Introduction to Doug's RSt

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by dbundy » Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:10 pm

Now that our RSt has a basis for calculating the discrete levels of energy transitions observed in Hydrogen, we need a scalar motion model of the atom that serves to explain the changes inducing the transistions, as does the vector motion model of LST theory. For right or wrong, whether it's the Bohr model of electron particles, orbiting a nucleus, or the Schrödinger model of electron waves, inhabiting shells around a nucleus, the LST's atomic model provides the LST community with a physical interpretation of the word "transition." However, this is much more difficult to achieve in a scalar motion model.

In our RSt, where the unit of elementary scalar motion from which higher combinations are derived, the S|T unit, is an oscillating volume of space and time, understanding what accounts for the observed atomic energy transitions in the combinations identified as atoms is not easy.

This is especially challenging given that, in our theory, the electron has no identity and consequently no properties, as an electron, until it is created in the disintegration of the atom, or in the process of its ionization. Fortunately, however, we have the scalar motion equation to help.

Recall, that the basic scalar motion equation is,

S|T = 1/2+1/1+2/1 = 4|4 num (natural units of motion),

And our basic energy, or inverse motion equation is,

T|S = 1/2+1/1+2/1 = 4|4 num (natural units of inverse motion),

Now, this terminology and notation will be a complete mystery to those who have not read the previous posts, so reading and understanding those posts first is a prerequisite for the study of what follows, and while we are on the subject, let me emphasize the tentative nature of all the conclusions presented thus far. It may be necessary to eat a lot of humble pie from time to time, during the development of our RSt, for several reasons, but if so, it won't be the first time. It has been said before and bears repeating: It takes courage to develop a physical theory, not to mention a new system of physical theory. Larson was an incredibly courageous man, as well as an intelligent and honest investigator. Perhaps those of us who try to follow his lead appreciate that fact more than most.

With that said, we have taken on the challenge of dealing with units of energy, with dimensions E=t/s, as well as motion, with dimensions v=s/t, and have dared to cross over the line of LST physics, which cannot brook the existence of entities over the speed of light, which are known as "tachyons," in that system. Nevertheless, the T units in our RSt are just such units, but because the dimensions of these units are actually the inverse of less than unit speed units, no known laws of LST physics are broken.

In retrospect, venturing into this unexplored realm of apparent over-unity, which seems so iconoclastic, appears to be the natural and compelling evolution of physical thought. So much so that one marvels that the world had to wait so long for the Columbus-like pioneer Larson to show science the way. However, incredible as it is, the entire LST community, save just a few, has no idea yet that our understanding of the nature of space and time has been revolutionized. They cannot, as yet, recognize that time is the inverse of space, even though it's as plain as the nose on your face, as soon as someone points out how it can be.

By the same token, the mathematics of the new system is just as iconoclastic. As we consider the basic scalar motion equation, n(S|T)=n4|n4, and its inverse, n(T|S)=n4|n4, and graph their simple magnitudes, we find that its also possible to formulate a basic scalar energy equation, where

S*T = n2.

In the previous posts above, I've explained how S|T units combine into entities identified with the observed first family of the LST's standard model (sm), and these combos combine into entities that are identified as protons and neutrons, which combine into elements of the periodic table, or Wheel of Motion:


The symbolic representation of the S|T units that, as preons, combine to form the fermions and bosons of our RSt, are a reflection of the S|T equation, making it possible to graphically represent them and their combinations as protons and neutrons along with their respective magnitudes of natural units of motion. On this basis, the S|T magnitudes for the proton, neutron and electron combos are:

P = 46|46 num,
N = 44|44 num,
E = 18|18 num

The magnitude of the Hydrogen atom (Deuterium isotope) is then the sum of these three:

H = 46+44+18 = 108|108 num.

At this point, however, representing the constituents of the atom as combos of S|T triplets (see previous posts above), becomes cumbersome and we need to condense the symbols from 20 triangles to 4 triangles, in the form of a tetrahedron, as shown below:


The top triangle of the tetrahedron is the odd man out for the nucleons, so that for the proton this is the down quark, but for the neutron it is the up quark.

The numbers in the four triangles are the net magnitudes of the quarks and the electron. So, the number of the down quark at the top of the proton is -1, because the magnitude of the inner term of its S|T equation is 2/1, (-2+1 = -1), whereas the number of its two up quarks is 2, because the inner terms of their S|T equations are both 3/5, (-3+5=2). For the neutron, the number of the single up quark at the top is 2, while the magnitude of the two down quarks below it is -1, given the inner terms of their S|T equations.

