Encyclopedia > Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory

Article Content

Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory

Old discussion can be found at talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Archive 1.
The developement version of this article can be found at: Reciprocal System of Theory/Temp

I have resubmitted the RS article linked to Larson's name only. I have also deleted the talk from the previous article as it is no longer relevant and is anyhow a duplicate of 'old Talk'.

This second draft of the article is NOT an attempt to establish the bonefides of the theory within the physics community. It's aim is to provide an overview of what Larson's work contains much like an article on an ancient author's precepts would do. The article has nothing to do with the issues of modern research, peer review journals, crackpot theories, or established scientific knowledge, just as an ancient work would not. Therefore, those who feel the need to protect the sanctity of the cannon of modern scientific knowledge from heresy need not feel they must delete it because, in their view, it contains false, unscientific, or untestable precepts. That is not the issue here. The only relevant issue is how well it reports what the late Mr. Larson produced as a historical fact. In my opinion, what he TRIED to do was at least worthy of historical note. No one else to my knowledge has, in the history of mankind, attempted such a feat. Think of it, the title alone is mind boggling "The Structure of the Physical Universe!" One would think that anyone that is as articulate and informed as he was (and no one can dispute that) and who undertook to concoct a theory of the entire physical universe, is worthy of a descriptive wiki.

Doug

RS is at best original research, and at worst quackery. In either case, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. A short broad outline of the theory is ok, and that's what we have. The details are covered well on their website. That is why I reverted to the short and neutral version that was arrived at after considerable discussion several months ago. See talk:Reciprocal System of Theory Archive. AxelBoldt, Thursday, May 23, 2002

Here we go again. I'm not going to argue the merits of your opinion. It's irrelevant. Your opinion, or anyone else's opinion, of the validity of Larson's ideas makes no difference here. I have not linked the article to physics in any way (that was the original complaint - remember?). This article is only linked to the Dewey B. Larson article - so get over it and let me be. I'm trying to summarize what his ideas are- not argue their acceptance in any way, so if you can't help me constructively to do that with a NPOV then you are of no help at all. And oh by the way, If I deleted all the articles that are explained elsewhere on the Web, there would not be much left, especially yours.

Doug

Doug, you don't think you can just lay low for a couple of months, then come back and just put your material back in, do you? All of this was discussed exhaustively, and it was decided that a short description of the theory, along with a link to your website and a critical paragraph, would be appropriate. By all objective measures, the theory does not deserve more than that. And that decision stands. You are clearly attempting to gain respect for the theory by getting a major treatment into Wikipedia, as if it were a major theory. It is not. AxelBoldt

Having looked back at the talk history, I agree with Axel. The Anome

Does the criticism section need to be any longer than "This is quackery"? Should we create an entry to explain exactly what quackery means? -- RichardK

You agreed before looking. Axel knows there was never such an agreement and you would too if you had actually read the old talk. The agreement was that they would give me a chance to write the article unlinked to TOE so I could get it out on the table and then answer questions/challenges and defend it. However, not everyone was privy to the agreement or not willing to be a party to it, so it became a mess and I didn't have the time to fight everyone at once so I bid them adieu with the promise that I would return. And so I have.

It's almost amusing to see how the rationalizations change from one edit to another. They have ranged from copyright, to psuedoscience, to NPOV, to new research, and now to a blatant attempt "to gain respect for the theory." This is ludicrous. There is no mention of the degree of treatment to which a Wiki is entitled here. This is just an exercise of plain prejudice from mathematicians, physicists, students and others from the establishment of 'normal' science most of whom don't have the integrity to admit it. Give me a break. I'm putting it back and, by the way, expect to see YOUR articles edited as well Axel, but don't expect the same level of bias from me as you show, that would be a waste of my time. If I edit any of your articles it will be for honest purposes. And btw Anome, the piece you keep putting back was never removed, just moved into the expanded portion. So, it appears twice in your edits, line for line. If you had taken the time to examine the article at all, you would have known that.

Doug

Looking at the history of this article, we now have reversion wars, with this article repeatedly being reverted by several parties, and replaced by its orignal author. This is not good. --Anon

I really hate to have done this, but I locked the article so that it is only editable by sysops. This was to stop the edit war that seems to be going on here. Further discussion can now proceed. Although a read of the old talk and current talk indicates that everything important has already be said. This is pseudoscience and shouldn't be given such an extensive treatment. Sorry Doug -- you are the only person that disagrees with this point. With that said, I think we need to discuss what we should do now. If the removed content is already someplace else on the web (which it seems to be) perhaps a link there should suffice? --maveric149

Doug,

A word of advice from someone who has had the same problem as you -- but found a solution.

Don't be so contentious. Try to be a little nicer. It's the only way one editor (namely, you) can hold his own when half a dozen editors (Axel, Maveric, et al.) see it differently.

If you review the history of some of the more controversial articles I've contributed or edited, you'll see that I also got involved in edit wars and lost a lot of time that way, only to see my contributions reverted out of existence.

However, I'm still here. I've made my peace with the others (mostly, I guess :-). Moreover, none of the articles we fought over has been locked.

What am I doing differently? Think about that, because different points of view are valuable and I'd hate to see your voice silenced for no good reason.

Sincerely,

Ed Poor, Friday, May 24, 2002

Thanks Ed for the good advice. I wonder how many pages have been locked like this before. I admit that I have been pretty aggressive, but then the opposition to the article has been so inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia, the spirit of the Web, and the spirit of truth and justice that it riled me.

All I want to do is place a fair summary of RS, a Wiki article, in Wikipedia according to the established rules, and guidelines. Now, I must admit that my first attempt to do that was made not understanding clearly the idea of NPOV, etc., which I came to appreciate more eventually. But this latest attempt, though no doubt far from acceptable, was much more in the intended spirit of NPOV.

Moreover, it was purposely not linked to any Physics topics, which was the source of so much dispute originally. However, it has become painfully obvious that the real reason for such strong opposition is, ironically, the extremely strong POV of those opposed. Here is the reality of the situation: they will not permit the RS article to have a NPOV. They have insisted on the POV that it should be classified as pseudoscience (well, now that's even too good for it - let's say "Quackery," shall we?).

