Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Paragraph 1:

The Reciprocal System of Theory (RS) is a set of ideas that is claimed to be a theoretical framework that is capable of comprehensively explaining all physical phenomena from subatomic particles? to galactic clusters?. The framework, based on the work of Dewey B. Larson, an American engineer and author, was originally described in his book The Structure of the Physical Universe in 1959 and has more recently been published in three revised and enlarged volumes. The ideas are promoted by the members of 'The International Society of Unified Science?, Inc.' (ISUS) whose only stated objective is to "advance in all ways deemed feasible the Reciprocal System of physical theory as proposed by Dewey B. Larson".

I don't have a problem with this paragraph except for the word "only" in the last sentence, but I can live with it. I would remind editors that this paragraph (like all succeeding ones we will work on) should be considered in the context of the entire article before suggestions are made.

Doug 05 Sep 02 4:53pm MDT

--- I edited the temp article as promised above. It is a major revision. I hope it is much clearer now. I know that its NPOV needs a lot of work, but I could only work on the first two issues listed above for now. Please give me your comments, and I will try my hardest to make this work for us all. This is my first time working with images, so I may need to reduce their size, etc. I wish someone could tell me how to delete uploaded images as I made some mistakes and would like to clean it up. Doug 8 Sep 02 6:34pm MDT

Just tell me which ones you no longer use, and I'll be happy to get rid of them. There will be a more usable feature for that in the software soon. --LDC

ProgAlgo3.png, ProgAlgo4.png, WikiFigure3a.png are the ones to delete. Thanks Lee. Doug

I assume these questions are from Ed Poor. I'll try to answer them below.