The inner term of the electron's S|T equation is 6/3, or -3, (-6+3=-3), so that the net motion of the three entities combined as the Deuterium atom balance out at 3-3 = 0, or neutral in terms of charge, as show in the graphic above.

In this way, each element of the Wheel could be represented by the numbers of its tetrahedron symbol, if there were some need to do so, but what is more useful is the S|T equation itself. Expanding the equation for Deuterium:

D = 27/54+27/27+54/27 = 108|108 num,

but factoring out 33, we get:

D = 33(1/2+1/1+2/1) = 108|108 num.

To take advantage of this factorization we can represent it by making the S|T symbols of the notation bold:

S|T = 33(1/2+1/1+2/1) = 108|108 num


D = S|T= 108; He = 2(S|T) = 216; Li = 3(S|T) = 324, etc.

This way, we can easily write the S|T equation for any element, X, given its atomic number, Z:

XZ = z(S|T)

However, while this should prove to be quite helpful as compact notation, there is still more to consider. Recall that the units on the world-line chart actually represent the expanding/contracting radius of an oscillating volume, and as such, its magnitude is the square root of 3, not 1. This factor expands the relative magnitudes involved considerably, which we will investigate more later on.

For now, I want to draw your attention to the scalar energy equation,

S*T = n2.

Recall that for the S*T unit,

S*T = 1/(n+1) * (n*n) * (n+1)/1 = n2,.

So when n = 1,

S*T = (1/2)*(1*1)*(2/1) = ((1/2)(2/1)(1*1)) = ((2/2)(1*1)) = 1*1 = 12,

but, if we invert the multiplication operation, we get:

S/T = (1/2)/(1/1)/(2/1) = ((1/2)(1/1))(1/2) = (1/2)(1/2) = 1/22,

which we want to do when we wish to view the S&T cycles, in terms of energy, so that:

E = hv ---> T/S = 1/S/T = n2,

where n is the number of cycles in a given S|T unit.

Now, this may seem to be contrived, and perhaps it is, especially when we invert the operation of the inner term of the S*T equation from division (n/n) to multiplication (n*n). However, if we don't invert it, the equation will always equal 1, while if we do invert it, then dividing 'T' cycles, by 'S' cycles (T/S) yields the correct answer, T/S = n2.

Now, this brings us to something else that needs to be clarified. In the chart showing the correlation between the quadratic equation of the S|T units and the line spectra of Hydrogen, given the Rydberg equation, the frequency of the S|T units is shown as decreasing with increasing energy, rather than increasing as it should. This is problematic to say the least, but I think it can be resolved, when we consider that the "direction" reversals of each S and T unit always remains at the 1/2 and 2/1 ratio, even though their combined magnitude is greater in the absolute sense; that is, while the space/time (time/space) ratio of 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, ...n/2n, remains constant at n/2n = 1/2, the absolute magnitude of 2n - n increases, as n: 1, 2, 3, 4, ...2n-n.

Therefore, the length of the reversing "direction" arrows, shown in the graphic, as increasing in length, as the absolute magnitude increases, is an incorrect representation of the physical picture. The correct representation would show the number of arrows increasing, as S|T units are combined, with their lengths (i.e.their periods) remaining constant, so that, as the quadratic energy increases, the number of 1/2 periods in a given S|T combo increases. The frequency of the unit then is that of a frequency mixer, containing both the sum and difference frequencies of its constituent S|T units..

Of course, this is not exactly what is observed, but upon further investigation, we may be able to resolve the discrepancy. At least it is consistent with our theoretical development.

In the meantime, for the energy conversion of the S|T equation of the Hydrogen atom, where n = 1, with 33 factored out, we get:

S/T = (1/33n)2 = 1/272, and T/S = (33n)2 = 272 = 729,

when we put the 33 factor back in, so we get the actual number of 1/2 and 2/1 cycles, or S and T units, contained in the Hydrogen atom.

There are a lot of tantalizing clues to follow in the investigation of these equations and their relation to the conventions of the LST particle physics community, which uses units of electron volts for energy, dividing those units by the speed of light to attain units of momentum, and dividing them by the speed of light squared to attain units of mass. They even divide the reduced Planck's constant by eV to attain a unit of time, and that result times c to get the unit of space, according to Wikipedia:

Measurement--Unit---------SI value of unit
Energy----------eV--------------1.602176565(35)×10−19 J
Mass------------eV/c2-----------1.782662×10−36 kg
Momentum-----eV/c ------------5.344286×10−28 kg⋅m/s
Time-------------ħ/eV------------6.582119×10−16 s
Distance---------ħc/eV----------1.97327×10−7 m

It'll take a while to untangle these units and see how they correspond to the S|T units of motion, but in the meantime, we can use the progress achieved so far to analyze the periodic table of elements, showing why Larson's four, 4n2, periods define it, using the LRC model of the atom explained so far.

Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by dbundy » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:12 am

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the comment. The math is so far over my head that I could never discuss it intelligently. You said,
Following Nehru's approach, the Schrodinger equation was assimilated into RS and spectroscopic calculations are possible right now without changes to the methods used today.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Who assimilated the wave equation into the RS? Where are these RS calculations using today's methods? I don't understand.

You also wrote:
to develop RS's own methods to calculate spectroscopy the connection between wave-function and the Larson's triplets has to be understood first. Have you dig into this so far?
The wave-function is based on 3D spherical harmonics, in other words, vector motion on a surface, while scalar motion is not any kind of vector motion. By definition, it is a change in scale, or size. If you are referring to the preon triplets as Larson's triplets in the LRC's RSt, then I would say that there is a remote connection that can be seen in the Lie algebras employed in QM, but, again, the disconnect is fundamental, because of the difference in the definitions of motion.

Using the wave equation, LST physicists are at a loss to understand the nature of quantum spin. By their own admission, they haven't a clue how to account for it, and when it comes to iso-spin, it's even worse. However, the root of their problem is, again, the definition of motion, which manifests itself in the fundamental understanding of the relation between numbers, geometry and physics.

When Larson changed our understanding of the nature of space and time, he changed everything, including our understanding of the nature of numbers, because the same principle of reciprocity that is not recognized as fundamental in LST physics is also not recognized as fundamental in LST algebra (meaning numbers). Thanks to Larson, we can now see the connection between 3D geometry and 3D numbers, and as Raul Bott so famously proved, Larson's postulate, that there are no physical phenomena beyond the third dimension, is established.

What this means is that the use of the modern algebra, while able to weave sophisticated and intricate, dare I say baroque, edifices out of fundamental concepts like magnitudes, dimensions and directions, cannot help us to get where we need to get because of errors of definition.

The clearest example I think I can point to is the vain attempt to use octonions in the string theory of QM. John Baez co-authored a 2011 article in Scientific American, entitled, The Strangest Numbers in String Theory, with the subtitle: "A forgotten number system invented in the 19th century may provide the simplest explanation for why our universe could have 10 dimensions."

He is referring to the attempt to use 7 imaginary numbers, with a real number, 8 numbers in all, to invent a 3D number system. The problem is, of course, the use of even 1 imaginary number, to compensate for the lack of understanding that Larson provides us, has taken us down the wrong path in understanding magnitudes, dimensions and directions. To be sure, it has been very fruitful, and, together with the concept called "real" numbers, has lead to Western society's undreamed of advances in technology.

Nevertheless, it has also led to the continuous/discrete impasse now plaguing the LST community, which string theory's attempt to go beyond three dimensions, was hoped to solve. However, nothing but a correction in the fundamental understanding of motion and numbers can do that. A non-pathological 1, 2 and 3D algebra is possible, but only if they are based on the correct understanding of points, lines, areas and volumes, generated by scalar motion over time (space).

The reason Baez et. al. think octonions are needed, is because the vector space of the Lie algebra associated with the 3D Lie group runs out of dimensions to use, after two dimensions. In other words, they can't use complex numbers in the SU(3) group, because it takes two dimensions for one complex number, (I'm ignoring the non-geometric meaning of "dimension," used by mathematicians.)

Now, Larson's reciprocal system, when applied to numbers, opens up a whole new world, where the three (four counting zero) dimensions of physical magnitudes, in two "directions" replace the foundation of modern vector algebra, based on imaginary numbers, with a scalar algebra, based on real (i.e. integer) numbers, which correspond to geometric points, lines, areas and volumes, generated over time (space).

These algebras do not lose the vital properties of 0D algebra, as they increase in dimension, because the dimensions of the unit itself change, going from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 dimensions, in a completely different manner than the vector algebra does, which goes from real (0D), to complex (1D), to quaternions (2D), to octonions (3D), via imaginary numbers, losing the properties of algebra in the process.

In other words, unlike the vector algebras, our higher-dimensional scalar algebras are each as distributive, commutative and associative as our 0D scalar algebra. This is a huge change in the foundation of the mathematics employed in the two systems of theory.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't employ the LST algebras and calculus to advantage in the RST, to give us insight into the physics of vector motion that we can use in the development of the physics of scalar motion, but it means that we always have to understand the difference.

Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by dbundy » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:35 am

One of the LST challenges that Larson's RSt cannot meet is the diminishing size of the atom from the beginning of an energy level to the end, where it terminates in the noble element, So, not only does a viable physical theory have to be able to account for the line spectra of the elements, which organizes the 117 elements into the 4n2 periods we find, but it also has to account for this shrinkage in the diameter of the atom, as it gets more and more massive, within each period.

The LST theory accounts for it, by asserting that the orbiting electrons are pulled in towards the nucleus, as its mass increases, which seems very reasonable. However, there is no atomic nucleus in RST-based atoms, and also no orbiting electrons to pull closer in.

In the atom of Larson's RSt, there are two magnetic rotations and one electrical rotation (m1-m2-e (my notation, not his), and since the electrical rotation is one-dimensional, it takes n2 electrical rotations to equal one, two-dimensional m2 magnetic unit.

This structures the elements into the four periods quite nicely, without resorting to the spectral data at all. And, as it turns out, the LST's QM theory of spectral lines gets the number of elements in the periods wrong, as shown by Le Cornec's distribution of atomic ionization potentials.

The good news is that the LRC's RSt does appear to account for the decreasing size of the atom, as its mass increases in each period, even as we hope to unlock the mystery of the actomic spectra, as well, but more on the mass and size issue later.

At this point, the immediate challenge is how to account for the atomic spectra, given the scalar motion model that has no nucleus and no cloud of electrons surrounding it. In the LRC's RSt, the scalar motion model of the atom consists of combinations of motion called S|T units, which act as preons to the standard model (sm) of observed particles, namely the fermions, classified as quarks and leptons, and the bosons, as discussed previously in the above posts.

With the equation of motion, we can write the total motion of the Hydrogen atom as,

S|T = 27/54+27/27+54/27 = 108|108 num,

where the proton & neutron contribution of total motion is,

S|T = 21/42+21/24+48/24 = 90|90,

and the contribution of the electron is,

S|T = 6/12+6/3+6/3 = 18|18.

Assuming an electron absorbs a photon of lowest energy, we get:

e + γ = (6/12+6/3+6/3) + (3/6+3/3+6/3) = 9/18+9/6+12/6 = 30|30,

which is only 12 num higher than the electron, but the middle term, 9/6, is now 6-9 = -3. So, while the relative motion imbalance (the electrical charge) of the excited electron (as part of the atom) is unchanged, the scalar energy has increased by 3, a quantum jump in the energy (9x6 = 54, divided by 6x3 =18, given our scalar energy equation discussed above).

This is, in effect, equivalent to the quantum energy transition of the LST's Bohr model, where the ground state electron is excited to the next higher orbit, at least qualitatively speaking. It remains to be understood quantitatively, at this point, but it looks promising.

Nevertheless, our earlier analysis of the energy transitions were based on the sequence of single S|T units (12, 22, 32, ... n2), which worked out quite well, but here, the sequence has to be based on the assumption of basic boson triplets, as the unit, where the sequence is:

3, 6, 9, ...3n

so the photon motion equation is actually:

S|T = 3(1/2+1/1+2/1) = 3/6+3/3+6/3 = 12|12 num.

Hence, the magnitude of n quantum transitions is,

e + nγ = (6/12+6/3+6/3) + n(3/6+3/3+6/3),

So for n =
0, the middle term of e + nγ = 6/3 = -3, and energy = 6x3 = 18
1, the middle term of e + nγ = 9/6 = -3, and energy = 9x6 = 54
2, the middle term of e + nγ = 12/9 = -3, and energy = 12/9 = 108
3, the middle term of e + nγ = 15/12 = -3, and energy = 15x12 = 180
4, the middle term of e + nγ = 18/15 = -3, and energy = 18x15 = 270

in natural units of energy, we might say,

One would expect that this would lead to a very simple, Hydrogen-like explanation of the line spectra of the elements, but, of course, this is far from the case. In fact, the LST community's much hyped solution, using Schrödinger's wave equation, works only in principle, since they can't use the separation of variables technique to solve the equation analytically.

However, according to the work of amateur investigator Franklin Hu, "If you create a simple graph of the line
frequencies and intensities for Helium, a striking and predictable pattern appears which suggests that the spectra and the intensity can be calculated using simple formulas based on the Rydberg formula. This pattern also appears in lithium and beryllium."

Unfortunately, Hu lacks a suitable physical theory to explain the pattern, but we hope to supply that part.

Stay tuned for more developments coming soon.

