a rotational motion to a previously existing vibrational motion, the photon, is typical of the manner in which the complex phenomena of the universe are built up from simple foundations. We start with the motion of the space-time progression: a uniform linear, or translational, motion at unit velocity. Then by introducing a displacement and thus altering the space-time ratio we create a vibrational motion. Next the vibrating unit is caused to rotate. The addition of this motion of a different type alters the behavior of the unit–gives it different properties and puts it into a new physical category.

All of the more complex physical entities… are similarly built up by compounding the simpler motions previously existing. The factor which makes the great proliferation of these physical entities possible in spite of the fact that only one component–motion–is available for their construction, is the wide variety of forms in which this motion can exist, because of the directional freedom introduced by the three-dimensionality of space and time. First, there is a distinction between two general geometrical types of motion: (1) rotational (R) and (2) linear or translational (L). Then in addition to unidirectional motion of these two types, which we will designate by the symbols as shown, there may also exist vibrational motion of either type; that is, motion which is otherwise similar but which reverses direction periodically. For these we will use the symbols RV and LV. Furthermore, some of these motions can exist coincidentally in more than one dimension. Thus we may have a unit rotating in only one dimension (R1), another similar unit rotating in two dimensions (R2), and still another rotating in three dimensions (R3). Finally, there is a substantial difference in behavior (properties) between velocities, which are above unity (multiple units of space associated with single units of time), and those, which are below unity (multiple units of time associated with single units of space).

The concept of physical entities as compound motions is one of the greatest contributions which the Reciprocal System makes toward the clarification of the physical picture, and it is one which is particularly significant because the existing situation in the atomic and “elementary particle” fields is nothing short of chaotic. Present opinion is that the atom is a composite of smaller units. This idea originates primarily from the observation that, under appropriate conditions, atoms disintegrate, and in the process smaller particles make their appearance. Although it is now generally admitted that the particles which emanate from the disintegrating atom do not have the properties which atomic constituents, if there are any such, must necessarily possess, the observed disintegration is nevertheless accepted, in current scientific thought, as proof that the atom is composed of “elementary particles.”

Furthermore, no clue has ever been discovered as to the nature and origin of the force that holds
the “parts” of the atom together, if any such parts exist, even though an enormous amount of time and effort has been devoted to searching for some kind of an explanation, “probably more man-hours than have been given to any other scientific question in the history of mankind,” we are told. The only recourse thus far has been to fall back on an ad hoc postulate that a “nuclear force” exists for this specific purpose and nothing else. This is identical, except in the method of its expression, to the solution, which our primitive ancestors found for the difficult problems with which they were faced. The purely hypothetical “nuclear force” invented to hold the “parts” of the atom together for the baffled physicist is exactly the same kind of a thing as the “demon” that would have been invented for the same purpose in an earlier era, had the question arisen then.
No longer is it necessary to invoke the aid of spirits or demons–or their modern equivalents: mysterious hypothetical “forces” of a purely ad hoc nature–to explain how the parts of the atom hold together. There is nothing to explain because the atom has no separate parts. It is one integral unit, and the special and distinctive characteristics of each kind of atom are not due to the way in which separate “parts” are put together, but are due to the nature and magnitude of the several distinct motions of which each atom is composed.

At the same time, this explanation of the structure of the atom tells us why such a unit can expel particles or disintegrate into smaller units even though it has no separate parts; how it can act, in some respects, as if it were an aggregate of sub-atomic units even though it is actually a single integral entity. Such a structure can obviously part with some of its motion or absorb additional units of motion without in any way altering the fact that it is a single entity, not a collection of parts. When the pitcher throws a curve ball, it is still a single unit–it is a baseball–even though it now has both a translational motion and a rotational motion, which it did not have while still in his hand. We do not have to worry about what kind of a “force” holds the rotational “part,” the translational “part” and the horsehide covered “nucleus” together.

There has been a general impression that if we can get particles out of an atom, then there must be particles in atoms; that is, the atom must be constructed of sub-atomic particles. This conclusion seems so natural and logical that it has survived what would ordinarily be a fatal blow: the discovery, as previously mentioned, that the particles which emanate from the atom in the process of radioactive disintegration do not have the properties which are required in order that they may be constituents of the atom. Three kinds of particles are ejected from the disintegrating atom. The gamma particles are photons, units of radiation, which have never been visualized as possible atomic constituents. The alpha particles are charged helium atoms, and it is generally conceded that they are not suitable elementary “building blocks.” The beta particles are electrons. While current theory looks upon the electron as one of the atomic constituents, the present viewpoint is that the electrons emitted in radioactivity were not present as such in the preexisting atom but were created in the act of emission. Furthermore, the properties which an electron must have in order to be a constituent of an atom are totally unlike the properties of the electron that is actually observed. The whole concept of an atom constructed of “parts” thus bogs down in confusion.