This longer explanation raises some basic questions

  • What is the rule for the CA?
I guess you mean the rule that would cause a 1/2 displacement as shown in figure 2. Well, I don't know if there is one. I hope there is and as soon as I get my hands on Wolfram's new software, I will see if I can find one that will generate any given displacement, but I don't know of one now. However, the point being made isn't that a CA will generate such a displacement or that a CA and a New Kind of Science can be used to simulate the RST, but rather that the concepts in the RST can be represented using a CA like symbol.
Oh. Then what rules did Larson give?
Larson died in 1992. Wolfram's book was first published last May.
  • Is it true that when it says something is "increasing" it means "small at one point in progression and larger at a later point in progression"? And "later" means lower down in those images?
I'm not sure what you refer to with 'it says' here but I'll assume you mean the article itself. An increase in space means more locations of space and an increase in time means more 'locations' of time.
By "more locations in space" you mean more at one point in progression than at an earlier point in progression, right? In english, "increasing" means more at one point in time than at an earlier point in time. In RST, "increasing" means more at one point in progression than at an earlier point in progressinon. So in RST, "progression" means what non-RST people call time.
Don't make it harder than it is. 'more at one point in progression than at an earlier point in progression' means both increasing time and space, so there is no change in the meaning of the words 'increasing' or 'time'.
In RST, "time" means what non-RST people call "in the positive direction along the x, y, and z axes", and "space" means in the negative directions. I think I'm beginning to understand the jargon.
Doesn't appear like it. Consider the non-RST motions of locations in an expanding ('progressing') three-dimensional space (a volume) that have no inherent direction relative to a fixed reference system of x, y and z coordinates at its center other than outward. From any point in the coordinate system defined by x,y and z, the motion is outward in such a system, and the velocity of the motion is the number of units of outward movement per unit of one-dimensional time (clock time.) This is not difficult to see. It is the observed behavior of our own universe. What RST changes in this regard is the concept of one-dimensional time. It adds two additional dimensions to one-dimensional time and says that three-dimensional time is expanding simultaneously.
A unit of space or time is a finite discrete unit so you could say the total space from a given point of reference increases over time and vice versa. However, it's convenient to deal with the concept abstractly at first, because dealing with motion like this requires a rather sophisticated understanding of the reference frames involved and how they affect the perception of the motion. For example, if three observers, A,B and C, are observing each other from three galaxies in line with each other and at a distance such that the gravity of each has no effect on the others, the Progression would be increasing the space (and the time) between them.
Each would observe the others moving away from his location in space (also his 'location' in time - but let's not deal with that yet) at the speed of light. However, since the gravity-bound mass aggregate system of which they are a part actually consist of inward motion, opposed to the Progression, they and their surroundings do not disperse (become less dense - lol). But observer A would see B and C moving in the same direction away from him. Observer C, however, would protest and say that A and B were moving away from him in exactly the opposite direction. Observer B, would say that they are both wrong, because he could prove (doppler shift maybe) that they were both moving away from him in opposite directions. Who's right? They all are because scalar motion has no direction in space except motion imputed to it when one assumes a point of reference.
As far as 'later' meaning 'lower down in those images,' the answer is yes. The total elapsed time would be equal to the total number of rows. However, the total expanse of space would also be equal to the total number of rows in the case of unit motion. In the cases where displacement is present, the total space or time is less than the number of rows, depending upon the size of the displacement.
I see. So in general, the number of rows is the "total elapsed progression", which may or may not equal time.
No, the 'total elapsed progression' is always equal to the total elapsed time. Remember, the rows are the output of a computer program calculating the progression of space and time. If the total outward progression of space or time is less by x amount it is because an x amount of inward progression has occurred causing displacement, but the 'total elapsed progression' of time and space is always the same (inward + outward = total progression).
  • You show examples with three images. Is all of spacetime represented by a single 4-dimensional volume of which these images are three orthogonal slices? Or is all of spacetime represented by three separate 2-dimensional planes? Or is it something else?
The Fundamental Postulates posit 3-dimensional motion in discrete units, so a greater number of dimensions is not permitted in the RST. However, this requires that three dimensions of both space and time exist. But when considering both space and time together (motion), since space is scalar in three-dimensional time and time is scalar in three-dimensional space, taken together they are both scalar, hence scalar motion. To represent this scalar motion symbolically in order to abstract and analize it, one could use mathematical notation such as s/t = 1 or s/t = 1/2 as Larson does or something else.
In this article, I show that something else can be used that gives a clearer picture of what is meant and is analogous at least to the discrete systems of CA algorithms which accomplishes two things: 1) shows the scientific basis of the concepts, and 2) provides a more complete and visual (graphical) notation to be used in the abstraction. So, just as Larson can use s/t, s2/t2 or s3/t3 or various combinations of them in equations to deal abstractly with the RST concepts (but not without confusing some), so I can use three two-dimensional graphs to deal abstractly with the same concepts. I believe that Wolfram's discovery that CA's (simple discrete systems) can be used much more effectively than continous systems to study nature and especially since he now contends that nature (space and time) are indeed discrete, that it behooves us to immediately adopt his ideas and apply them to the RST. I am not saying that I understand all that is required to do this, however. I am just beginning, but, I am happy with the progress already made here. But I have made no attempt to use them quantitatively yet (waiting for the NKS Explorer to come available), so I only presented them as illustrations of the three dimensions of scalar motion to try to communicate the notion of the concepts involved. At this point, they are not intended to be used as one would use equations to obtain quantitative results, although I have some ideas along those lines that I hope to try soon. The short answer to your question, however, is that they represent the three dimensions of scalar motion.
So these 3 images are three orthoginal slices through a single 4D grid, not 3 separate 2D grids, right?
I honestly do not know what you mean here. What is a 'single 4D grid'? In the RST, motion is three-dimensional. So, its space and time aspects necessarily have three dimensions. We could represent this motion in various ways. One way is to treat each dimension separately so that we can examine the effects of variations in the motion of each dimension, this is what we are doing presently. But, we could, to make things clearer, combine them in some way too. For instance, to indicate that each 2D output of the program is calculating a different dimension of the same unit of motion, we could arrange them in a pryamid, with one initial unit of motion (middle black cell) shared by all three grids. I don't see where this is really helpful, however, except to more clearly indicate that we are calculating three dimensions of one single unit of motion. Or, alternatively, we could combine the three dimensions at the cell level by making each 2D cell a three-dimensional cube on one 2D grid, but this would proclude calculating variations in the motions of the individual dimensions.
  • If these are three orthogonal slices of a 4D grid, then what do you call a cell that lies in the space half of one axis, but the time half of another axis? Is that a space cell or a time cell?
This is a good question that occurred to me as well. The question really is interesting because, up to this point everything else in scalar motion seems to fit the CA perfectly. My thinking goes to the initial single cell, is it space or time? Well, actually since the RST postulates units of motion only and hence space and time cannot be considered independently, apart from motion, but only as reciprocal aspects of motion, then it follows that the initial cell is neither space nor time, but a single unit of motion. As the motion progresses down the graph row by row, we see its two reciprocal aspects progressing, but the center cell in each row still represents the initial unit of motion. Seems to work, huh? lol
  • What does black and white mean in the picture? Is the black region the history of a particle, and the white region is a vacuum? Or is the black region the universe (which will later contain particles) and the white region is outside of the universe?
Well, remember these graphs are used to represent an abstraction of scalar motion, so just as an equation can represent an abstraction of something physical, but not represent the actual entity itself, so too can these graphs (which, in the case of unit scalar motion at least, is actually an output of a computer program) represent the abstraction of the physical entity, but not the entity itself.
So the black cells represent motion with its two reciprocal aspects, space and time. Considering each row one at a time, one can count the number of units of space and the number of units of time associated with the unit of motion (the center cell) at any given point in the progression. Therefore, we can call it the Progression Algorithm (PA), if you will, and its output calculates the motion (speed) of the Progression. Again, I should stress that in the RST, there is nothing but motion, so the ideas of a vacuum and particles contained within it are concepts that have to be abandoned, as hard as that seems to be.
Having said that, the concept of physical entities arises when there begins to be displacements in unit scalar motion, so an uncritical view of nature is immediately drawn to the conclusion we've all inherited, that space is a container of things that act and are acted upon as time marches along, but in the RST, this is not true and it's Larson's contention that the problems we experience in attempting to understand what is happening is due to this natural prejudice to consider only the concept of matter in container space.
  • If you have a universe containing two particles, do you get two triangles side by side? Wouldn't that mean that one of them is stuck on the space side and one is on the time side? Or is it that the left side of both trinagles is "space" and the right side of both triangles is "time"?
It's the latter. Consider the graph as a computed output of the progression of one unit of motion. You can analyze one unit of motion at a time, as we are doing with these graphs, or you can go on and analyze how two or more units of motion interact, which might require some physical arrangement of the graphs to provide for this interaction as you seem to be suggesting. However, I don't think this would result in anything meaningful. I tend to think that the approach will turn out to be to combine the algorithms somewhat like we do in mathematical equations where we combine the symbolic representations of each entity according to rules of algebra or we calculate the change in the results of an equation produced by different values of variables.
How does Larson say to do it? Does he say how it would be done?
Larson doesn't use CA algorithms, he uses mathematical equations.
  • How is the scalar motion calculated from the three triangles? If the sides have space slopes of 1,2,3 and time slopes of 4,5,6 respectively, then is the motion (1+2+3)/(4+5+6) or is it (1/4 + 2/5 + 3/6) or is it something else? I still have no idea what s3/t3 means.
The three CA outputs are calculating the units of time displacement per unit of space or the units of space displacement per unit of time for each dimension of a single unit of motion. So, to have slopes of both in one output constitutes an error in the algorithm, only one or the other is permitted. We can represent the results with various notations - 1:x, x:1 or 1/x, x/1 etc., but 1 will always appear on the left or right or in either the numerator or denominator. For instance, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 represents the displacement of figure 5. The article doesn't explain how combining these displacements to form various motion combinations results in the various theoretical entities found in the RST, because it's beyond its scope. Suffice it to say here, however, that each dimension of scalar motion contributes to the total combination of an entity's constituent motion which can be expressed in units of space and time displacement in each dimension. Therefore, s, s2 and s3 terms and t, t2 and t3 terms refer to the dimensional space and time aspects of these motions.
I think I'm still not understanding the jargon. In figure 4, the motion is 1/2 in the first dimension, 1/2 in the second, and 1/1 in the third, right?
Yes, that's right.

And these are all different dimensions of a single, scalar motion, right? So is that single scalar motion some kind of average of the three numbers, such as 1/1.5? Or does "scalar" mean something other than "a single real number"?

No, scalar means scalar, a single real number, but these three single real numbers are not averaged together. They represent independent magnitudes in each dimension of three-dimensional motion. Again, the way they are combined has not been explained in the article, because it is too complex.
Maybe "scalar" means "three real numbers, one per dimension"? When you say s3/t3, does the superscript not meant raising it to the third power? So if s is 2, then s3 is 8? Does it mean something other than that?
Correct, "scalar" means "three real numbers, one per dimension." Larson uses these real numbers (magnitudes) in the RST model of three-dimensional motion, which initially is at unit speed in all three-dimensions. But as various geometric possibilities are considered, means for deviation (speed displacement) from unity are found in each dimension. Because the motion exists as discrete units, this displacement can be confined to the dimensions of an individual unit of 3D motion. Because these constituent motions are effective in different dimensions, their individual contributions to the total displacement of the unit is exponential. Thus, the dimensions of the units of one-dimensional motion are s/t (exponent 1), the dimensions of two-dimensional motion are s2/t2 and the dimensions of three-dimensional motion are s3/t3. So, expressing x units of electric displacement (defined as one-dimensional motion in the RST) in these terms takes the form x s/t (x units of one-dimensional motion.) The expression for x units of magnetic displacement (defined as two-dimensional motion in the RST) in these terms takes the form x s2/t2 (x units of two-dimensional motion), and the expression for x units of mass displacement (defined as three-dimensional motion in the RST) in these terms takes the form x s3/t3 (x units of three-dimensional motion). Hope this helps.

It sounds like RST isn't a physics model that's defined well enough to simulate in a computer. It's more of a philosophy. The article should make that clear. It sounds like some of the other people in this discussion have had similar misunderstandings of it.

--- It's been a long time now since any comments have been submitted (about two months). Where do we go from here? In view of weight of the arguments against the lack of complex mathematical formulations constituting a genuine basis for relegating the RST to pseudo-science, I cannot see how it can be allowed to stand at this point. So, if you agree, then what remains to be done? Doug, Nov 1, 2002

I don't agree. The only basis for calling RST pseudo-science is that prominent scientists call it pseudo-science. Fixing up the math won't change that. This article as always going to say that mainstream scientists dismiss RST. Feel free to add as much additional info about RST as you want. --Ed Poor 15:16 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to read the entire discussion here, or to study the theory under discussion in depth. Those who know me know I'm a staunch defender of the dogmatic status quo, but all the same I'm afraid I will have to remove most of that "criticism" section. I'll try to think of something to replace it with. The way to beat pseudoscience is by being smarter than them, not by throwing up silly strawman arguments which confuse a physical postulate with a mathematical one. For examples of postulates which are on suspiciously similar philosophical ground to the ones described here, see Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics and [1]. -- Tim Starling 05:56 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

When someone has the time, would he or she please explain to me why the assertion is made that the RST "denies the existence of matter and energy?" This allegation is just preposterous on the surface. I presume, however, that there is a reasonable basis to it and I would truely like to understand it thoroughly. Doug 11 July 2003

Forgive me again for coming late to this debate, but can you fill me in? Are you, Doug, responsible for most of the current content of the article? Are you the most vocal proponent of RST here? Are there any others? What is the extent of your knowledge of RST? Do you say it is preposterous because you understand RST intimately? Or is it because you have a rough understanding of RST and you just have a feeling there is no such denial in RST?
Yes, I am responsible for all the article except the Criticism section and the statements in the beginning relegating the theory to pseudoscience. There are no other proponents that I know of. My knowledge of the RST is fairly good, although I am a layman, not a scientist. I say its preposterous because its just a stated allegation with no basis in fact, but its typical of most of the criticism given me - how can one write a good npov article when the criticism is so shallow? Your criticism is what I need, something that has teeth to it, but most of the current criticism to date is not even reasonable as you noticed when you edited the Criticism section. It was embarassing. As far as the denial of matter and energy allegation goes, I say it's absurd because the RST DERIVES matter and energy in terms of motion, i.e. as a reciprocal relation between space and time. It doesn't deny their existence. Conventional physics DEFINES matter and energy period. There is no answer in conventional theory to questions such as "What is matter?" "What is energy?" "What is charge?" However, in the RST the answer is clear: they are motions and combinations of motions. The theory postulates that that is all there is in the universe, nothing but motion, but that motion results in matter, energy, charge, etc., in short the observable universe. So, I suppose one could say that the RST denies the orthodox ORIGIN of matter and energy, except that there is none, so these critics just don't bother with such a minor detail, but just state that "the RST denies the existence of matter and energy," an absurd and preposterous statement, since only a lunatic would deny the existence of matter and energy, and neither Larson nor his supporters are lunatics.
If you understand RST intimately, then by all means delete the "allegation".
You have to understand the history of this article, the revert wars, the polemics and the previous agreements that have been made to get to this point. It's been horrendous and has raged for years. I agreed not to edit the Criticism section and they let me write the proponent side. I want to make this a good article, but, while I'm not the best editor, I'm the only one participating that can explain what the RST is on its own terms. What I need is help from an interested third party that isn't solely interested in supressing the ideas, but in getting a fair and accurate article written. I like your idea of simplifing it breaking it up into sections - a general overview and a more detailed tutorial. The overview would have to contain both views as to its scientific status, but once done, it needs to be linked to Physics so that people can find it. Right now it's just orphaned, something I agreed to permit in order to bring some order to the chaos surrounding this article early on. Doug
What is the current sentiment on the "mathematical complexity" section? It seems to me to be just another pro-RST reply to an anti-RST strawman. The most successful theories in physics have been the simplest ones. Quantum mechanics, for example, is based on just a handful of strikingly simple definitions and classical analogues. Non-mathematical theories are often unfalsifiable, but there's nothing wrong with simple mathematical ones. I want to delete the entire section, and any references throughout the article to the strawman itself.
-- Tim Starling 06:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You are exactly right, it is an answer to certain editors' challenge that the RST is properly rejected on grounds that it "has no mathematical basis," and consequently can make no predictions, is unfalsifiable and pseudoscience. The truth is that it's primarily a clarification of the concepts of science, rather than a new mathematical formulation of reality. Therefore, it does not introduce another set of partial differential equations able to predict things better than existing theories. It's much more than that. It is able to derive the observable physical entities and their properties and interactions from first principles, preserving the known mathematical descriptions of these. Thus, there is no need to reformulate much of what already has been done mathematically, but that does not mean that the RST is not capable of producing complex, scientific consequences which can be predicted and tested to both verify and falsify the postulates upon which it is founded. Doug

Okay, I've finally gotten around to reading the entire article. My first observation: this is not an encyclopedia article, this is a tutorial introduction. It is far too long, and spends most of its time explaining details rather than summarising all the relevant interesting facts. It will have to be rewritten. Perhaps this one can be kept as tutorial introduction to the RST, but it is certainly unacceptable as it stands.

I agree. I think it ended up this way as a result of trying to answer previous challenges and criticism, but its way too detailed as it stands. Doug

Here's the second thing I noticed: "if physicists observe that gravitation is indeed propagated and that the transmission process reduces the energy of the transmitting source while increasing the energy of the receiving destination... such an observation would falsify the RST hypothesis that gravity is not propagated in any manner..."

In that case, this theory is in the "trivally false" category. Despite the fact that the writer seems to be misunderstanding the role of energy in gravitational propagation, the propagation of gravity has already been proven by way of binary neutron star measurements.

I should have said "propagated at finite speed" for one thing, but I will rewrite it to make the point clearer that I'm trying to make: That the force of gravity, i.e. F= G(M1M2/r^2) is not the result of some kind of radiated or propagated force between gravitating bodies traveling between them at light speed or any other finite speed in the RST. The force of gravity in the RST is generated by the inward scalar motion of matter itself, and thus any proof that this is NOT the case immediately and completely falsifies the fundamental postulates of the RST. The fact that gravity perturbations can be detected (instantaneously),however,is not proof that the source of gravitational force is propagated, as the same effect (instantaneously) would be present in the RST. The tautology not withstanding, I have to risk stating that a theoretical propagation of a postulated spacetime warp may be possible to construct mathematically, but it's still theoretical. It appears so ironic to me that we don't see any discussion of the falsibility of GR, while the argument that the RST is not falsifiable is used to relegate it to the pseudoscience trash bin. Can anybody show how GR or QM can be falsified as easily as I have just shown how the RST can be? Doug

The rest of the article was just boring hand-waving except for one thing: the fact that Larson claims to have calculated various properties of compounds and elements. I duly looked this up on the web: [2]. Indeed he does have lots of lists of calculated vs. experimental properties, but at no stage does he give the procedure for performing these calculations. There is no way to tell if he just made them up. This is in contrast to computations of this kind in the regular chemistry literature, where methods are always explained in great depth.

-- Tim Starling 09:11 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

He gives the equations for the making the calculations, maybe he could have done more, but this should suffice for anyone wanting to repeat them. By the way, you state in your last edit of the Criticism section that "There are many accurate predictions which have come out of modern physics, and for RST to predict the same thing, it would have to essentially reproduce all of modern physics under a different formalism." May I ask what is the formalism of modern physics? - Doug