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by rossum » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:59 am

Hello Doug,

thanks for answer and sorry for a my late answer, I have been extremely busy these days.

You wrote:
In my post I was referring to K.V.K. Nehru's article “Quantum Mechanics” As the Mechanics of the time region. In this article he says:
...[h]ence the Schrödinger equations can be admitted as legitimate governing
principles for arriving at the possible wave functions of an hypothetical particle of mass m traversing
the time region, with or without potential energy functions as the case may be.
Nehru's argumentation for the Schrodinger eq. in RS seems to me pretty solid, so I took it for generally accepted among RS community, though I'm aware I may be wrong at this point.

In the same article he proposed several potentials, namely

so it is (technically) possible to solve the Schrodinger equation for this potential and get both the spectral lines (as energy differences of the solutions) and their intensities (overlaps between the solutions). Although this potential removes the need for renormalization it is unfortunately incorrect: I analysed it and the solutions give incorrect energies for any combination of coefficients. The potential curve has simply a wrong shape. As a result e.g. chemical bonds would not break under high temperature etc.

What I really meant was that anyone can now calculate the spectra (even for molecules) using this Nehru's approach, but probably nobody except me tried.

You also wrote:
I don't quite understand: I would say, that on the contrary, nature of the spin is to certain point quite well understood: the best way to see the nature of the spin in modern physics is to use the Foldy-Wouthuysen's transformation of the Dirac Hamiltonian. In this way one gets a number of terms in which the magnetic field (intensity) generated by an electron is a result of the wavy nature of the "particle". The same is true for the composite particles like neutrons as quarks have charge (naively said). It all gets obscured only when relativity comes into play: people want to attribute the Lorentz invariance to the relativity instead of the nature of waves. (Waves in general are Lorentz invariant using their speed - a fact people tend to ignore or don't know). In short it is not possible to have "moving charge" or general electromagnetic wave without the magnetic component i.e. spin.

To the rest of your post: I have many comments but they are quite long for posting - maybe a skype talk would be more appropriate some day. One however I need to mention here is that string theory is definitely not a main-stream theory and it is far from being accepted. I think the whole theory is fundamentally flawed. For now the main-stream is quantum field theory (kind of opposite to the string theory).

Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by dbundy » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:45 am

Hi rossum.

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I knew you were referring to K.V. K.'s article, but he was never able to make any progress along the lines he suggested, but, as you write:
This is news to me. Have you posted the calculations somewhere? If so, please point me to them.

As far as the nature and origin of quantum spin goes, the LST community doesn't have a clue. All they know is that it is a conundrum yet to be solved. How can a particle with no spatial extent possess "intrinsic angular momentum?" It can't, but even if it could, the need to rotate its spin axis through 720 degrees to return the particle to its original state, is a complete mystery.

In the LRC's RSt, however, there is no spin axis, as the 3D oscillation is not a spherical wave, but a pulsation of volume, if you will, and the 720 degree cycle is easily explained.

But, again, the important thing for us to understand is how Larson has revolutionized the nature of space and time and the phenomenon of motion. Until we recognize that a repetitive change in scale constitutes motion and follow the consequences, the science of theoretical physics will ever be bound to the science of vector motion and mathematics will forever be hampered by imaginary numbers.

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by rossum » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:28 am

Hello Doug,
dbundy wrote: This is news to me. Have you posted the calculations somewhere? If so, please point me to them.
No I didn't, but I can show you the problem here. On the following image you can see arbitrarily scaled Nehru's potential, the classical electrostatic potential (this one is usually used to calculate the hydrogen atom energies) and harmonic potential (usually used as an approximation in molecular dynamics etc.).
pot.png (6 KiB) Viewed 3808 times
As Nehru didn't write how to calculate the coefficients in his potential, but if there are some correct coefficients, it should be at least possible to fit them to experimental data. For this we could use the first and the last line in the Balmer series from the experiment, just to check the feasibility of this potential. However the lines in the Nehru's potential do not converge to certain value but rise to infinity instead. Note that in harmonic potential (i.e. x^2) the solutions are spaced equally whereas in classical potential (i.e. frac{1}{x}) converge to some value. Below are images graphically show the energies for these potentials.

Harmonic potential levels:
harmonic_levels.jpeg (26.48 KiB) Viewed 3808 times
Classical electrostatic potential levels:
levels.png (40.61 KiB) Viewed 3808 times
From the images above it should be obvious that the levels in the Nehru's potential will be closer to the harmonic potential than the classical potential and will diverge instead of converging. I even used an online differential equation solver to get the eigenfunctions in analytical form, but after seeing the result I didn't bother to calculate the eigenvalues (relative energies in atomic units). Here is the input and output from the
npot_diff.gif (1.46 KiB) Viewed 3808 times
npot_s.gif (4.48 KiB) Viewed 3808 times
Where U(a,b) is the Kummer's function of the second kind and L_n^m(a) are Laguerre function. Now the solution in the classical potential is N_{nl}e^{-\frac{\rho}{2} \rho^lL_{n-l-1}^{2l+1}(\rho)} whre L_{n-l-1}^{2l+1}(\rho)} is Laguerre polynomial \rho=r\frac{2}{na_l} and N_nl=\frac{2}{n^2}\sqrt{\frac{n-l-1}{[(n+l)!]^3}}. If we cut away everything we possibly could by adjusting constants and focus only on the "main quantum number" (i.e. set the Laguerre polynomial/function to be a constant) we see that in case of the classical potential the energy increases from a negative value to 0 but in case of Nehru's potential rises to infinity very similarly to the harmonic potential.


Although I did't calculate the energies for the hydrogen atom using Nehru's potential I was able to analyse the possible solutions and show that they must have in any case a wrong tendency. However this is relevant only to the part which was proposed to the 'electronic' part. I didn't analyse the rest of the potentials so they may or may not be correct.

Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by dbundy » Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:46 am

Thanks for the detailed explanation, rossum. I've been out of pocket for weeks now and don't know when I'll be able to reply, but will try to as soon as possible.

Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Our RSt Goes Cosmic

Post by dbundy » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:28 am

I finally have more time to devote to this discussion, and explanation of the LRC's RSt. The development of the topic to this point has been focused on the material sector of the theoretical universe, leading to rossum's post on the utility of applying the LST community's equations to obtain the atomic spectra.

As he indicates in the above post, this is a problematic approach, to say the least. We would like to find a scalar motion based solution, using the new scalar math, and I think we will eventually, as I have made some progress that is encouraging, along that line.

The trouble is, however, it's been months since I've been able to give it any attention and in the meantime, to my delight, a presentation of the work of Randell Mills and his energy generator, based on his Hydrino theory, which has a very interesting energy spectra, has been taken to the road. He first presented it in Washington, D.C., then in London, and this month, he will present it in California. It's very impressive (see:

I corresponded with Randell a year or so ago, discussing his hydrino theory somewhat, proffering some insight into the phenomenon in RST terms, but, of course he was not interested and I can certainly understand why. However, his theory invokes a new model of the electron, using the same spherical harmonics as QM does to derive the atomic orbitals we've discussed above, but he does so by turning the orbitals into electrons!

That's right. In his theory, the electron is treated as a two-dimensional surface of a sphere, surrounding the nucleus, called an "orbitsphere," with charges and currents flowing upon the surface, according to spherical wave equations. Fortunately, this approach eliminates the acceleration problem of orbiting electrons, as did the Bohr model, but without the position vs. momentum issue arising from the dual wave/particle concept of the electron, inherent in quantum mechanics.

This enables Mills to use the classical laws of Newton and the equations of Maxwell to solve the quantum mechanical experiments such as the dual slit phenomena giving rise to the particle/wave enigma. However, Mills' triumph of classical vs quantum mechanics is based on a photon and electron momentum interaction, which is necessarily problematic for "point-like" entities that actually do (must) have extent of some kind, and consequently cannot carry "charge" without flying apart, unless something ad hoc, like "Poincaré stresses," are postulated to hold them together.

It is the enigma of how elementary particles can exist, which have no extent (radius = 0), but yet can have something called "quantum spin" and angular momentum, which is the most fundamental mystery plaguing the LST community. If these "particles" can't exist in the theory, then arguing how their properties interact to produce observed phenomena is a little like putting the cart before the horse.

Nevertheless, the electron in Mills' theory, not only has extent, it changes form from a two-dimensional surface of a sphere, in its bound form, to a two-dimensional disk in its free form. Electron spin is then conceptualized as a disk flipping like a tossed coin.


The Hydrino theory enables Mills to postulate that many inverse excited states of 1/n exist for electrons in the atom, in addition to the known n excited states, found in the spectroscopy field. However, since these new states are viewed as fractional, rather than inverse states, the LST community rejects the idea categorically.

Of course, inverse states are readily acceptable to the RST community, and the experimental/engineering evidence indicating that they are real, is a highly motivating factor in our research.

The first thought is that the anti-Hydrogen atom of our RSt accounts for Mills' results. Recall that the standard model-like chart of S|T unit combos, includes the anti-particles (read "inverse particles") of the leptons and quarks, which combine to form the proton, neutron and electron, making up the Hydrogen atom.

Accordingly, these inverse versions of the the leptons and quarks combine to form inverse protons, neutrons and electrons, making up the inverse Hydrogen atom, as shown below:


In this image I just underlined, instead of overlined the particle labels to indicate the inverse nature of the particle, but, as can easily be seen, the inverse Hydrogen atom is formed from the inverse-quarks and the inverse-electron (positron) particles. Thus, the excited states of the positron in the inverse-Hydrogen atom would conform to the same calculations as shown for the Hydrogen atom, but in the inverse "direction."

We will follow the RST community's convention and designate these inverse entities as c (for cosmic sector) entities. We will also need to transform the "S|T Periodic Magnitudes" chart, used to graph the S|T combinations for Hydrogen excited states, into its c version, the "T|S Periodic Magnitudes" chart, as shown below:


This operation reverses the "direction" of the unit progression's plot, in order to show that the space and time oscillations of the S (red) units and the T (blue) units are progressing inversely.

While this graphical representation of the transformed ms S and T units into the cs S and T units is straightforward enough, it's not true for the equivalent transformation of the mathematics. Because our conventional mathematics treats inverse integers as fractions of a positive whole, confusion results when we try to use it for calculations in the cs.

Consequently, we have to modify the conventional mathematics once again, if we want consistent results. For instance, normally, if we want to express the difference between two inverse integers, such as 1/22 - 1/12, the result would be .25 - 1 = -.75 on our calculators. While this is the correct answer, given the fractional view of inverse integers, it's unsuitable for our purpose, where the correct answer is the inverse of 4-1 = 3 and that inverse is not a fraction of a positive unit, but three whole inverse units.

As shown in the graphic above, we will modify the conventional mathematics by coloring negative integers red and dispensing with the denominator above the numerator notation, just as is common practice for conventional, non-inverse, positive integers, where the denominator below the numerator is omitted.

On this basis, 4-1 = 3 is equivalent to (1/4) - (1/1) = 1/3 = -3 inverse units, not one third of 1 non-inverse unit. To be consistent, we could also color positive numbers blue and limit the plus and minus signs to indicating addition and subtraction operations only, but we won't normally do that, if the meaning is clear without it.

So, with this much understood, we can see that our RSt works out as nicely for the c sector as it does for the m sector, except there is a one obvious difference: The T|S units are superluminal; that is, they constitute the dreaded "tachyons" of the LST community, which are usually fatal for their theories.

However, they are an integral part of RST-based theories, like ours, because the fundamental definition of motion, as an inverse relation between space and time, defined in a universal space and time expansion, changes everything. Scalar motion can be motion in time as well as space, but it's not the motion of things, or vector motion.

In the case of our theory, i.e. the LRC's RSt, all physical entities consist of units of both space and time motion in combination. The difference between the S|T units of the ms and the T|S units of the cs is reflected in the number line of mathematics, as we have been discussing it: On one side of the unit datum, space/time ratios are the inverse of the other side, time/space ratios, and magnitudes increase in the opposite "direction." However this can be misleading, when we don't realize the reciprocal nature of ratios, and its effect on our perspective.

The bottom line is that increasing from 0 to 1/1 (light speed) in magnitude, in the ms, is no different than increasing from 0 to 1/1 in magnitude, in the cs, except for "direction." The increase from 0 to unit speed in the ms is in the "direction" of decrease from unit speed, in the cs and vice-versa:

0 --> 1/1 <-- 0

But when we don't understand this, the two, inverse, units of magnitude appear to us as two units of increasing magnitude:

0 --> 1/1 --> 2/1

and this leads us to mistakenly conclude that no superluminal (i.e. > 1/1) velocities are possible. They are possible all right, but only when the ratio of space and time is inverted, as preposterous as that may sound to the uniformed.

However, because Larson's new Reciprocal System of Physical Theory unveils the mystery of the true nature of space and time, it enables us to understand the exciting, life-changing phenomena Mills calls Hydrinos, where the 1/n2 magnitudes of atomic spectra become n2 magnitudes, with earth-shaking consequences.

Too bad we weren't fast enough to predict it, let alone produce it.

(More on this later)

Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Our RSt Goes Cosmic

Post by dbundy » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:03 am

It's really a shame that Randell Mills wasn't a student of Larson. He has developed a new general theory of physics under the LST, the "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP)," which he claims, as the name implies, unifies the "forces" of physics, and even postulates a fifth "force."

However, as Larson insisted, the LST scientists ignore the fact that the definition of force eliminates the possibility of so-called autonomous forces, such as appear in the legacy system. Force, by definition, is a quantity of acceleration, and acceleration is a time (space) rate of change in the magnitude of motion.

This is a critical point to understand, but one which cannot be acknowledged, without destroying the foundation of the LST, the research program of which is to identify the fewest number of interactions (forces) among the fewest number of particles, which constitute physical reality.

This is typical of the challenges the LST community faces. They recognize that they are "stuck," and that they need a revolution in their understanding of the nature of space and time, but unless they can see what is hidden in plain sight, that time is the reciprocal of space, the definition of motion, and that physical reality in nothing but motion, they will never get "unstuck." It's a classic example of "you can't get there from here," type of crisis. They've painted themselves into a theoretical corner.

But the pitifully few current followers of Larson's work do not have the wherewithal of understanding or physical resources to conceive of, and conduct, a crucial experiment that would convince the LST community, in part or in whole, that space/time reciprocity is the key to understanding fundamental physical reality. It's the human nature of things, I suppose, but in the meantime, LST scientists like Mills come along and do remarkable things with the old system of theory.

Recall that in introducing the LRC's RSt, we hearkened back to Balmer and Rydberg to show the mysterious role of the number 4 in their breakthrough discoveries, and how that same number is fundamental in our RSt (S|T = 4|4).

But now, the insight it gives us into the Rydberg equation, goes to the heart of Mills work as well, because the empirically derived constant of Balmer's, that started it all, as re-configured by Rydberg, in his formula for the atomic spectra of Hydrogen, holds for the Hydrinos, too, but in inverted form.

The Rydberg formula,

1/λ = R(1/n12 - 1/n22),

which was inverted for convenience, can be re-inverted to give us a formula for the cosmic sector,

λ = 1/R(n12 - n22).

This is why the formula given for calculating the energy of Hydrino reactions is just 13.6 Ev times the difference between the 1/n2 "fractional" levels of the Hydrino. This so-called Rydberg energy is just the ionization energy of Hydrogen, the wavelength of which is the inverse of the R term in the formula, the Rydberg constant, which he obtained by dividing Balmer's constant by the number four.

But instead of explaining it this way, physicists write it as,


forcing us poor dummies to dig out the meat for ourselves, provided we can deal with their intimidation! Grrrr!

There is much more to say about this, but I want to stick to our proposition that the fractional values of n, in Mills' Hydrino theory, are actually the n values of inverse, or c-Hydrogen, as explained in the previous post. Of course, neither the point-like electron of the Bohr model, nor Mills' orbitsphere modification of it in his work, both of which are based on the vector motion of the LST community's theories, can be used in our work, but, at the same time, the scalar motion model of our RSt has to accommodate the experimental results of Mills' work.

In his SunCell, the Hydrinos are formed when atomic Hydrogen transfers energy to a catalyst, in what are called "resonant collisions." In this rare instance of atomic collision, the two atoms momentarily orbit one another, exchanging energy harmonically, like the two rods of a tuning fork. This extracts the energy from the Hydrino, shrinking the size of the orbit of its orbitsphere, in quantum decrements of 13.6 Ev times n2.

Of course, because the LST has no inverse cosmic sector, and because they have no notion of scalar motion, the vector motion magnitudes of their system are limited to c speed, and the velocity of the orbitsphere, surrounding the nucleus, is thus limited to c speed.

The interesting aspect of this situation, however, is that the size of the Hydrino is consequently reduced to a small fraction of stable (i.e. n = 1 or unit) Hydrogen, reaching a limit equal to 1/137 = α. Moreover, though I don't understand the logic behind it yet, theoretically, the nucleus of the Hydrino is transformed into a positron at this point!

This is very interesting for us, because, for the c-Hydrogen to form in our model, a transformation from m-particles to c-particles has to occur, and I have no idea how that could happen, but maybe there is a clue waiting for us in Mills' GUT.

(stay tuned)

Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Re: Introduction to Doug's RSt

Post by Sun » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:50 am

Hello Doug,
Thank you for your presentation.
Let me use a notation of a-c-b for my own convenient to represent your equation.
Am i correct that you assume everything starts from one net displacement, 1/2 and 2/1? Particles are consequences that combine variable numbers of 1/2 and 2/1 with variable numbers of 1/1? 1/1 represent for unit motion? a, c, b stand for the each dimension of motion?
How did you get 2S|T = 2/4 + 2/1 + 2/1? Why it is not S|T+SUDR=1/2+1/1+2/1+2/1?

Post Reply