It is now apparent that all of this confusion has resulted from the wholly gratuitous, but hitherto unquestioned, assumption that the sub-atomic particles have the characteristics of “parts“; that is, they exist as particles in the structure of the atom, they require something in the nature of a “force” to keep them in position, and so on. When we substitute motions for parts, in accordance with the conclusions of the Reciprocal System, the entire situation automatically clears up. Atoms are compound motions, sub-atomic particles are less complex motions of the same general nature, and photons are simple motions. An atom, even though it is a single unitary structure without separate parts, can eject some of its motion or transfer it to some other structure. If the motion which separates from the atom is translational, it reappears as translational motion of some other unit; if it is linear vibration, it reappears as radiation; if it is a rotational motion of less than atomic complexity, it reappears as a sub-atomic particle; if it is a complex rotational motion it reappears as a smaller atom. In any of these cases, the status of the original atom changes according to the nature and magnitude of the motion that is lost.
The explanation of the observed interchangeability of the various physical entities is now obvious. All of these entities are forms of motion or combinations of different forms, hence any of them can be changed into some other form or combination of forms by appropriate means. Motion is the common denominator of the physical universe.

In the past there has been considerable speculation about the possibility that energy might have such a status; that all-physical entities might in some way be merely different forms of energy. In a sense this is true, as wherever there is motion there is energy. But energy is a scalar quantity, and it does not have the capability of being subdivided into the multiplicity of distinct categories that are required in order to account for the great variety of physical phenomena. It is true that there are subdivisions such as kinetic energy, electrical energy, etc., but these are merely auxiliary classifications; they play no part in the measurement of energy. An erg is an erg, whether it is a kinetic erg or an electrical erg. Motion, on the other hand, is vectorial, and all of the infinite variety resulting from its three-dimensionality is reflected both in the qualitative and the quantitative relations. A unit of vibrational motion is not fully equivalent to a unit of rotational motion. But it can be converted to a unit of rotational motion by appropriate processes.

The reasons for the existence of certain limitations on the transformations of this kind are practically self-evident. A structure requiring a total of n units of motion cannot be formed from a single unit containing less than n units, a rotating unit cannot be formed from purely translational units unless the equivalent of a mechanical couple is available, a very complex structure cannot be formed by a single process, and so on. But any physical structure can be broken down into simple units of motion, and under suitable conditions, any possible structure can be built up from simple units of motion, as all physical structures are constructed entirely of the one entity: motion.
As indicated in the foregoing discussion, the observed sub-atomic particles–neutrons, electrons, etc.–are not parts from which atoms are constructed; they are complex motions of the same general character as the atoms, but with a lower degree of complexity. The term “sub-atomic particle” is still quite appropriate in this new context and it will be retained in this work, but the term “elementary particle” must be discarded. There are no “elementary” particles in the sense of basic units from which other structures are constructed. The particle is smaller and less complex than the atom, but it is by no means elementary; the elementary unit is the unit of motion.
The place which the sub-atomic particles occupy in the hierarchy of motions can easily be identified by a further consideration of Chart A. As that chart indicates, the atom is a structure with a three-dimensional rotation; that is, rotation is taking place around all three of the mutually perpendicular axes. But it is not essential that rotation be three-dimensional. It can equally well be two-dimensional or one-dimensional. In fact, one-dimensional rotation is more familiar in our everyday world than any other. Chart A therefore needs to be modified to provide a place for rotation in less than three dimensions. Chart B shows how the system looks after this addition.
Each added dimension of rotation alters the behavior of the rotating units–changes their properties–and the three groups of rotating particles are therefore easily distinguished physically.

The most striking difference is that between the three-dimensional unit, the atom, and the sub-atomic units. A full consideration of the effect of the various types of rotation on the properties of the rotating units is beyond the scope of this volume, but it is evident from the points brought out in Chapter VI that one unit cannot enter into a permanent relation with another unit unless the rotational forces are effective in all three dimensions. The sub-atomic particles therefore have more of a temporary and evanescent character than the atoms. The differences between the two-dimensional and one-dimensional units are less obvious, but can be identified on closer study.
In the detailed development of the characteristics of the atomic and sub-atomic rotations of the material type carried out in an earlier publication it was shown that there are 117 possible three-dimensional rotational combinations, three two-dimensional units, and two one-dimensional units. The one-dimensional units are the electron and the positron. The two-dimensional units are the neutron, the neutrino, and a particle, which has not yet been identified because it closely resembles the hydrogen atom and probably changes spontaneously to the hydrogen status. The 117 three-dimensional units are, of course, the known chemical elements plus a few additional elements beyond the end of the list of those thus far identified, elements that are unstable in the local environment."

I find its beauty is in its elegant simplicity. One does not have to possess advanced physics knowledge to follow the Reciprocal System, just a basic English literacy, and perhaps some high-school physics, because one is merely checking its extrapolations against its premises. Some of the more fascinating aspects of the RS are witnessed when its conclusions correlate with observations.