In the first go around I was convinced of the integrity and honesty of those involved and thought that all that I had to do was to draft a sufficiently NPOV article, so I naively set out to achieve that, and acquiecsed to the placement of the "disclaimer" phrases (definitely POV) in the article. But then I was assailed for not explaining and supporting certain concepts well enough. Licking my wounds, I at length ceased the effort promising to return sometime in the future to try again.

In the meantime, the article was left (for months) with this incredibly strong POV intact! So, when I did come back, I set out to neutralize the POV to the best of my ability and at the same time present RS in a more comprehensible fashion to answer the earlier criticism. Then Axel (of all people who should know better) reverts it claiming that the reverted form had been agreed upon earlier!

Maybe I wasn't as diplomatic as I should have been, but any reasonable person can see how injust this situation is and how much violence it does to the stated principles of Wikipedia. Just look at the article now. Two thirds of it is their POV! And it's locked into that POV! What can these guys be thinking? Whatever it is, it's definitely not consistent with the stated objectives of Wikipedia.

Compare my latest article with theirs and tell me which is more NPOV. There's no comparison. In theirs RS is given no slack. If you think mine is too POV the other way, then tell me how to improve it like one of the editors did (can't remember his name) and soon we can have an article. However, I cannot but suppose, given the recent actions, that the motives of some are less altruistic than they let on, and thus an appeal to fairness will be mocked here as much as the ideas of others are.

Doug

I have unprotected the page. Doug, please don't take this a an open invitation to simply restore your version. A compromise needs to be reached. I will study the article, and see what I think. --130.94.121.26

I don't like to 'me too', but if an edit is going to be justified on the grounds 'you are the only person advocating the longer version', I'll speak up.

I think the longer version is better. The short version gives me too little information about the 'theory' to understand what kind of theory it is. The longer version makes its nature wntirely clear.

I'm very disturbed to see content rejected because 'clearly attempting to gain respect for the theory by getting a major treatment into Wikipedia, as if it were a major theory.'. There are many pages on minority political systems in the Wikipedia, often much more extensive than those for more mainstream views. Should we reduce them? There are many pages on obscure religious beliefs in the Wikipedia, often more extensive than those for mainstream beliefs. Should we edit those, too?

If the Wikipedia has room for a page about every Simpsons character, it has room for a page about every crackpot scientific theory. It seems to me much more likely that pages on the latter will prove useful for future researchers than pages on the former.

Matthew Woodcraft

I strongly agree with this, especially the last paragraph. -- Miguel

However, the article must first be made NPOV. The current longer article reports the theory in terms that are far from NPOV; I suggest a medium-length compromise first, then we can try to grope towards a longer article. Perhaps a big disclaimer is needed to point out that "what follows is not accepted science" etc. -- Anon.

Fantastic! I have been waiting for somebody else to chime in. Now maybe we can continue the discussion so that the longer version can be tweaked some more so that the people advocating the shorter version will be satisfied or at the very least be able to live with a modified longer version. I would like to hear from them -- especially since they have more complete knowledge of the subject matter and arguments against it (which will be needed to make the longer version closer to NPOV). I would like to second 130.94.121.26's (is that you Jimbo?) statement about not simply replacing the current version with the longer one until a compromise is reached. Perhaps if those with knowledge of why this theory is pseudoscience heavily edited the longer version, then it might be acceptable. I wish I had the appropriate knowledge to edit the longer version myself -- but I don't. My goal all along with protecting the page was to put, at least, a temporary stop to the outright replacement of one version with another (a forced truce, if you will). Maybe this can now be done. Although we might still decide that an external link to a more complete treatment is more appropriate (which still tends to be my vote -- especially if nobody has the time or energy to make the longer version NPOV). Hopefully the authors of the shorter version can help us decide what to do. --maveric149

I'm not sure I know quite what to say. I'm pleasantly surprised, certainly pleased, and even somewhat moved by the show of reason and understanding evident in these comments. I think what you chose to do maveric was the right choice. I'm grateful to see the end of the brutal deletes, and the expressions of a real desire to get to a genuine NPOV are certainly encouraging. I'm ready to help all I can. I have reread the Wikipedia policy and articles on etiquette and NPOV writing. I know I need help on writing so as to restate the various views while not asserting the one I happen to agree with, I've found that it's not as easy to do as one might suppose.

Doug

I agree that there is nothing wrong with a long treatment of this topic, even it is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. I think the problem is that Doug, a proponant of the idea, is the only person that seems interested in putting in a lot of work on the article. I reverted back to the shorter version because Doug's new version is very enthusiasticly supportive of RST, and I didn't think that anyone would work to change that. However, I do commend Doug for not linking the article from the physics articles in the 'pedia; I think that shows a willingness to be cooperative.

It's important to remember, Doug, that the NPOV is not about giving all points of view equal weight. Our goal is to write articles that present topics in a way that all partisans can agree with (a lofty goal, too be sure!). In this case, it is a fact that the general scientific community and interested laypeople hold the RSS to be pseudoscience, while a small number of people believe it is a revolutionary new system of scientific theory. RSS has not been published in any major scientific journals, is not taught in high school and university science curriculums, and is placed in the same category has alien abductions and ESP by Internet kooks. None of these things automatically make RSS wrong, and you probably think that RSS hasnot been accepted because of politics and misunderstandings. Fair enough, andthe article should reflect that. But the article can leave no room for doubt on this point: RSS is not an established theory within science. Keep in mind that it is perfectly acceptable to link to Larson's works and other sympathetic overviews in anexternal links section, and in fact that short article already does this. --Stephen Gilbert

Stephen, I think you hit the nail right on the head. Not enough is generally known about RS to allow much to be written from an opposing point of view. No specific, scientific criticisms other than the general charges already discussed exist. So it makes it hard for me to write much other than explanations of the concepts. However, I've shortened the article considerably and attempted to write it from more NPOV. Let's see if it's closer to what we need and what specific suggestions might be offered.

Doug

I moved Doug's version of the article to Reciprocal System of Theory/Temp so that he or anybody who is interested can work on it there. The newest version by Doug is shorter and has some additional qualifications but it still needs a lot of work before I feel it is acceptable to those replacing it with the shorter version. I need at least of few more days before I even touch the darn thing so that I can brush up on my physics. --maveric149

Doug's version needs A LOT more than neutrality--it needs someone to give me a damn good reason why it belongs in an encyclopedia at all. Encyclopedias aren't the place for original ideas, even if they are useful ones. Encyclopedias are for covering established academic subjects. It makes sense now and then to mention in an encyclopedia that some person or group believes in theory X, and possibly to briefly describe theory X. But that's all. That's all that even a rational new idea deserves, and meaningless nonsense like this doesn't even deserve that. It would be a far better use of someone's time to write about the psychological deficiencies that lead to crackpot theories like this. --Lee Daniel Crocker

Ok, here's my argument. Larry summed it up pretty well on the old talk page: "We will do the world a service by amassing huge numbers of erstwhile crank theories and reporting about them objectively. They will not benefit as a result." I think an article on this topic would be very useful and appropriate if it included information on why the scientific community considers RSS a crank theory. Far too many people are scientifically illiterate, and don't see why this theory is any different than those in current physics. It sounds very scientific, right? While not taking a position itself, the article could and should help these people come to a decision, instead of slapping on the label of "crank theory". --Stephen Gilbert

Lee says 'Doug's version needs A LOT more than neutrality--it needs someone to give me a damn good reason why it belongs in an encyclopedia at all.' I think I could give lots of reasons, but in the end Matthew and Miguel summed the idea up best with Matthew's comment on the Simpson characters in Wikipedia. However, Lee then says 'Encyclopedias aren't the place for original ideas, even if they are useful ones.' Wow, we are going to throw the baby out with the bath water on that one. Theories by definition are original ideas, just read the article on M-theory with Lee's comment in mind, that will give you some pause for thought. He argues 'Encyclopedias are for covering established academic subjects.' Well the subject here is physics, a pretty established subject I would say, but to keep from contaminating the subject here which is so dominated by professionals, we have not linked it to physics, in defference to their opinion that non-professionals are all cranks, crackpots and producers of pseudoscience (which is yet so threatening, a fact I find very curious). But here, I remind you Lee, the article is simply linked from Dewey Larson, who was the author of many books. The RS is his major work, we are trying to explain what it was and, maybe if we can reach a consensus, why it has received the reception it has by some professionals (remember not all professionals mind you, but most unfortunately). Larson was a chemical engineer, not a professional physicist. Through history (oh, BTW do we have an article on the decipherer of the Rosetta stone?) most major scientific contributions are not made by the practicioners of 'normal' science, i.e. professionals, but by non-professional 'amateurs.' One that comes to mind in physics right off is deBroglia, but they are legion in all fields, in fact the most notables actually.

You misunderstand the problem. Our science guys here don't have a problem with Mr. Larson being an amateur; the problem is with the theory itself. I challenge you to produce some evidence that scientists believe "non-professionals are all cranks, crackpots and producers of pseudoscience". I also encourage someone who is able to pick out some problem areas of RSS and pick them apart, if only to dispense with the arguments of scientific elitism and new theories threatening the established priesthood. --Stephen Gilbert

Just one last thought. today I heard Ira Flatow's show Science Friday and his guest Paul Steinhardt was discussing his book A Cyclic model of the Universe. In a nutshell the new theory's motivation stems from troubles recent discoveries have given physicists and cosmologists. Now Lee et al probably wouldn't be as critical of this new theory because its concepts are so consonant with other modern theories such as string theory and other 'accepted' theories. But what struck me is (and I was only listening while working - so I may be mistaken) that, while the ideas are about as inventive as any in the history of physics (and that is saying a lot because inventive science is the norm today), the invention here is one of a universe (or a dimension - whatever that means today) parallel to the observable universe swapping energy for matter and vise versa. The result is a model of a static universe in which a mechanism exists (though a rather bizarre one imo) to cycle energy-matter between the two sectors. Anyone who is familiar at all with RS will immediately recognize the resemblance. RS has a much different mechanism, but in the end the result is the same: energy and matter are cycled perpetually between two sectors, mutually unobservable but coextended.

Now, don't get me wrong - the two theories are very far apart - in fact totally incompatible, but the interesting fact is that Steinhardt's resort to this model was motivated by problems with current cosmological theories (especially Big Bang and Inflation) caused by recent discoveries of a geometrically flat, accelerating universe with a puzzleing large structure and energy distribution. In contrast, these discoveries are nothing but good news for the RS which was first published over forty years ago. What I don't understand is how does a 'crackpot' and a 'crank' keeps coming out so far ahead of the professionals? Maybe we need to be a wee bit more careful with these labels until we know more of the facts.

Doug

Doug, just so you know, I set-up a "development" version of the article with your most recently overwritten version at Reciprocal System of Theory/Temp. I suggest that those that are interested work on NPOVing that version. I'll see what I can do myself in a few days. It would be a bit rude if someone reverted a development version, no? If there are still loud protests that your version is still on the main wikipedia at all, we can continue work on it over at the meta (meta.wikipedia.com) which already contains scores of biased essays. --maveric149

Mav, Lee, et al., I see no problem leaving this long version. After all, you've left in all the articles I contributed about the Unification Church even though a lot of you think (a) all religion is irrational and/or (b) the UC is especially nutty.

It's clear (from the second paragraph) that the scientific community has not blessed RS with its seal of approval. Hm, that reminds me of creationism and intelligent design, two ideas opposed by 95% of scientists generally and dismissed by virtually all biologists.

Martin Gardner has an entertaining and informative book on pseudoscience (which I think even mentions my great-grandfather Charles Lane Poor, a professor of astronomy who challenged initial solar eclipse evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity).

I vote for the longer version. Ed Poor, Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Sorry for my previous statement Ed - That't what I get for trying to make comments on talk pages when I'm also trying to work. I didn't see that you were doing what I had hoped people would do -- edit the development version. It does, however, still need much work before it is acceptable enough to the "anti-RST advocates" so that the longer version isn't reverted again. --maveric149

Maveric, it's ok with me, but help me understand something. How are we defining bias here? If the article simply abridges the concepts pertaining to the system without in any way maintaining that its theories are correct, will we have reached the goal? Are the charges that the system is untestable and contains no mathematical basis which are made over and over again without offering the slightest shred of evidence to support them not to be considered bias? If we can't admit that such charges are bias, but insist on simply reporting them as anonymous allegations, is that consistent with the standards?

As I see it, the dilemma here is that we won't admit to ourselves that this is a sticky wiki (sorry :)). How do we disallow something that so obviously exists, but at the same time has been ignored by the 'authorities?' If we deny it a place at all we are surely inconsistent with our own values (I won't use the word hypocritical), but on the other hand, if we permit it a place, we run the risk of appearing to endorse its view (I'm not clear on how that follows though, there seems to be no problem linking articles on different religions under the same heading, surely no one is concerned with 'true' religion, then why the fuss about 'true' science? Maybe because it really is the state religion in disguise?) Of course, we could strongly and explicity deny that we endorse it, but then in denying that, if we allege that it has no genuine scientific standing - like we are presently doing, we are left open to charges of scientific bigotry on one hand, or else facing the daunting task of studying it ourselves to determine its true scientific basis for ourselves. Not easy to do to be sure - especially for non-specialists already overburdened with too much to do in too little time.

So, admitting that this dilemma is not likely to be resolved seems to me the most prudent course. So how about this idea: a heading entitled 'Alternate Theories of Everything' under physics and let anyone who actually publishes one be listed there. I think you will find that there are not many applying. It's not really a very common subject for a life's work (and that's what it takes.) Look at what such a move would accomplish:

Wikipedia will have been consistent and true to its purpose.
Scientific types can write articles about what such theories lack in general, thus avoiding taking on RS specifically, unless they have the desire and the time to do so, in which case they are free to do it in their own articles.
RS can be treated like any other article without having to assert the allegations which it can't answer, not because it doesn't have the answers, but because it doesn't have the forum in Wikipedia to do so.
If this every comes up again in connection with another theory (e.g. A Cyclic Model of the Universe) we'll have a solution.

Doug

Doug, I didn't say that RST was biased -- all I stated was that the meta if full of biased stuff. I assumed you would take that as "if all else fails, we can work on the developement version of the article in the meta so that we can make it acceptable to those who advocate the shorter version becasue just about anything that is controversial can be placed in the meta and it won't be removed or reverted". I should have stated this explicitly, so I am sorry for not being clear. As for your other ideas.... How about we work on the current article first before we think about setting up any sort of future framework? I for one feel that we are wasting far too much time here in the talk page instead of working on the longer version of the article to address as many of the "issues" as possible. --maveric149

May I butt in again? The Wikipedia cannot and should not try to settle the issue. The best it can do is say that party A criticizes it for reason B, citing grounds C. To balance this, we can also say that X says Y because of Z.

Let me suggest that you yourself abstain from editing RS; rather, make suggestions here on the talk page. Since I have no opinion on the merits of RS, I can easily describe it from the NPOV: I am in fact neutral concerning it :-) Ed Poor, Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Great idea. Let's do it - Doug

Concur. Although I don't know about excluding Doug from editing -- so long as he promises to make fair edits. --maveric149

Maveric - I don't mind - It's not that I'm excluded - it's that I'm volunteering to refrain from editing to help find a solution. I think it's a great idea and commend Ed for the innovative approach.

Doug

Let me try to be more clear:

I do not propose excluding Doug from editing.
I do think he'll get more mileage out of making suggestions in /Talk rather than editing directly.
I offer myself as (in all modesty :-) an exquisitely neutral editor of the article.

Thus, I will check this page daily for suggestions from Doug, Maveric, Lee, and the gang. Any relevant idea I can understand, I hereby offer to incorporate into the article in a neutral way. Ed Poor, Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Ok, The first thing I wish I could do is answer party A who criticizes RS for reason B (RS is untestable) citing grounds C (no cited grounds (!?!)). X (I guess that would be me) says Y (RS theories are testable (Fundamental Postulates of the system are not directly testable - no duhh - whose are?), but theories based on them are because Z, Larson and others have and are testing them. To wit:

Item: Using the RS theory of atomic structure can the inter-atomic distances of the elements be calculated? Answer: yes, results are published in volume II chapter 2, of The Structure of the Physical Universe (we'll just leave it implied after this)

Item: Using the RS theory of atomic structure can the properties of the elements and their compounds such as compressibility, specific heat, thermal factors, thermal expansion coefficients, electrical resistivity and thermoelectric properties be calculated? Answer yes, results are published in volume II, chapters 4-11.

Item: Using the RS theory of atomic and subatomic structure, can RS calculate the charge of an electron? Answer: yes, results are published in volume II, chapter 16, page 178. (BTW, no other theory can do this.)
- Well hang on a minute, lets look at this:(http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bpm/bpm16.htm)

Since the charge is not defined independently of the equation, the fact that there is only one force involved means that the expression QQ' is actually Q¹/2Q'¹/2. It follows that, unless some structural factor (as previously defined) enters into the Coulomb relation, the value of the natural unit of Q derived from that relation should be the second power of the natural unit of t/s2. In carrying out the calculation we find that a factor of 3 does enter into the equation.

This isn't science, or even mathematics. There is a term for adding unexplained terms to equations. They're called fudge factors, and they don't prove anything.

This probably has the same origin as the factors of the same size that apply to a number of the basic equations examined in Volume I. It no doubt has a dimensional significance, although a full explanation is not yet available.

Yes, they're fudge factors too. Until he shows his calculations, and tells us where the terms comes from, no neutral article should avoid pointing these idiocies out. -- GWO

GWO: Larson shows the calculation of the electron’s charge, as well as many other electrical and magnetic quantities, in the context of clearing up the “dimensional confusion” existing in conventional physics. Thus, he actually derives the value of the charge twice.

The first one in connection with the discussion on electric currents (chapter 9) and the second one in connection with induction of charges (chapter 16). I cited the second one, based on Coulomb's force equation, which does have a yet undetected dimensional problem, as explained by Larson as you correctly point out. However, I should have cited the first one in chapter 9, based on Faraday's constant. Here, Larson explains what is happening:

The basic physical entities and phenomena of the universe of motion–radiation, gravitation, matter, electricity, magnetism, and so on–can be defined explicitly in terms of space and time…an electric charge applied to a physical entity must necessarily be a motion. Thus the problem faced in the theoretical investigation was not to answer the question, What is an electric charge?, but merely to determine what kind of motion manifests itself as a charge.

So the theory must show that the charge of an electron, or any other electrical or magnetic quantity, can be expressed in units of space and time, i.e. motion. To do that, one has to determine what the “natural unit” of space is and because of some confusion in assigning the dimensions in conventional physics, Larson has to deal with that issue first:

The system of units commonly utilized in dealing with electric currents was developed independently of the mechanical units on an arbitrary basis. In order to ascertain the relation between this arbitrary system and the natural system of units it is necessary to measure some one physical quantity whose magnitude can be identified in the natural system, as was done in the previous determination of the relations between the natural and conventional units of space, time, and mass. For this purpose we will use the Faraday constant, the observed relation between the quantity of electricity and the mass involved in electrolytic action. Multiplying this constant, 2.89366 x 1014 esu/g-equiv., by the natural unit of atomic weight, 1.65979 x 10-24 g, we arrive at 4.80287 x 10-10 esu as the natural unit of electrical quantity.

The magnitude of the electric current is the number of electrons per unit of time; that is, units of space per unit of time, or speed. Thus the natural unit of current could be expressed as the natural unit of speed, 2.99793 x 1010 cm/sec. In electrical terms it is the natural unit of quantity divided by the natural unit of time, and amounts to 3.15842 x 106 esu/sec, or 1.05353 x 10-3 amperes. The conventional unit of electrical energy, the watt-hour, is equal to 3.6 x 1010 ergs. The natural unit of energy, 1.49275 x 10-3 ergs, is therefore equivalent to 4.14375 x 10-14 watt-hours. Dividing this unit by the natural unit of time, we obtain the natural unit of power 9.8099 x 1012 ergs/sec = 9.8099 x 105 watts. A division by the natural unit of current then gives us the natural unit of electromotive force, or voltage, 9,31146 x 108 volts. Another division by current brings us to the natural unit of resistance, 8.83834 x 1011 ohms.

The basic quantities of current electricity and their natural units in electrical terms can be summarized as follows:

s	quantity	4.80287 x 10-10 esu
s/t	current	1.05353 x 10-3 amperes
1/s	power	9.8099 x 105 watts
t/s	energy	4.14375 x 10-14 watt-hours
t/s2	voltage	9.31146 x 108volts
t2/s3	resistance	8.83834 x 1011 ohms

Doug

Item: Using the RS theory of atomic and subatomic structure, can the masses of subatomic particles be calculated? Answer: yes, results are published in volume I, chapter 13.

Item: Using the RS theory of atomic and subatomic structure, can the element positions in the periodic table be calculated? Answer: yes, results are published in volume 1, chapter 10. (To my knowledge, RS is the only theory that can do this too.)

This should suffice, but there is much more if needed.

Not only are theories of the system testable and falsifiable, but they also predict new discoveries: (this issue is not mentioned in latest arguments of party A but has been in the past.) If it is desired, I will provide the necessary info to answer that allegation if it is raised again. The other issue raised is regarding the lack of mathematical content. I can provide you with our Y and Z on this too when you are ready.

Doug

Wow, Doug. That's a lot. It might take me longer than one day, just to digest this much. Would you please be patient for that long?

I will start by saying something like proponents of RS claim that it can blah, blah, blah. (replacing blah with the 5 items you so neatly listed.

After I've done that, we can let it stew for a while, and see what the anti-RS crowd have to say about that. One thing they might ask for is details of the calculations. I myself am curious about how 2 simple postulates produce the charge of an electron, for example.

Ed Poor, Wednesday, May 29, 2002

Ed, sure I can wait as long as it takes. I wrote a paragraph or two about the electric charge - but Wikipedia lost it somehow. It's just as well though because to understand 'how 2 simple postulates produce the charge of an electron' you first need to understand how they produce the photon, subatoms, atoms, compounds, etc. In other words, the theory progressively builds from simple motion to more and more complex combinations of these simple motions.

The key to understanding it is grasping the idea that in a universe of nothing but motion, motion must be understood to mean the reciprocal relationship of space and time, not just the velocity of an object through space. A vector in space as we normally think of it is a special case of motion in RS. In RS, space and time do not exist independently, they are aspects of motion. Motion is primary and it is scalar, meaning that it has no inherent direction as does a vector. Direction of a scalar value has the meaning of increasing or decreasing, inward or outward, but not left or right, up or down, near or far. So, the fundamental postulates, by assuming that nothing but motion exists, assume a 'progression' of space and time, that is space and time are increasing at unit value (s/t = 1), which, in RS, is the speed of light (denoted by 'c').

Once you grasp that idea and are able to hold to it firmly, then you can move on. The next step is to understand that the postulated motion is three-dimensional (s³/t³). This means that it cannot be fully represented in the ordinary three dimensional coordinate system with which we are familiar since any combination of motions in that system results in a vector, a one-dimensional motion. Now that means a new reference system is required to represent such motion or we would have to use three ordinary coordinate systems and treat each dimension separately as its three resolutes.

Larson chose to use what he called the natural frame of reference in RS to avoid confusion in treating the resolutes of three-dimensional motion. The natural frame of reference has unity as its origin or datum of reference. This is very useful because the reciprocal nature of RS requires the simultaneous consideration of the two sectors that the fundamental postulates requires us to deal with: one is defined below unity in the natural frame and the other above unity, analogous to greater than zero and less than zero in the ordinary coordinate frame.

The motion as postulated in RS, remember, not only is three-dimensional, but also exists in discrete (quantum(?)) units. Therefore, there cannot be motion with less than one unit of space or time. In other words, fractions of a unit don't exist. Now, the question is how does motion other than unit motion, (s/t = 1) arise? Though Larson's development is quite erudite, it doesn't state this step as explicitly and consisely as this. Nevertheless, it is a key question and understanding the answer is critical to understanding the RS.

After all, you can't just arbitrarily add units of space or units of time to produce greater than or less than unit values because space and time in RS are not independent entities but only aspects of motion (BTW - since unit motion is defined as c, the velocity of light, you may be concerned with references to motion at greater than unit values - but bear with me for now). So, how do these non-unit values arise? Well, here it gets a little philosophical. The reasoning is that since the postulates assume nothing but motion, we must be permitted to assume that motion exists with these non-unit ratios because nothing in the postulates excludes the possibility. So, the question then becomes what motion would produce a given non unit ratio (let's call it speed)?

One answer is a simple harmonic vibration. In such a motion, displacement of time or space would occur because its reciprocal oscillates. For instance, in a vibratory motion in which time is displaced from unity, space necessarily is reversing direction (scalar direction) so that the result is s/t = 1/n, n > 1. This results in a scalar speed less than unit speed (i.e. less than c). As n increases, the speed of the ocillation (frequency) decreases from unit speed towards zero speed in space.

A similar condition creates a displacement of space when time is oscillating so that the result is s/t = n/1, n > 1. Now notice that in this case it represents greater than unit velocity. However, since in RS time and space are reciprocals, this means that t/s represents motion in time, and in the sector of three-dimensional time s/t = n/1, n > 1 in three-dimensional space is equivalent to t/s = 1/n, n > 1. So, again we have the case that a displacement of increasing values of n represents speeds decreasing from unity towards zero, but in this case the ocillation ('frequency' - we have no word for it) is in time and it decreases from unit speed towards zero speed in time.

Uggh, enough for now.

Doug - May 30, 2002

Sorry, Doug, you lost me there. I will do my best to summarize RS, perhaps by picking out key statements from your exposition above.

It's beginning to look like we could classify RS under philosophy or metaphysics. Many other philosophies make claims about their applicability to the real world (such as Marxism which intreprets the world in terms of "matter in motion"). RS is simpler than Marxism, in that it begins only with motion, leaving out matter.

Brace yourself, because as you recall my offer was limited to only those parts of RS I could understand, and I'm having trouble following your exposition. I will probably wind up stating the claims of RS, followed by the briefest of bare-bones introduction to some of its arguments, ending with external references.

This will be somewhat more sympathetic and slightly more edifying that what we have (in the main version), but probably shorter than what is in Maveric's /temp version.

Hm. Here is a possible outline:

what is it
who developed/advocates it
who advocates against it
list of claims, with evidence for & against each claim
external references

Ed Poor, Thursday, May 30, 2002

Ed, sounds good to me. What I wrote was for your benefit - background - not for the article itself. Do what you can do, if we can get it out there in a way that everyone is happy, we will have accomplished a lot.

Doug

Excuse me, Doug, but this article has become too hard for me. Would you please help me by writing a short summary of RS's claims, with evidence for a few representative claims? I thought I could do that myself, but I failed to understand enough of it to do it justice.

One piece of advice that may help you on the talk pages: try restating your opponents' points in your own words. When they are satisfied that you understand their objections, you can then include them in the article, like this:

RS introduces the concept of the scalar vector in its explanation of the galaxies all mutually receding from each other after the big bang. This concept shows that . . .

RS critics call the term scalar vector an oxymoron, on the grounds that a quantity can be either scalor or vector, but not both.

I'm not sure my example does RS justice; please focus on the form of the 2 bullet points more than their exact accuracy. First I explained the RS idea (as well as I could), then I gave the response of the typical mainstream critic.

This form is generally acceptable to all Wikipedians, because each side gets its say. RS gets its paragraph explaining its cherished idea and why it's important and/or valid. The anti-RS advocates get their innings as well, explaining why they dismiss it as rubbish (or question it, or have vague misgivings, etc.).

You like RS, right? Well, the only way you'll get Wikipedians to stop reverting your article into oblivion is to be sensitive to their response to RS. The article can't be 100% pro-RS. Accept the possiblity that as much as 3/4 of the article will be devoted to anti-RS points of view. If you can accept that, then I'm sure Maveric will promote the /temp page to replace RS of T (he might even unlock it).

One last thing, and I'll get off the pulpit: remember, this is an encyclopedia. It's not a debating forum like the Internet newsgroups. We are all trying to make an article of lasting value. The only way to do this is to attribute each point of view to its advocates:

A supports B because of C.
X opposes B because of Z.

Don't try to censor X, just because you disagree with Z. Okay? Ed Poor, Monday, June 3, 2002

Ok Ed, I'll take another stab at it. -Doug

Ed, here is my latest effort. It's not complete, but I'm attempting to follow your suggestions. My biggest problem is a lack of specifics from the opposing view. I can't just keep repeating their unsupported one-liners. If someone could give me something to work with like how, in their view, the RST is untestable, or why it is unfalsifiable, I could do more. The charge of RST's lack of mathematical formulation is likewise difficult to expound for the same reason. If Larson can use F=ma, etc. and get the correct results, what more can I say? - Doug June 9

--- I've revised and added more. It needs a lot more work, but I wanted to post more of it to see what comments there might be to this point. It is a work in progress. I will add references for cited sections soon. Doug June 22

I'm sorry Doug - I should have mentioned this before. But your additions and deletions from the Temp version have turned a POV article on the road to NPOV into a point-counterpoint defense of the RST with the explanation of what it actually is being removed. I suggest we revert to the last version Ed and I had worked on here (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Reciprocal_System_of_Theory/Temp&oldID=85368&version=3). Perhaps it would be best if you didn't edit the Temp verions until Ed and I are done with it. All I wanted was a quick note after each of the discussions stating briefly why the mainstream scientific community thinks the particular ideas expressed are crackpot ideas. I am sorry that I have not had more time to do this, but there is constantly many other fires being started that I have to put out. Not to mention the fact that I also try to contribute some content myself once in a while. If you agree, I will still take a closer look at what you added to see if it could be integrated into the article. If you don't agree, then I would probably have to give up because I really don't know what to do with the most recent additions. --maveric149

I agree. I've read all the past versions of this article and this talk page, and I still have no idea what the word motion means in RST. Nor time. Nor reciprocal. Definitions of these words were written using RST jargon. That can't help me since I don't know the jargon. These terms need to be defined using words/equations that non-RST people will understand. An RST encyclopedia article shouldn't include a long debate on the philosophy of science. It just needs a clear description of the basics of RST, and a few short statements pointing out that mainstream science rejects RST.--Anon

Sounds good. Hopefully Doug will be able to explain what these terms mean on this talk page so that those definitions can be put into the article. --maveric149

Ok, I guess I am pretty dense. I appreciate your patience though. I removed the article I just wrote and reverted back to the one you indicate above Maveric. I also will take each point Anon lists and try to explain them here on the talk page.--Doug

I've taken excerpts from the article and expanded them to explain the three concepts mentioned by Anon. Tell me if they are helpful and what else might be needed: --Doug

The Reciprocity of Space and Time

Larson’s idea that time and space are reciprocals is difficult to understand when considered in the context of the conventional space-time framework as if to say that the march of time is the reciprocal of extension space, which we ordinarily think of as a container of matter. It is much easier to grasp when one considers a theoretical universe of motion in which the only significant physical quantity is the magnitude of that motion, measured as speed or velocity. As Larson explains it,

Motion is defined as the relation of space to time. Its mathematical expression is the quotient of the two quantities. An increase in space therefore has exactly the same effect on the speed, the mathematical measure of the motion, as a decrease in time, and vice versa.

Thus, Larson is simply defining the two terms that define motion, as well as motion itself, as scalar quantities. That is, it is the familiar equation for motion, v = s/t. The value of a given motion varies directly with the enumerator and inversely with the denominator; therefore, the space and time terms are related in a give – take, or a reciprocal, sense.

Notice that this is the definition of motion in an absolute sense. To understand this one must give up the notion that motion is only the description of an object’s rate of movement along a path or vector through space. In the RST it is postulated that motion, i.e. a quantity of space associated with a quantity of time, is all that exists. There can only be motion in RST. Neither space nor time can exist apart from motion, because these two are the constituents of motion, just as the mathematical expression indicates (motion = space/time).

The RST Concept of Time

Another difficulty frequently experienced by those encountering the RST for the first time, is the postulated existence of three dimensions of motion. But, again, it is helpful to realize that the RST is a complete departure from the ordinary assumption that space is a three-dimensional container of matter, and that time is simply a one-dimensional, unidirectional 'flow' of events within that container. Ordinarily, in applying the equation of velocity, v = s/t, s has a direction in space and t has no direction in space. However, asserts Larson, ‘it doesn't follow that t has no direction in time.’ RS, then, simply assumes that its postulated three-dimensional motion has three aspects of time corresponding to the three aspects of space. This is an assumption of immense consequence and Larson justifies it by a principle of extrapolation and symmetry: If space and time are the constituents of motion then the properties of one could be the properties of the other. Therefore, since we know that time progresses, it’s a good bet that space does too (that it actually does is an observationally established fact today). Likewise, since we know that space is three-dimensional, it’s a good bet that time is too and so on. Now, of course, the assumed three dimensions of time are not space-like, they are dimensions of time or time-like, an unknown concept to us, but nevertheless we can use mathematical expressions of it such as t³ and t² in the RST just as we can use analogous space expressions such as s³ and s². So, three dimensional motion is defined by the term s³/t³ in RST.

Scalar Motion

Notice that three-dimensional motion cannot be expressed as a vector however. Larson goes to great pains to explain the important RS concept of scalar motion. Scalar motion has no direction in space other than outward or inward. Because scientists have not studied the nature of this type of motion much, most people are unfamiliar with it, but it’s the type of motion similar to the motion of the surface of an expanding balloon. In scalar motion such as this, direction is relative to the chosen reference point. Since every point on the balloon is moving away from every other point on the balloon, the direction of any given point with reference to any other given point is simply outward when the balloon is inflating or inward when it is deflating. The observed recession of distant galaxies is the best example of outward scalar motion (gravity is an inward scalar motion, but a more complex phenomenon).

To illustrate the non-vector nature of scalar motion, consider three observers on three galaxies along a line ABC. Observer A will observe both galaxies B and C moving away in direction AC. But observer C will observe galaxies A and B moving away in the opposite direction CA, while observer B will observe galaxy A moving away in direction BA and galaxy C moving away in the opposite direction BC. Why the contradiction? Which observer is reporting the correct vector? The answer is that all of them are because the actual direction of the scalar motion is only outward, that is, all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies and a “vector” is only produced by the reference point of the observer.

In a similar fashion, the inward scalar motion of gravity has no vector. It is observed when two or more proximate masses, each moving inward towards all other points in space, as a result of their inherent inward scalar motion, appear to be attracted in the direction of the others. But in this case, the magnitude of the inward scalar motion is determined by the quantity of the mass involved and therefore this complicates the picture somewhat. Also, the fact that the inward direction of the scalar motion is inward towards zero further complicates the situation. While a detailed explanation of the nature of this motion is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say, that it is an example of inward scalar motion and thus the ensuing enigma as to its origin; It is not “action at a distance” nor is it “propagated” through space, rather it is related to the scalar motion of the galaxies in that it is an inherent scalar motion of mass itself.

Maveric, I read your latest edit and have some comments. I think the first thing I would say is that the criticism part needs to be more specific and 'they' need to be cited. Who are these critics and what published comments have they made that can be cited as arguments against Larson's case? Since the critics are supposed to be the majority of scientists familiar with the RST and 'members of the mainstream scientific community,' you should be able to find at least one that you can quote or else these unsupported comments undermine the NPOV you are striving for.

To say that some unidentified persons 'point out that there is no basis to believe the two fundamental assumptions of this "system of theory" and therefore any predictions that arise from it are not scientifically valid' is both strong and vague. Are you saying here that assumptions have to have a "basis to believe" before "predictions that arise from it" can be scientifically valid? This makes no sense to me. I don't know what you are trying to say, but it's obvious to me that YOU are saying it, not a qualified third party. Don't we want to avoid that?

Again, you say "They further argue that the "postulates" proposed by Larson are not postulates at all and can therefore not be the basis for anything scientific." Who would say such a thing? It makes no sense and definitely needs some support. You then go on to quote the definition of a postulate which contradicts your earlier statements and make a curious claim that '"postulates" are reserved for mathematical theorems...' Are you sure you want to publish this? There is more I would point out concerning the postulates but its all in the same vein.

Let me also say very clearly and emphatically that the RST does not deny the existence of matter. This is just an absurd statement and I don't know anyone who is the least informed, let alone educated and trained for intellectual pursuits, that would make such a statement. The RST explains the existence of matter and energy, it does not deny their existence! This just points out why it is so important to have a good RST article in Wikipedia. There is so much misinformation being asserted and alleged that the public can easily be deceived with regard to the true nature of it.

Finally, the example you give of the "geocentric theory" is misapplied to the RST which is a new theory. The Ptolemaic System was an old accepted theory that it's supporters tried to fortify by inventing "epicycles" to explain contradicting empirical evidence that was mounting against it in a manner strikingly similar to the attempts of modern science to bolster the nuclear theory of the atom and defend the Standard Model. General relativity is also a good example of a theory so mathematically complex that only now are computers able to make some practical use of it possible. However, its important to point out that if the assumptions of a theory are incorrect, this becomes evident by comparing hypothetical test cases based on those assumptions to empirical results, as happened in the case of the Ptolemaic System. Contradicitng facts disprove assumptions, not allegations. If the assumption that the universe revolves around the earth is contradicted by the known facts, then it becomes untenable. Likewise, if the assumption that the origin of physical entities in the universe is three-dimensional motion is contradicted by the known facts, it too becomes untenable. The truth is, the RST is not untestable, it is untested. Either you need to admit and address that fact or else you are being way unneutral. Doug - July 6, 2002

Like I've said before, this is a work in progress. Much of what was stated was taken from the old talk, I haven't had time to check it much yet. And the postulate part needs be be rewritten for clarity -- although it is a valid argument. Science isn't built on unsupported assumptions, it's built on hard data and mathematical models. --maveric149

Maveric, thanks for unlocking the page. Doug, thanks for persisting. What I will do for both of you (and, of course for the general readership) is to copy-edit any additions Doug makes. Mostly I will trim down lengthy passages. I hope this helps. Ed Poor 05:51 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

Ed, I appreciate any help I can get in presenting the RST fairly and accurately. But the article really suffers from the lack of a credible argument in the criticism section. As it now stands, it is very weak. Can someone (I'm willing to draft something for a start if nothing else) supply an argument that is more scientific and logical and less polemical and emotional than what we have now? Doug 09:25 Sept 3, 2002 (MDT)

Doug, feel free to edit the page any way you see fit -- no pre-conditions!! It's on my watch list, so as soon as you've submitted an edit, I can review it. All I'm really monitoring it for is to ensure that any pro-RST *claims* are properly attributed; if necessary, I might add one more disclaimer like "...nonethless, mainstream scientists are near-universal in dismissing RST as pseudo-science". Fair enough? --Ed Poor

Ed, I have agreed not to edit it, so I better not. But my point is that all we have are these one-line *disclaimers* on the con side. For instance to say mainstream scientists are near-universal in dismissing RST as pseudo-science" is to imply that all these "mainstream scientists" have done so already, when in truth 99% of them have never considered it, therefore it's mis-leading to say this. What we need is one or more such scientists whose arguments we can quote. I have an idea. Let's number the paragraphs in the temp article so we can refer to them and work with each paragraph in turn in this talk area. I will try to express it NPOV and include enough specifics while you give me a critique of it. Will will do that for each paragraph, including the Criticism part, until we have it. How about that? I do number one for an example. Doug 5 Sep 02 4:17pm (MDT)

The problem is that you're not likely to find any real scientists willing to take the time to rebut it, because it's not even worth their time to bother. The so-called "theory" is just a meaningless mish-mash of words that doesn't even say anything that can be tested. If it were merely wrong, then it could be scientifically tested--but it's neither right nor wrong, because it doesn't even say anything. It's just incoherent ramblings utterly without value or substance, and no respectable scientist would waste effort on it when he could be researching real questions. Its only relevance to science would be as a study in the abmormal psychology of otherwise apparently well-educated people with delusions of significance. --LDC

Daniel, it's clearly not "incoherent ramblings without value or substance." You cannot be serious making such a statement. I visited your personal page and you seem to be a reasonable person, please be fair and honest - what is to be gained by making absurd allegations such as this instead of taking a less arrogant attitude and doing a little honest investigation. Larson was an erudite and articulate author whose works deserve serious consideration, not heedless railings from those who think they are somehow called to defend the faith of orthodoxy at all costs, even if it comes to sacrificing their integrity.

Doug, I asked once for a definition of motion that used standard terminology rather than unfamiliar RST jargon. I think the answer boiled down to this:

A motion is a scalar vector calculated as (s³)/(t³), the quotient of the cubes of two three-dimensional vectors.

This makes no sense to me either, if I wrote it, I retract it, but I don't think I did. - Doug

I honestly belive that this means something to RST people. I think RST redefines the words vector and scalar and quotient and cube to make this meaningful. But I don't know the jargon, so to me it's incoherent rambling, just as LDC said. You can't raise a vector to a power. You can't divide by a vector. "scalar vector" is an oxymoron. I still can't see where s and t come from. Like I said before, I don't believe RST is meaningless nonsense. It's just meaningless to me right now.

Fair enough. I can see the confusion. I would feel the same way if it were me. - Doug

Mainstream scientists aren't just mindlessly defending orthodoxy. The problem is that if a mainstream scientist spends an hour or two trying to read Larson (even starting at the beginning) or trying to read your summaries here, the words will appear to be nonsense. Even worse, some of the terminology could be interpreted as disingenous. It looks like RST claims to derive numbers such as the charge of an electron. It "derives" these results by choosing a set of arbitrary constants, where there are as many arbitrary constants as there are results. Mainstream physics doesn't use the word "derive" for that kind of process, so the misunderstandings multiply. I spent more hours than I should have trying to decipher all this, and finally gave up.

I agree that there are several problems here, and that we are not going to make any progress if something doesn't change. One question we must address is credibility, scientific credibility. The question boils down to this: Is Larson's approach scientifically valid or not (is it pseudoscience or not). Opinions not withstanding, we need to establish the relevant facts of this question.

The second question we need to address is conceptual definition, how can we clearly and unequivocally define the concept so it can be generally understood what the RST is.

And then the third question is that of NPOV, how can we do all this and maintain a reasonable NPOV.

I will edit the temp article with these three objectives in mind. Then, let's take it one paraagraph or section at a time and see if we can agree. Doug 7 Sep 02 2:43pm MDT

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)

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!