Reciprocal System #347-Bruce Peret-RS2-104b-"Scalar Motion" [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right how's everybody doing tonight uh welcome to my channel this is an educational Channel and we focus on uh theories of everything all-encompassing theories uh Magnum opuses of people that you've never heard of before uh the esoteric and the Obscure um and the uh very useful but that you probably haven't heard of it uh because there are certain uh people out there that like to maintain the status quo and they don't want to bend from their Paradigm or admit that they overlooked something or that they um commit to actually learning something new and so they uh barricade the doors and don't let uh new research enter into their sphere um and so we're trying to uh shed some light on that today is the 347th video that we've done on Dey be Larson's reciprocal system of theory Mr Larson um put out his theory uh in the 20th century uh had his first Inkling way back excuse me way back around um 1930 and finally uh put out his two fundamental postulates in uh the late 1950s uh and then took his two fundamental postulates and wrote up um his um BAS basically took his his postulates and uh went through a period of deduction where he said well okay if this is if these are my postulates then uh this is what is the result of my postulates um and I went through those in a number of uh videos earlier called the outline of the deductive development of the reciprocal system uh so you can go back and take a look at those but basically he deduced uh a theoretical universe and then he um compared his Universe to um the universe that the mainstream scientists had come up with through their observations and measurements and uh it was um a lot of interesting work came out of that uh in general larsson's um Universe was almost identical to the Newtonian Universe except in those areas that were uh what you would call uh so-called relativistic areas where um Einstein uh had to correct um make revisions of the Newtonian Universe those were the same areas is that um Larson's theoretical Universe also adjusted um but Larson's uh revision of Newton I think is much more um sound uh he's he's uh using a fundamental Theory and not just uh picking and choosing and using somebody else's mathematics and it's conceptually sound he Larson uh tells you why uh he's veering off from Newton and then he shows you um he shows you why you know it's not just oh here's the new math here's the different way of doing it but he's actually explaining why uh why he's coming up with these different things so uh I think it's uh very um useful now uh Larson died in 1990 and he left behind many books and articles and his postulates and uh since then there have been um you know a small group of people who have attempted to push the Fe the theory forward into new areas and to solidify it and to teach it and um two of the main people involved in this are Dr Bruce pet and Dr KV K neru uh and they came up with what you call rs2 and that is the re-evaluation of the reciprocal system what I feel was uh needed revisions Larson admitted that he was he he could have made some mistakes in his derivations even though he believed that his uh his the fundamental theory is correct uh whether it was applied correctly in all cases uh was another matter and so uh paret and nou have done some great work in revising things where where needed and one particular revision that we've gone over is with the fundamental postulates and I've I've basically in my summaries here of all of these videos I've kind of gone with larsson's postulates uh when I tried tried to explain the theory but now that we've covered uh the rs2 postulates and and kind of shown that they are a little bit more encompassing and inclusive um I think we're we're going to try to stick with these uh rs2 fundamental postul at least explaining this going forward so to get the basic gist of of the reciprocal system basically Larson is saying that um you know the universe is not made out of matter the universe is not made out of energy it's not uh consisting of a unified field of forces but uh the universe is made out of motion and for Larson um other people have arrived at that conclusion in the past uh luminaries such as Bart and Thomas Hobs but Larson makes made his uh more distinct distinctive because he defined motion as the relationship between space and time and um so uh there are some caveats to that and those are kind of in the in the fundamental postulates now these are the rs2 fundamental postulates the universe is composed of one component motion existing in three dimensions in discrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time and then the second postulate is the universe conforms to the relations of ordinary mathematics its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is projective so those are the two fundamental postul that is the basis of all of the reciprocal system and it is um uh deduced you can deduce a whole theoretical Universe from this now I I'm not exactly sure here I if I were revising this postulates I would maybe add one more word which would be scalar motion the universe is composed of one component scalar motion um because uh there's kind of a fundamental difference between motion as we normally think of it and scalar motion which is a kind of a fringe uh thought of as being kind of a fringe anomalous kind of motion a scalar motion is a motion that has a magnitude just like your normal motion think of uh velocity the car is going 20 mil an hour due east you know 20 miles of space in one hour of time in the dire Direction due east but a scaler is something that has only magnitude it has no units attached to it um no directions attached to it and Larson builds his Universe out of the scalar motion not out of vectorial motion or or velocity so um I would maybe also add that concept of a scalar motion the universe is composed of one component scalar motion and I'm not exactly sure why pet doesn't include that um but I I bet you he has a good reason um and I'll probably figure it out at some point but uh so those are the three main things about uh about the motion here the universe is composed of one component motion uh scalar motion now scalar motion what is Larson would call that clock time and clock space clock time the time the time is always getting later and later and later and later but in no specific Direction and uh so we understand that concept of the clock the clock is always getting later and later and later um but clocked space is the universe is getting farther and farther and farther apart but in no specific direction and you can Envision this using a balloon with dots on it you blow up the balloon all the dots are moving away from each other but in no specific Direction This is a scalar outward motion and this was also observed um that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from each other okay so there is no specific Direction but just a motion um away from each other so that's clock time and clock space that really is encompassing scalar motion and then you have coordinate time and coordinate space that is the three-dimensionality of it XYZ coordinates we generally think of space in that way but not so much time in that way but time also has three dimensions time and space are are are reciprocals of one another so by definition they have the same properties so what what quality adheres to one is also going to adhere to the other so we know uh generally that that the clock is always getting uh later and later and so we have to uh attribute space having that same uh uh that same quality and we know space to be three-dimensional so we also attribute that to time coordinate time and then the discrete unit postulate both space and time come only uh in um discrete units you have to have a full unit of space and uh in order to have space and you have to have a full unit of time in order to have time so um if you don't have a full unit then you don't have anything and if you have exactly one unit of space in one unit of time space over time being speed one unit of space over one unit of time is the speed of light Larsson refers to that as unit speed uh so unit speed in for larsson's system is basically the background this is what's always existing which makes sense in a universe of motion in a universe of motion you expect motion to be the primary thing and the first thing uh you know that is there the thing that's always there so you have uh the speed of light now this goes against a what Einstein is saying where Einstein is saying that the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe in Larson system the speed of light is the midpoint of the universe the null point the zero point the origin the reference point The Ether of this universe and that there is an entire half of the universe that's moving faster than the speed of light which Larson refers to as the cosmic sector along with the half of the universe that's moving slower than the speed of light which Larson calls the material sector this is the half that that Einstein knows about now um fortunately uh the cosmic sector and the material sector are generally reciprocals of one another and so all you have to do to understand what's going on in the cosmic sector is to understand what is going on in the material sector and then invert the roles of space and time so for example in the material sector you have relationships based on coordinate space three dimensions of space and clock time the clock is always getting later and later but when you cross that speed of light boundary and move into the cosmic sector you have coordinate time three dimensions of time and clock space the clock is always getting later later and later so that's just the general idea how how uh how it works okay now we're looking at uh actually an article here uh that was written by um Bruce paret Dr pet and uh he he has a series of about nine articles that are rs211 rs212 rs2 103 Etc this is rs2 104 and it is uh about it is titled scaler motion so we're going to learn a little bit about scaler motion now we started this article last time so if you want to hear the beginning of this you want to watch yesterday's video um but today we're going to take over Larson just got done talking about uh you know what a scaler is something that has a magnitude um but no units attached to it no Direction no um you know no any kind of units of you know pounds or um you know distance anything like that SC scaler is just the the magnitude and then there's also scalar orientation um where you're uh using two different numbers a ratio uh basically greater than equal to or less than is the scalar orientation um so if you're putting one over the other you know you have less than one one or greater than one okay now um getting into the rest of this article recall that the minimum scalar magnitude is unity and it is a finite quantity so the ratios of A over B or B over a will never become undefined because neither a nor B can be zero or Infinity so when the scalar orientation uh the scalar orientation could NE can never be zero or Infinity note that in the low and high orientations the possible combinations of scalar ratios are Unlimited but where a equals B only one ratio is possible Unity the scalar orientation structure therefore shows a natural separation across a common scalar boundary of unity which can be used as a reference point or as L Larsson calls it a natural datum this giv gives a place or a location in which we can begin to Define scalar motion but it has a problem so this is what I was just referring to as the speed of light speed of light is where a equals B and you have a you know a scalar orientation of uh AAL b uhal 1 unit speed but it has a problem given any ratio there is no way to determine if you are observing A over B or B over a another reference point is needed to determine the orientation of the ratio itself with respect to an observer or environment um sorry I'm going pretty slow on this because that that's a point that I've never picked up before and I'm just trying to soak it in myself uh you know these videos to a certain extent are are kind of selfish because I might be the person who learns the most from them uh because I'm always uh kind of picking up new stuff you know I'm I'm always covering stuff that I've looked at before but you know I'm learning this you know just like everybody else out there I've just got you know maybe a little bit more experience at at it but um now I I'm kind of understanding where he's coming from with that I'm not sure where he's going with it but at least I understand where he's coming from okay this can be found in the invariant property of the Cross ratio so when we have that unit speed we still don't know whether uh we are observing A over B or B over a and in order to do that we need a another reference point so he's bringing in a second reference point okay um now this section is called invariant and apparently the definition a quantity or expression that is constant throughout a certain range of conditions and um he says a cross ratio is literally a ratio of ratios and is the only projective invariant to all strata of geometry okay now I think I think he's talked about this already the different strata of geometry ukian geometry is basically like the lowest strata and then there is metric geometry and then aine geometry and then projective geometry this projective is the most inclusive geometry and it Cascades down as you become more and more um particular or uh as there are more and more constraints and he's saying that the cross ratio which is a ratio of ratios um he says it's needed to determine the orientation of the ratio itself you can find it in the cross ratio the other reference point that's needed so a cross ratio is literally a ratio of ratio shows and it is the only projective invariant in all strata of astronomy I mean of geometry in a scalar sense it relates two scalar orientations through a ratio and that ratio remains constant okay lost again but uh not too far lost hopefully TR trying to redeem myself here giving a secondary orientation to the ratio and producing scalar motion one can also think of it as the ratio of slopes between two lines on a graph there are now two things to consider as the basis of scalar motion the cross ratio and the scalar orientation the cross ratio introduces the concept of Association in a geometric sense it is like two points joining to form a line except here you join two ratios to form the cross ratio now I'm still not understanding what the second ratio is he said you needed a second reference point but does that entail that there's a ratio there the result is a concept we call Dimension okay so the result of two points join joining to form a line the cross ratio introduces the concept of Association in a geometric sense it is like two points joining to form a line except here you have two ratios joining to form a cross ratio okay now he's he's here to Define Dimension uh this is kind of um I'm sorry I'm going so slow maybe you guys are getting this a lot better than I am um but um I'm still a little bit confused okay Dimension uh the definition of Dimension is a magnitude that independently or in conjunction with other such magnitudes serves to define the location of an element within a given set well that definition doesn't do much for me personally but a magnitude that independently or in conjunction with other such magnitudes serves to define the location of an element within a given set a scalar Dimension is a cross ratio where one scalar orientation is fixed at Unity the natural data which I would say is the uh unit speed or the speed of light and the other VAR varies in order to make a relative measurement to the Natural datm of unity so the other other scalar orientation is it varies in order to make a relative measurement to the Natural datm of unity scalar motion is another term that is often used with very little understanding of its meaning scaler has already been Define so let us examine the term motion and its connection to the concept of a scaler okay we're going to get into this tomorrow um I was hoping we're going to finish this video uh uh finish this article in this video but we're going to have to extend to tomorrow um just kind of going slow over this uh this is uh very uh fundamental and important stuff so I'm just trying to go over it very slowly um again possibly selfishly cuz I'm trying to get it but I feel like if I can get it then I can help all y'all out there um you know get it too um so I'm looking for that Eureka moment uh that just hasn't quite uh clicked into place with this article and that's happened with me with Bruce's work before um of you know I get it eventually but I might take a while uh is what what it seems to what it seems to be he he he's very he writes very much unlike Larson Larson kind of like every every detail he puts in there and he gets like verbose where he's like you know uh stating everything and it's just like he he makes sure that you've got every step of it um I I I don't even know if that's true um he seems to write that way in many cases but then sometimes he kind of pulls something out of his hat too um pet uh he seems to skip a lot of steps sometimes where he I think he just assumes that you know certain things I guess Larson does that too so you know uh the guess the lesson here is that there's a big difference between um you know really knowing your stuff and being able to teach it so I guess sometimes maybe it takes somebody who doesn't know their stuff that well to be able to teach it so that they can empathize with the uh the person who's trying to learn it okay we're going to leave it right there uh and resume this article tomorrow thanks for tuning in tonight and have a