     If all is motion, and space and time are in all respects reciprocal aspects of this motion, their relation one to the other is a scalar relation. A scalar relation is one of magnitude, inward/outward or postive/negative. A scalar motion is omni-directional, or a motion without specific direction. The scalar relation of space-to-time is illustrated by the fact that to go a certain distance in half the time (1/2) is the same as going that distance twice as fast (2/1)---speed being the scalar measure of the motion. So this scalar relation between time and space presents them as having inverse relations. That is, if the motion of an object is directional in space then the temporal component of the motion is scaIar or without direction.

    "The quantitative measure of motion in space is velocity, and the mathematical definition of velocity is v = s/t. Here the term s is a vector[directional] quantity representing the displacement in space. The term t is scalar, since time has no direction in space, and the term v is then a vector quantity representing the space displacement per unit of time. The analogous quantitative expression for motion in time is () = t/s or delta is equal to t divided by s. Here the term t is a vector quantity representing the displacement in time. The term s is scalar, since space has no direction in time. The term () is then a vector quantity representing the time displacement per unit of space, this being the time-oriented quantity corresponding to velocity in space-oriented phenomena.
From the foregoing, the reason for the scalar nature of the space-time progression, which is motion in both space and time, is evident. Since time has no direction in space and is therefore a scalar quantity so far as motion in space is concerned, and for similar reasons, space is a scalar quantity so far as motion in time is concerned, it follows that motion in both space and time cannot have a direction in either space or time. Hence motion in space-time is scalar. In the equations of motion in space, time is scalar. In the equations of motion in time, space is scalar. In the equations of motion in space-time, both space and time are scalar.
...to consider the relations between the several major regions of the universe in more detail, ..shown graphically, in a linear sequence, ....At one end we have the time region, in which n units of time are associated with one unit of space, and hence all motion is in time. Next is the time-space region, in which n units of time are associated with m (a smaller number) units of space. Then comes the space-time region, in which n units of space are associated with m units of time, and finally the space region, in which n units of space are associated with one unit of time."

So when Larson theorizes that space and time are reciprocal in all aspects, 3-d time is theorized. It's natural to assume that a time-dimension would be similar to a spatial dimension. Although it cannot be proven definitively that time has more than one dimension, however many dimensions time may have, the motion of time that we sense as physical creatures is not a movement through space. Time does not move directionally through space. We do not turn our heads to see the past. It is a component of the space-time progression background accompanying the compound motions of one's reference. The rotational motion of the Earth is our diurnal/nocturnal reference. If time is 3-dimensional as space is, it's dimensions will be temporal not spatial. Only one dimension of 3-d time can and will, of course, be an aspect of a material event. Conversely, mind-brain-body will be a component of a temporal event while we are physical, lucid dreaming for example. Wherever occult science and fringe subculture presents descriptions of what has been traditonally called the astral, one can theorize that the cosmic body is operating in the time region or the time-space region.

"The reciprocal principle tells us that for every entity and every phenomenon of our material universe there is another, which is identical in every respect except that space and time are interchanged. What we call the material universe is therefore only half of the total; it is one sector of the universe as a whole. There is another half, which we will call the cosmic sector, that is the mirror image of the material sector.

There may be some question as to why an adjective like “cosmic” was selected to designate the phenomena of the second half of the universe rather than “non-material,” which is a seemingly obvious choice since present usage practically forces us to call our familiar half the “material” sector. It appears likely that the use of the term non-material” would lead to confusion, as some of the entities normally considered non-material are definitely part of the material sector of the universe as herein defined. The neutrino is a good example. There is also an element of convenience in using a special adjectives such as “cosmic” inasmuch as we will be able to identify the phenomena of the cosmic sector, very few of which have names of their own, by the names of the corresponding phenomena of the material sector with the addition of the word “cosmic.” Thus the analog of matter in the cosmic sector will be known as cosmic matter, abbreviated c-matter. Use of the expression “non-material matter“, on the other hand, would be rather awkward."

This presents Mind as a cosmic entity, and as a non-local operator. Think of when you catch something in mid-air that was inadvertently dropped. The volume transmission of neuro-electro-chemical pulses, the kinesthetic proprioception and orientation involved, all after the visual-kinesthetic awareness has registered something was dropped, would have to be a non-linear event with more cosmic components than material. The local material drop and physical reorientation to catch would merely be the physical component. Perception-pulse-reorientation seemingly simultaneous would have imperceptible motions in n-dimensions of time within the units of space making up the material body.

Last edited by scalaradii (2007-08-10 17:42:04)


Sacred is the prayer that asks for nothing.
Seeking to give thanks for every breath we take.
Blessed are we inside this prayer
For in the New World we will be there
The only Love there is
Is the Love we make.
---- Prince

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson