Old physics theory shines light on astronomic enigma's

[StevenO]

In this thread the 'Reciprocal System' (RST) theory of Dewey Larson is re-introduced. The theory has been introduced on this forum before,most notable by member Excal but with little focus on the astronomical implications of the theory.

A general introduction of the theory was borrowed from K.V.K.Nehru:

GLIMPSES OF A NEW PARADIGM

For centuries mankind has held implicitly the view that we live in a universe of matter contained in space and time. All scientific theories hitherto have been built on this paradigm. Dewey B. Larson has introduced a new paradigm that motion is the basic and sole constituent of the physical universe, and space-time is the content—not the container—of the universe.

Introduction
The objective of this article is to introduce the physical theory being called The Reciprocal System. Its originator, Dewey Larson, starting from two Postulates as regarding the nature of the basic constituents of the physical universe and the mathematics applicable thereto, builds a cogent theoretical structure that lays claim to being a general theory. It is impossible to outline the whole theory in the short space of an article though.

Space, Time and Progression
The first of the two fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is


“The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.”

Larson considers speed, which is the relation of space and time, s/t, as the measure of motion and points out that a unit of speed is the minimum quantity that can exist in the universe of motion, since fractional units are not permitted by the Postulate of his theory. Since one unit of speed is the minimum quantity admissible, both space and time have to be quantized: unit speed must therefore be the ratio of a unit of space to a unit of time, each of which is the minimum possible quantity. Certain corollaries follow.


Corollary (1)
Firstly, we see that space and time are reciprocally related to speed: that doubling the space with constant time, for example, has the same effect on speed as halving the time at constant space.

Corollary (2)
At the unit level, not only is one unit of space like all other units of space, but a unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time. Larson postulates a total uniformity in the properties of space and of time, except for the fact that they are reciprocal aspects of motion. Thus he concludes that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that space, like time, progresses.

Now it is important to recognize that there is absolutely nothing space-like in the three dimensions of time: they are entirely temporal parameters. The common belief that time is one-dimensional is an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity in the equations of motion lies in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space.

The idea that space progresses in the same manner as time might look more weird than the idea of multi-dimensional time. Our immediate experience is that of stationary space. But history has repeatedly shown that our immediate experience of space has always proved to be a bad guide in understanding the true nature of the universe.

He points out that our experience of space as stationary is valid only locally (that is, in the context of a gravitationally-bound system). The true nature of space is to progress, to expand ceaselessly outward. Wherever gravitation (an inward motion) becomes negligible, weakened by distance, the inherent progression of space becomes apparent. The observed recession of the distant galactic systems stems directly from this space progression, not from any hypothetical ‘big bang.’ In fact, the observed Hubble’s law is derivable from the postulates of the Reciprocal System.

Since a universe of motion cannot exist without the existence of motion, the most primitive condition of the universe is the steady progression of space coupled with the progression of time: in other words, a motion at unit speed. Thus unit speed, and not zero speed, turns out to be nature’s starting point. Larson refers to this background space-time progression as the ‘natural reference frame,’ and identifies the unit speed with the speed of light, c.

Emergence of Physical Phenomena
By virtue of the fact that either the space unit or the time unit could progress inward, rather than outward as they do in the case of the space-time progression, speeds other than unity become possible. Larson points out that it is these deviations (or ‘displacements’) from the unit speed that constitute observable phenomena, namely, radiation, gravitation, electricity, magnetism and all the rest. These are autonomous, independent motions in contra-distinction to the ever-present background progression.

Some astronomical phenomena explained
Our state of knowledge thus far has disposed us to assume tacitly that motion means motion in space; the possibility of motion in time has never been imagined, much less investigated. While such motion cannot be truly represented in the conventional, spatial reference frame, it has nevertheless some observable features by virtue of the inverse relationship between space and time. For example, in a supernova explosion, if sufficient energy is available, Larson points out that some of the constituent matter of the star gets propelled to greater-than-unit speeds. The less-than-unit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding in space. On the other hand, the greater-than-unit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding in time (since it is a motion in time). In view of the reciprocal relation between space and time referred to above, this expansion in time manifests itself to us as contraction in space and we observe this component as a superdense and compact star. Thus we have the red giant/white dwarf combination so frequently found as supernova product.

Larson’s theoretical investigations show that the same concept of motion in time can explain every other type of superdense astronomical phenomena, not just the white dwarfs. He shows that as age advances, the central regions of massive galaxies keep on accumulating motion in time (since greater than unit speeds do not involve movement in space, this matter does not leak out). When enough energy accumulates, it results in a stupendous explosion in which the central part(s) of a galaxy gets ejected and is found as a superdense star system, which, of course, is observed as a quasar. All the strange and unconventional characteristics of quasars—like their high density, large redshift, stupendous luminosity, jet-structure, peculiar radiation structure, evolution—can be deduced from the theory.

We have seen that the null condition of the universe of motion is unit speed and that a ‘displacement’ from this condition takes the form of either less than unit speed (s/t) or greater than unit speed (the latter being equivalent to less than unit inverse speed, t/s). Larson identifies this displaced speed with radiation, and the speed displacement with its frequency. While the photon gets detached from the background space-time progression in the dimension of its oscillation, it does not have any independent motion in the dimension of space perpendicular to the dimension in which the vibratory motion occurs. Thus the photon is permanently situated in the space unit of the space-time progression in which it is created. But from the context of the stationary spatial reference frame any location of the space-time progression appears to progress outward (away) at unit speed. Thus, while actually the photon is stationary in the natural reference frame, ostensibly it appears to move away at unit speed. Incidentally we might note that, when in a single process a photon pair happens to be created, while the individual photons seemingly appear to fly off in space in opposite directions, they continue to be connected in time. This results in a correlation between them that is not representable in three-dimensional space (the EPR paradox).

Once photons are available, the possibility of a compound motion appears wherein the photon could be subjected to a rotational displacement in two dimensions (covering all the three dimensions of space). Larson identifies such units of compound motion with the atoms of matter. Because of the two facts that the maximum possible speed is unity and that the background space-time progression is already taking place at that speed in the outward (away from each other) direction, all autonomous (independent) motions (speeds) have to take place in the inward (toward each other) direction only. Thus the units of rotational displacement start moving in the inward direction, reversing the pattern of space-time progression. Larson identifies this inward motion with gravitation. We now see that there is no propagation involved in gravitation, nor it can be screened off: it is the inherent motion of each atom toward every other atom—in fact, toward every other location of the space-time progression, whether or not occupied by an atom. The non-existence of propagation time and the seeming action-at-a-distance, both owe their origin to the above fact.

The Regions of the Physical Universe
An interesting fact that needs special mention is that the rotational displacement that constitutes the atoms could be either of the less-than-unit-speed type or the greater-than-unit-speed type. In either case gravitation acts inward (in opposition to the outward progression of space-time). But in the case of the former type of atoms, since less-than-unit speeds produce motion in space, gravitation acts inward in space, resulting in the formation of aggregates in the three-dimensional spatial reference frame. Larson calls this portion of the universe the material sector. On the other hand, the atoms constituted of greater-than-unit speeds manifest motion in time. The resulting gravitation acts inward in time, and produces aggregates in the three-dimensional temporal reference frame. Larson refers to this matter as cosmic matter, their inward motion in time cosmic gravitation, and this portion of the physical universe the cosmic sector. We therefore discover another half of the physical universe where all the phenomena pertaining to our sector are duplicated, but with the roles of space and time interchanged. Even though cosmic matter occurs as ubiquitously and abundantly as ordinary matter we do not encounter it readily. Firstly, the atoms of the cosmic stars and galaxies are aggregated in three-dimensional time but are randomly distributed in space, so that we see a cosmic star not as a spatial aggregate, but atom by atom. Secondly, while the cosmic gravitation moves the cosmic atoms inward in time, our own matter progresses outward in time. Thus, even the chance of encounters of atoms with cosmic atoms do not last for more than one natural unit of time (about one-seventh of a femtosecond).

CMB
A further fact of interest is that while the radiation emitted by the stars of our sector is at a high temperature, that emitted by the cosmic stars would be at a high inverse temperature, that is, at a low temperature. Since radiation moves at unit speed, unit speed being the border between both the sectors of the universe, it is observable from both the sectors, in whichever sector it originates. Therefore, the radiation emitted by the cosmic stars, as it comes from a region not localized in space, is received in the material sector (that is, the three-dimensional spatial reference frame) with an absolutely uniform and isotropic distribution. We observe this as the low-temperature, cosmic background radiation. In the Reciprocal System, we find no necessity to reconcile the absolute isotropy of this background radiation with the clumpiness of the spatial distribution of the material aggregates.

The Grand Cycle of the Universe
We have already mentioned that quasars are the high (greater than unit) speed explosion products of aged galaxies. When gravitation in space is attenuated by distance (time) and becomes negligible, the quasar as a whole shifts from the region of less than unit speed (conventional spatial reference frame) to the region of greater than unit speed (the three-dimensional temporal reference frame). Gravitation ceases to act in space and starts acting in time. This leaves the outward progression of space-time without check (as there is no inward progression of gravitation in space) and the constituents of the quasar start flying out in space at unit speed. Eventually the quasar ceases to exist as a spatial aggregate and disappears altogether from the material sector. In other words, the atoms of the erstwhile quasar emerge into the three-dimensional temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector at totally random locations (in time).

The corollary is that similar set of events occurs in the cosmic sector—cosmic atoms aggregate in three-dimensional time forming cosmic stars and galaxies, parts of which explode on attaining a size limit and eject cosmic quasars, which eventually exit the cosmic sector and end up entering the material sector. Since they come from a region not localized in space, these incoming cosmic atoms would be uniformly and isotropically distributed throughout the three-dimensional space. Since the transfer occurs at the unit speed we ought to observe these particles at unit or near-unit speed. These, of course, are the observed cosmic ray primaries.

The Reciprocal System traces out in detail how these cosmic atoms, being greater-than-unit-speed structures in a less-than-unit-speed environment, promptly decay, ejecting speed (energy) and ‘cosmic mass’ (that is, inverse mass), finally ending up as the most primitive atomic structures of the material sector, namely, hydrogen. Then the entire cycle of aggregation in space and eventual ejection begins. In the long run, as much matter comes from the cosmic sector as it leaves the material sector. Thus the dual sector universe as a whole is in equilibrium and steady state, while each sector continues to expand in space or in time as the case may be. There is no necessity to assume the singularity of a ‘big bang’ nor to breaking of any conservation laws as in ‘continual creation.’

No space left for conclusion... Hopefully enough introduction of the theory is given to start a discussion with a focus on one of the highlighted phenomena.

[Fortis]

You might want to check out this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/30373-reciprocal-system-physical-theory.html).

[hhEb09'1]

Corollary (2)
At the unit level, not only is one unit of space like all other units of space, but a unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time. Larson postulates a total uniformity in the properties of space and of time, except for the fact that they are reciprocal aspects of motion. Thus he concludes that time, like space, is three-dimensional, and that space, like time, progresses. I personally like this idea. :)

I've called it supersupersymmetry (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/47242-supersupersymmetry-post831831.html#post831831)in the past. And we've had threads about Larson's work before, as you note. But we will check out those old threads to make sure that there is new material here. Here are some links:

Hybrid Fisson/fusion Reaction Engine (http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/23709-hybrid-fisson-fusion-reaction-engine-post492332.html#post492332)
Universe of Motion-Unified Theory and Astrophysics (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/25733-universe-motion-unified-theory-astrophysics-post512618.html#post512618)
FINAL SOLUTIONS For MOST Astrophysical Mysteries (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/16473-final-solutions-most-astrophysical-mysteries-post358819.html#post358819)
The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/30373-reciprocal-system-physical-theory-post550777.html#post550777)
Supernova vs. Condensation (narrow RST/Larson focus) (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/46379-supernova-vs-condensation-narrow-rst-larson-focus-post816969.html#post816969)

I've found a couple of websites, and a wikipedia article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_System)too:
http://rstheory.com/
http://reciprocalsystem.com/

[Fortis]

Will you show how this model can successfully replace things such as General Relativity, or Quantum Electro-Dynamics? By providing quantitative predictions?

[StevenO]

Will you show how this model can successfully replace things such as General Relativity, or Quantum Electro-Dynamics? By providing quantitative predictions?

Sure, no problem. In this theory there is no need for General Relativity as gravity and inertia are an intrinsic scalar motion of mass that offsets the progression of space as shown in the given introduction.

The predictions from GR are easily repeated with this theory, for instance gravitational deflection of light: the following article shows that the results from GR should actually be corrected with a factor 3/pi: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/deflect.htm .
and this article show that the results for the precession of planetary perihelia are identical between this theory and GR: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/precplanetperi.htm

As for quantum theories, I have left that out of the introduction, but that is caused by motion in time instead of space. A nice introduction to that is given here: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/qmtr.htm

[StevenO]

Will you show how this model can successfully replace things such as General Relativity, or Quantum Electro-Dynamics? By providing quantitative predictions?

Sure, no problem. One liner explanations:

GR: In this theory gravity and inertia are an inward scalar motion of matter that offsets the expansion of space, so there is no need for a GR theory though the predictions from GR can be easily repeated and corrected.

QM: Quantum phenomena in this theory emerge from the mechanics of the time region (that is motion inside a unit of space). The Schroding equation and others can be easily derived.

Made a post about that with some links, but that is awaiting approval by a moderator.

[dgavin]

I personally like this idea. :)

I've called it supersupersymmetry (http://http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/47242-supersupersymmetry-post831831.html#post831831)in the past.

I'll chime in here, not as a defender of this theory, but that I like it so far also. It has the same sort of elegance to it that Einsteins work does.

Mostly I like it as it goes in line with my thoughts that somehow gravity and repulsion are linked. And also that gravity/repulsion are simply a property of space time, and not a force.

It seems to address the issue that Gravity has never been unified with the other forces. (Which has always been a good indicator to me that treating Gravity as a Force, while it works, is barking up the wrong tree)

I'll be watching this thread with interest.

[dgavin]

I hope it's acceptable to ask question about ATM stuff, not related to proving or disproving it.

I've gone through the paper the hhEb09'1's original post linked too. And something jumped out at me right away.

On Table 1, of page 3, the chart of the elementary particle's. If I'm reading this whole thing correctly, it literally predicted the three forms of the neutrinos. (Well 7 forms actually, but as neutrinos are their own anti-particle this reduces them to three)

My question is, am I reading that correctly?

[Fortis]

Sure, no problem. One liner explanations:

GR: In this theory gravity and inertia are an inward scalar motion of matter that offsets the expansion of space, so there is no need for a GR theory though the predictions from GR can be easily repeated and corrected.

Great. So can you show how you obtain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury? The time dilation observed by GPS? The bending of star-light by the Sun? I'm looking for quantitative answers.


QM: Quantum phenomena in this theory emerge from the mechanics of the time region (that is motion inside a unit of space). The Schroding equation and others can be easily derived.

Will you be showing this?

[StevenO]

Great. So can you show how you obtain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury?
Yes, that is shown in the second link I posted before. The results of GR and RST are identical.


The time dilation observed by GPS?
I thought that was done with both SR and GR. The Lorentz formula's come out of RST theory identically. Difference between SR and RST is that RST holds that the Force term goes to zero at c and not that the relative mass goes to infinity. The mass value remains constant. The gravitional dilation from GR will come out identical too as shown in the second link I posted.


The bending of star-light by the Sun? I'm looking for quantitative answers.
That is shown in the first link I posted. RST shows that GR is off by a constant factor 3/pi. To quote from the article: "The value calculated from the Reciprocal System formula, for the sun, is 1.67 arcsec, whereas the General Relativity value is 1.75 arcsec. The reported values vary from 1.5 to 1.8 arcsec."



Will you be showing this?
Will you be reading the links I posted? I'll be happy to explain terminology or refer to more theory basics.

[hhEb09'1]

Will you be reading the links I posted? Typically, you can assume nothing read but what you have posted in this thread. ATM is for advocacy, not for advertising a website.

That being said, I think you'll find that BAUT has a lot of people who are happy to spend many hours critiquing and studying ATM ideas, even on other websites.

[tusenfem]

Will you be reading the links I posted? I'll be happy to explain terminology or refer to more theory basics.


StevenO, unfortunately (for me) those pages you link to are all but unreadable, special characters do not appear as they should (light bending by the sun, e.g. there is a "q" (which probably should show "theta") in the text, but the equations only have "cos" without an argument, etc. etc.

It is preferable to show your "evidence" here on the board so that everyone can read it, and not need to go to outside websites.

[Tensor]

StevenO, unfortunately (for me) those pages you link to are all but unreadable, special characters do not appear as they should (light bending by the sun, e.g. there is a "q" (which probably should show "theta") in the text, but the equations only have "cos" without an argument, etc. etc.



Same for me tusenfem.

[StevenO]

I'll chime in here, not as a defender of this theory, but that I like it so far also. It has the same sort of elegance to it that Einsteins work does.

Mostly I like it as it goes in line with my thoughts that somehow gravity and repulsion are linked. And also that gravity/repulsion are simply a property of space time, and not a force.

It seems to address the issue that Gravity has never been unified with the other forces. (Which has always been a good indicator to me that treating Gravity as a Force, while it works, is barking up the wrong tree)

I'll be watching this thread with interest.

The elegance in the theory comes from the postulate that the role of space and time is exactly (point) symmetrical. The mental hurdle that has be taken is to realize that the theory postulates that the sole constituent of the universe is motion, so the natural reference system is also dynamic. It means the vacuum is defined as space and time moving in a unit(lightspeed) scalar(all directions) ratio. This is the motion we observe in far away galaxies that are out of the influence of other galaxies gravity. No need to postulate a Big Bang with all its complications.
In the theory motion comes before forces. Motions can be interpreted as forces through the Newton formulas when mass is involved.

[Fortis]

Same for me tusenfem.
I'm having problems as well.

[Fortis]

That is shown in the first link I posted. RST shows that GR is off by a constant factor 3/pi. To quote from the article: "The value calculated from the Reciprocal System formula, for the sun, is 1.67 arcsec, whereas the General Relativity value is 1.75 arcsec. The reported values vary from 1.5 to 1.8 arcsec."
Thank you. It is nice to find an unequivocal claim in ATM that we can compare to observation. :)

If you look at this page (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21148/1/PWrel4_01-05), you will see that using modern techniques (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/i12/e121101), the deflection matches GR to within 0.01%. As this lies well away from the value predicted by RST (this differs from the GR prediction by more than 4%), can we agree that RST is wrong?

[StevenO]

StevenO, unfortunately (for me) those pages you link to are all but unreadable, special characters do not appear as they should (light bending by the sun, e.g. there is a "q" (which probably should show "theta") in the text, but the equations only have "cos" without an argument, etc. etc.

It is preferable to show your "evidence" here on the board so that everyone can read it, and not need to go to outside websites.

That's fine if those are the rules and everyone adheres to that, but it will definitely slow down the discussion.

Let's start with an explanation of excess planet perihelion procession by fast moving planets in RST theory.

PRECESSION OF THE PLANETARY PERIHELIA DUE TO CO-ORDINATE TIME

1. Introduction
The first of the two Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is:


“The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.” [1]
The primary implication of the Postulate is that the properties of either space or time are the properties of both space and time, except that space and time are reciprocally related as motion. This means, inter alia, that space is a progression like time is, and that time is three-dimensional. While the space progression is observable as the recession of distance galaxies, the three-dimensionality of time is not so directly apparent.

It is essential to note that the three dimensions of time are not the spatial dimensions: nor is there anything space-like in them. In any situation, the total time comprises of two components: (i) the clock time, which is a uniform progression and (ii) the three-dimensional coordinate time(analogous to the three-dimensional coordinate space of a stationary reference system).

Besides other things, the concept of coordinate time in the Reciprocal System explains and derives the characteristics of supernovae, the white dwarfs, the pulsars, the quasars, the compact X-ray sources and the cosmic rays–without taking recourse to concepts like degenerate matter, the curvature of space-time, etc... All the so-called Relativistic effects come out, in the Reciprocal System, of the existence of this additional time component.

In fact, the effect of the excess advance of the perihelion of an orbiting planet arises out of the accumulation of the coordinate time from its orbital motion. “As long as the orbital velocity is low, the difference between the clock time and the total time is negligible, but the velocity of Mercury is great enough to introduce an appreciable amount of coordinate time and during this added time the planet travels through an additional distance.”[2]

2. The Theoretical Evaluation
According to the Reciprocal System, an independent motion (like gravitation) of speed v has associated with it an increase of coordinate time amounting to v²/c² unit per each unit of clock time (c being the speed of light). In order to calculate the excess orbital movement, Larson argues like this: “Since the gravitational motion is inward(=towards any point of reference), the scalar space-time direction of the orbital motion is outward, and the computed time increase is radial. To obtain the circumferential space equivalent of this linear time increase, we must multiply by ¶.”[4]

Thus, according to Larson the total coordinate time increase is ¶ v²/c² s/s. In the quotation just cited, what Larson states regarding the scalar direction of the orbital motion as being outward, is understandable. But what the expression “the computed time increase is radial” is expected to connote is difficult to see. For, “...no matter how many dimensions it may have, time has no direction in space.” [5] To be sure, it is true that time has a property called ‘direction in time’, but this is a purely temporal property and ‘directions in time’are not in any way determined by directions in space. Consequently, the coordinate time increase associated with gravitation (or with any independent motion) is a scalar addition. The words “...to obtain the circumferential space equivalent of this linear time increase, we multiply by ¶,” do not, therefore, depict the truth, except pointing out that the necessity of having to include in the calculations a factor amounting to ¶ has been recognized.

The true state of affairs can be understood if we recall that gravitation is a three-dimensional scalar motion. If v is the gravitational speed, then the coordinate time increase per each scalar dimension is v²/c². The total coordinate time increase, therefore, is 3 v²/c². The orbital motion of the planet is one-dimensional (scalar). As such, the effective coordinate time increase, as applied to the orbital motion, is 3 v²/c². The same is true in any other case where the motion is one-dimensional, like, for example, that of a photon grazing the sun. On the other hand, if we are considering the effect of the coordinate time increase due to gravitation on an atom situated in the gravitational field, the result is different. Since the atomic rotation is three-dimensional, the coordinate time increase effective per dimension is 3 v²/c² / 3 = v²/c² only. This is the value which causes the gravitational redshift, for instance.

Thus, the rate of coordinate time increase at any speed v is given by:


dtc/dt = 3 v2/c2 s/s (Eqn. 1)
where tc represents the coordinate time and t the clock time.

Now, consider the elliptical orbit of a planet around the sun, with the sun situated at the focus. The equation of the ellipse in polar coordinates, with the center at the focus is given by


l = r(1- e cos(ø)) (Eqn. 2)
Where:

r = the radial distance of the planet, at any angle ø measured from the perihelion
l = the semi-latus rectum = a (1 - e²) (2-a)
e = the eccentricity of the ellipse
a = the semi-major axis

In an earlier article [6] K.V.K. Nehru has pointed out that (derived from the escape velocity) the gravitational speed, v, at a distance r outside of a mass M is given by:


v² = GM/r (Eqn. 3)
where G is the gravitational constant.

Using equations (1), (2), & (3), we have the rate of coordinate time increase at a given location on the orbit as:


dtc/dt = 3 GM/rc2 = (3 GM/lc2)(1+e cos(ø)) (Eqn. 4)
in units of s/s or radians/radians. The incrase over an angle of dø radians is:


dtc/dt dø = 3 GM/rc2 = (3 GM/lc2)(1+e cos(ø)) dø radians (Eqn. 5)
Therefore, the total increase from ø = 0 to 2 ¶ radians (that is, one revolution) is the integral of Eqn 5, which reduces to:


3 GM/lc2 2 ¶ radians / rev = 3 GM/lc2 rev/rev (Eqn.7)
(Note that equation (7) is applicable to parabolic, as well as hyperbolic orbits with l as the semi-latus rectum). Finally, using relation (2-a), the perihelion advance, according to the Reciprocal System, is given by:


dRS = 3 GM/ac2(1-e2) rev/rev (Eqn.8)
The corresponding formula from the General Relativity is:


dGR = 12 ¶2a2/P2c2(1-e2) rev/rev (Eqn.9)
where P = the orbital period of the planet. In order to compare the two formulae, we use the relation:


GM = 4 ¶2a3/P2 (Eqn. 10)
for the solar system. Then equation (8) becomes identical to the Relativity expression, given in equation (9).

References

Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1979), page 30.
Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1964), page 85.
Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., pages 99-100.
Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton, op. cit., page 126.
Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., page 73.
Nehru, K.V.K., “Gravitational Deflection of Light Beam in the Reciprocal System,” Reciprocity XI (1), Spring 1981, page 28.



I'll be happy to anwers any questions regarding the differences between scalar and vectorial motion and different systems of reference to e.g. clear up terminology.

[StevenO]

Thank you. It is nice to find an unequivocal claim in ATM that we can compare to observation. :)

If you look at this page (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21148/1/PWrel4_01-05), you will see that using modern techniques (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/i12/e121101), the deflection matches GR to within 0.01%. As this lies well away from the value predicted by RST (this differs from the GR prediction by more than 4%), can we agree that RST is wrong?
Please show me where I can find the 1.75 number in the articles. Also, I have no opportunity to read paid journals so please do not refer to them or copy the material, just like I have to do here.

There is difference of interpretation on the correction factor 3/pi as you can read in the article I listed just before this post. It has to do with the correct geometric interpretation of the time region when viewed from the space region. In case the correction factor is an incorrect interpretation the deflection results would be identical to GR, just like in the formula for precession of planet perihelia. I'll have to consult the current experts on that since the listed article is from 28 years ago.

[Nereid]

Please show me where I can find the 1.75 number in the articles. Also, I have no opportunity to read paid journals so please do not refer to them or copy the material, just like I have to do here.

[...]
Here is a more recent paper (well, it's the preprint version of the paper that was/soon will be published) that includes a wide review of many tests of GR, not only the deflection of light: Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Recent Progress and Future Directions (http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0809.3730) (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract).

There's a lot in that paper, but I think you'll find enough in the way of summaries of references to learn that modern estimates of the deflection are within ~0.01% of that predicted by GR, as Fortis said.

To repeat the question: in light of these many, precise and accurate, results, can we agree that RST is wrong?

If you have any more questions on any of these observations or experiments, why not start a thread in the Q&A section? There are more people who read threads there than here, and you're pretty sure of getting answers to well-posed questions that are as extensive and detailed as you need.

[StevenO]

Here is a more recent paper (well, it's the preprint version of the paper that was/soon will be published) that includes a wide review of many tests of GR, not only the deflection of light: Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Recent Progress and Future Directions (http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0809.3730) (link is to the arXiv preprint abstract).

There's a lot in that paper, but I think you'll find enough in the way of summaries of references to learn that modern estimates of the deflection are within ~0.01% of that predicted by GR, as Fortis said.

To repeat the question: in light of these many, precise and accurate, results, can we agree that RST is wrong?

If you have any more questions on any of these observations or experiments, why not start a thread in the Q&A section? There are more people who read threads there than here, and you're pretty sure of getting answers to well-posed questions that are as extensive and detailed as you need.

So, to get any theory openly discussed on the ATM threads, I first have to prove GR wrong? Here is one: RST predicts that there are no gravitional waves since gravitation does not have to propagate. Now show me a measurement of the propagation speed of gravitational waves within <5% error.

[Fortis]

So, to get any theory openly discussed on the ATM threads, I first have to prove GR wrong?
You claimed that RST's prediction differed from GR's by a factor of 3/Pi. Observational evidence (thank you Nereid for the link to the paper), shows that this is is not correct. Do you want to withdraw this claim? If you do, then what does that imply about RST?

[Fortis]

RST predicts that there are no gravitional waves since gravitation does not have to propagate. Now show me a measurement of the propagation speed of gravitational waves within <5% error.
We don't have a direct detection of gravitational radiation, but we do have the observations of binary pulsar systems. The orbital period of two pulsars was measured by Hulse and Taylor. They found that the orbital period was decreasing within 0.2% of what would have been expected if they were radiating gravitational waves exactly as predicted by GR. They won the Nobel prize for this work. :)

Does RST do as well?

[Nereid]

So, to get any theory openly discussed on the ATM threads, I first have to prove GR wrong?
I don't think so; may I ask how you formed that opinion?

All that Fortis asked* was could you show that your ATM idea could match the observational and experimental results, to within the estimated errors/uncertainty of those results, where 'results' means (something like) 'as they appear in relevant, peer-reviewed papers'. All I did was find a paper that you can obtain for free (modulo the cost of your time on the internet, etc) which presents at least some of these results, and contains references (which you can obtain easily, using ADS for example) where more such results may be read.


Here is one: RST predicts that there are no gravitional waves since gravitation does not have to propagate. Now show me a measurement of the propagation speed of gravitational waves within <5% error.
In addition to the observations Fortis mentioned (and there have been many since, of several binary pulsars, including one double pulsar), there is - I think - at least one paper on an estimate of 'the speed of gravity', from observations made using solar system objects (I may be mis-remembering, of course).

* at least, that's my understanding

[captain swoop]

As Nereid comments, you don't have to prove GR wrong to discuss anything here, you are expected to support your claims. It's reasonable to assume that if you are proposing a theory that will replace GR it can at least do all that GR can and more.

[StevenO]

We don't have a direct detection of gravitational radiation, but we do have the observations of binary pulsar systems. The orbital period of two pulsars was measured by Hulse and Taylor. They found that the orbital period was decreasing within 0.2% of what would have been expected if they were radiating gravitational waves exactly as predicted by GR. They won the Nobel prize for this work. :)

Does RST do as well?
That's no measurement of gravitional waves. That is a match of energy loss.
So, now the next hurdle for any ATM theory is to repeat all Nobel prices? :)

I have another one: RST can qualitatively and quantitatively predict the behaviour of quasars and pulsars. Actually, Dewey Larson predicted quasars in 1959 as the exploding cores of galaxies before they were identified as such. Now can GR do that?

[StevenO]

You claimed that RST's prediction differed from GR's by a factor of 3/Pi. Observational evidence (thank you Nereid for the link to the paper), shows that this is is not correct. Do you want to withdraw this claim? If you do, then what does that imply about RST?

I have told that there is a geometric difference of interpretation on the 3/pi correction factor, so let's withdraw that claim until that discussion is resolved after consulting with the experts.

The implication for RST is that the appropriate geometry of the combined space/time regions is still under discussion. There are three schools of thought:

1. pure Euclidian (Larson's, conceptually difficult wrt. to combined scalar/vectorial motions)
2. Projective geometry (Peret's, the most promising one)
3. 3D scalar/pseudoscalar oscillations (Bundy's, in initial stage of development)

Since the theory is still in development this is quite natural.

[Fortis]

That's no measurement of gravitional waves. That is a match of energy loss.
So, now the next hurdle for any ATM theory is to repeat all Nobel prices? :)

I have another one: RST can qualitatively and quantitatively predict the behaviour of quasars and pulsars. Actually, Dewey Larson predicted quasars in 1959 as the exploding cores of galaxies before they were identified as such. Now can GR do that?
So RST doesn't match the GR predictions for the binary pulsar system?

[Nereid]

That's no measurement of gravitional waves. That is a match of energy loss.
So, now the next hurdle for any ATM theory is to repeat all Nobel prices? :)

This leads to a question of my own, although it's just another way of asking one of Fortis', I think.

To what extent can your ATM idea match the sets of observations of pulsars, particularly the binary pulsars?

For avoidance of doubt, by 'match' I mean quantitatively, within the estimated errors; and by 'observations' I mean the timing data, from radio telescopes.



I have another one: RST can qualitatively and quantitatively predict the behaviour of quasars and pulsars. Actually, Dewey Larson predicted quasars in 1959 as the exploding cores of galaxies before they were identified as such.

[...]
I was not aware that quasars had been identified "as the exploding cores of galaxies". Do you have some online material on this, that I may read?

What "behaviour of quasars and pulsars" can RST predict, quantitatively? As in, what are the predicted observables?

[parejkoj]

I too am rather curious about your comment that you can successfully reproduce all observed features of quasars. Does that include the >20,000 km/s broad line emission from optical and UV lines (Hβ, C IV, Mg II, etc.) seen in some objects? Does it include broad, blue-shifted absorption lines? Does it include high-ionization iron emission? What about narrow-line quasars? What about low redshift (z<0.1) quasars, or high redshift (z>5) galaxies?

[StevenO]

The peculiar characteristics of white dwarfs, quasars and pulsars come from motion in time, which is motion in excess of lightspeed.

Larson's work on quasars and pulsars can be found here:
http://library.rstheory.org/books/qp

[StevenO]

I too am rather curious about your comment that you can successfully reproduce all observed features of quasars. Does that include the >20,000 km/s broad line emission from optical and UV lines (Hβ, C IV, Mg II, etc.) seen in some objects? Does it include broad, blue-shifted absorption lines? Does it include high-ionization iron emission? What about narrow-line quasars? What about low redshift (z<0.1) quasars, or high redshift (z>5) galaxies?
I was talking about qualitative features here. There is not enough people working on this theory to calculate these kind of detailed numbers and I do not have sufficient knowledge. I'm posting here to make people aware that the qualitative predictions of this theory could solve a lot of astronomical enigma's, not that it gives a direct answer to every question. Please decide if the book I linked gives you enough clues. There is a section "Quantitative verification" (Ch 9) based on the work of Halton Arp some 40 years ago, so I'm sure there is more knowledge available by now.

[parejkoj]

I was talking about qualitative features here. There is not enough people working on this theory to calculate these kind of detailed numbers and I do not have sufficient knowledge. I'm posting here to make people aware that the qualitative predictions of this theory could solve a lot of astronomical enigma's, not that it gives a direct answer to every question. Please decide if the book I linked gives you enough clues. There is a section "Quantitative verification" (Ch 9) based on the work of Halton Arp some 40 years ago, so I'm sure there is more knowledge available by now.

Thank you for the link above: I'm assuming that this is the most recent version of the work? The date at the top is August 2008. Unfortunately, some of the knowledge contained therein is roughly 30 years out of date...

Also, though I am curious about the "qualitative predictions," I'm also interested in quantitative ones: modern cosmology and Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN)/quasar research is very quantitative. So, I'm rather curious what these "astronomical enigma's[sic]" are that require qualitative predictions.

Quoting from Chapter 8, Quasars: The General Picture (http://library.rstheory.org/books/qp/08.html), and writing as I skim:



Evidence has recently been found that certain galaxies are also exploding, and almost simultaneously a class of objects of galactic mass with many properties similar to those of the white dwarfs has been discovered.

Which galaxies have been exploding? And what properties of quasars are similar to white dwarfs? I can think of only a handful (at best!) of similarities, and a huge list of differences!



The most notable feature of the quasars is that their redshifts are fantastically high in comparison with those of other astronomical objects. While the largest redshift thus far measured for a normal galaxy is less than .500, some of the quasar redshifts exceed 2.00, and even the lowest would be relatively high for a normal galaxy. If we assume, as most astronomers now do, that these are ordinary recession redshifts, then the quasars must be by far the most distant objects ever detected in the universe.

First, this is not the most notable feature of quasars, nor was it necessarily the most notable feature at the time of their discovery (see my conclusions for more on this). Second, this statement is completely false, as of at least 15 years ago. In fact, the record holders for distance are now Lyman-break galaxies with redshifts of ~7 (the highest redshift quasars have 6 < z < 6.5). Also, the furthest resolved galaxies (i.e. we can see their shape) have a redshift > 4, I believe. 30-40 years ago his statement was true, because quasars are brighter than galaxies and spectroscopy was very difficult. These days, we have measured the redshifts for many thousands of galaxies beyond a redshift of 1 (see the GOODS or MUYSC surveys for examples). Many of these galaxies are "perfectly ordinary" spirals and ellipticals, in fact.

Thus, since the Reciprocal Theory does not allow "ordinary" recession velocities greater than 1, you've got a problem! But there's another problem in that chapter that should be apparent from my previous paragraph:



The 2.326 redshift therefore constitutes a limit which cannot be exceeded (under normal conditions, at least).

Uh-oh!

There's some stuff later that seems to be confused about what a volume-limited catalog is. In addition, the quasar luminosity function measured by the 3C catalog was by no means the best measure of what Larson calls "log N-Log S" (e.g. recent work from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey by Schneider and/or Richards et al.). Looks like someone needs to learn about selection criteria!



But this argument is completely dependent on the assumption that the radiation distribution is three-dimensional, and there is now ample evidence to show that this assumption is not valid in application to the quasars.

Wait... where is this "ample evidence" that the radiation from quasars is not, if not isotropic, certainly non-planar and non-beamed?

As to this bit:



This is the peculiarity that has given them their name. They are “quasi-stellar” sources of radiation, mere points like the stars, rather than extended sources on the order of the normal galaxies. Some dimensions are beginning to emerge from recent measurements with the aid of special techniques, but this information merely confirms the fact that as galaxies they are extremely small objects. The most critical issue in the whole quasar situation, as seen in the context of current thought, is “the problem of understanding how quasars can radiate as much energy as galaxies while their diameters are some thousand times smaller.”36
... (much later, but on the same theme)
... and attempting to account for the production of such a colossal amount of energy is a hopeless task, as matters now stand


it sounds just like Burbidge's complaints which were answered ~25 years ago when the extended sources around quasars were not only identified, but found to be galaxies with absorption-line redshifts at the same distances as the hosted quasar. Plus, there is no real problem understanding how quasars can be so luminous: they are the accretion disks of very high mass objects.

Speaking of being behind the times...



When the facilities for observation of the very short wave radiation have been improved to the level of the present radio facilities it should be possible to determine quite accurately just what is going on at any particular location by analyzing the radiation mix. In fact, some results of this kind are already possible on the basis of the optical and radio radiation alone, as will be demonstrated in Chapter X.

Chandra has an angular resolution of ~an arcsecond, with the ability to do spectroscopy nearly on a per-pixel basis. HST's Advanced Camera for Surveys (now deceased... *sniffle*) has a resolution of ~0.01 arcseconds. There are now several optical/Near-IR integral-field spectrographs with sub-arcsecond resolution and with high spectral resolution (R~5000) per pixel. Such instruments are at least 5 years old, Chandra and Hubble's ACS are roughly 10 years old. Draw your own conclusions.

The end of the chapter has a discussion which sounds like it is based on a confused understanding of the first observations of various types of AGN in the 70s and 80s. So I'm not sure what to make of it, considering how far the field has advanced since then... Except to repeat that there are thousands of observed redshifts higher than the limit that he again posits.

And, though I won't quote it, the entire first part of this chapter sounds more like a complaint that the universe is a complicated place and that it isn't easy to understand. The modern understanding of AGN is by no means an ad-hoc or "generalized conclusion from a single-purpose theory." In fact, it is well grounded in an understanding of gravitation and electromagnetism, including the theory of plasmas, low and high density gases under the influence of ionizing continua and the effect of dust obscuration.

As to later chapters, his reliance on Arp's work puts a serious damper on his "conclusions." Arp has shown very little understanding of systematics, nor of how to create uniform samples, nor of selection effects at various wavelengths. These are all key aspects to understanding both the angular and redshift distributions of quasars and AGN that Arp's work so strongly relies on. Without such care in sample selection, Arp's studies are, at best, completely suspect, and any conclusions drawn specifically from them are equally untrustworthy.

Finally, and I think most importantly, it appears that Larson also doesn't pay any attention to the most obviously interesting aspect of quasars: their optical and UV emission features. In fact, I couldn't find a single mention of this (I have no intention to read it all: if he has mentioned it, please show me where), so any claim that he can, even qualitatively, explain "the behavior of quasars" is patently false. Especially since we now have plenty of observations of galaxies at comparable redshifts to quasars, as well as observations of galactic emission around quasars, so the "difficulties" of the standard model really aren't.

[Nereid]

I was talking about qualitative features here. There is not enough people working on this theory to calculate these kind of detailed numbers and I do not have sufficient knowledge. I'm posting here to make people aware that the qualitative predictions of this theory could solve a lot of astronomical enigma's, not that it gives a direct answer to every question. Please decide if the book I linked gives you enough clues. There is a section "Quantitative verification" (Ch 9) based on the work of Halton Arp some 40 years ago, so I'm sure there is more knowledge available by now.
A clarification if I may, please?

What is it, precisely, that you are answering questions on and addressing challenges to? As in, which ATM idea ... in detail?

I ask partly because you stated, in an earlier post:

RST can qualitatively and quantitatively predict the behaviour of quasars and pulsars. Actually, Dewey Larson predicted quasars in 1959 as the exploding cores of galaxies before they were identified as such. (bold added)

And then, in the post I am quoting, you said: "I was talking about qualitative features here." and "I'm posting here to make people aware that the qualitative predictions of this theory could solve a lot of astronomical enigma's, not that it gives a direct answer to every question." (bold added)

I hope you have read the BAUT rules and are familiar with them, especially the one to do with this ATM section.

I look forward to your response.

ETA: parejkoj's post and mine crossed.

[Fortis]

I have told that there is a geometric difference of interpretation on the 3/pi correction factor, so let's withdraw that claim until that discussion is resolved after consulting with the experts.

The implication for RST is that the appropriate geometry of the combined space/time regions is still under discussion. There are three schools of thought:

1. pure Euclidian (Larson's, conceptually difficult wrt. to combined scalar/vectorial motions)
2. Projective geometry (Peret's, the most promising one)
3. 3D scalar/pseudoscalar oscillations (Bundy's, in initial stage of development)

Since the theory is still in development this is quite natural.
As shown, the factor of 3/Pi is clearly in conflict with observational evidence, so any "interpretation" that suggests (as your earlier post did) that it is a real conflict with GR is wrong. Which of the three views (as outlined above), holds to this factor?

Given that the observations that conflict with 3/Pi have been around for a number of years, I am surprised that Larsonists haven't noticed them.

[Fortis]

That's no measurement of gravitional waves. That is a match of energy loss.
So, now the next hurdle for any ATM theory is to repeat all Nobel prices? :)

If the theory predicts that gravitational waves don't exist, and yet we have clear observational evidence that these binary pulsars are behaving, to within 0.2%, of what would be expected if they were radiating gravitational waves according to the prediction of GR, then I would hope that your model had an alternative, quantitative, explanation. As far as I can see, RST does not.


I have another one: RST can qualitatively and quantitatively predict the behaviour of quasars and pulsars. Actually, Dewey Larson predicted quasars in 1959 as the exploding cores of galaxies before they were identified as such. Now can GR do that?
As others have already noted, you claim that the predictions are quantitative. So does RST give a good match (within 0.2%) to the behaviour I describe above?

[dgavin]

You claimed that RST's prediction differed from GR's by a factor of 3/Pi. Observational evidence (thank you Nereid for the link to the paper), shows that this is is not correct. Do you want to withdraw this claim? If you do, then what does that imply about RST?

Fortis, I've looked back over these formulas, and I noticed one thing imediately. I looks like what Larsen is doing is modifying a standard GR principle to treat object with radial (In four dimensions) motion. At least that is what i think he is doing

In other wards it looks like he took GR and beefed it up for raidial motion. It's quite evident where both the 3x parameter and pi was added in to the standard GR math to treat number in radials.

The problem is he did not pull these parameters back out, as at that time, the error bar of the times accounted for the difference. So it looks like this part of Larsens work is is a modified version of GR based on radial motion instead of inertia.

If you pull the paramaters 3x and pi back out at the end (using the 3/pi coespondence), it should match GR almost exactly. There will still be a slight difference, but it should be less then .003 in each one part.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around too what -exatly- he's trying to accomplish my multiplying the formula by 3 at one point, then later on dividing by pi. Other then that it looks like standard GR transforms to me. But as I don't understang Intergal's in math at all, it's difficult for me to do more then compare the formula's visually.

[dgavin]

So RST doesn't match the GR predictions for the binary pulsar system?

I can atleast answer this one, though i'm not defending the Theroy itself.


From the LRC Institute

For example, the RST predicts unequivocally that gravitational radiation, a requirement of general relativity, does not exist, and that gravity operates instantaneously without the need for any medium or continuum, such as the four-dimensional (4D), curved, spacetime continuum of general relativity, and that it operates without the need for any process of energy transmission between gravitating bodies. This is in complete accord with existing observations, although it is at odds with existing theory, which requires that gravitating mass aggregates transfer energy by means of radiation at the speed of light.

Physicists, studying the decay of the orbits of certain binary star systems, believe that they have found indirect evidence of gravitational radiation, as the orbits of these unusual star systems seem to decay from the loss of energy due to the hypothetical radiation. Though this decay has been observed in very rare instances, and the rate is as predicted by general relativity, to an accuracy of 0.5%, other causes cannot yet be ruled out, especially since the behavior of these systems is not well understood. It’s not even firmly established that the pulsing light from these systems is produced by binary, eclipsing orbits. Clearly, until new gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGO, VIRGO, LISA and others, provide direct evidence for the existence of gravitational radiation, the jury is still out on which theory is correct in this regard.


It definately varies from GR on this one point. And a whole lot it seems.

The good about it is that it is testable. So it looks like the main difference in the theories is the basis of the speed of gravity. Once that is expeimentaly determined, it should key in which was correct in this reguard.

[Fortis]

It definately varies from GR on this one point. And a whole lot it seems.
Speed of gravity is a tricky one. There was an experiment, back in 2002, that claimed to have measured a value that matched that of the speed of light. In the interest of scientific honesty, however, I must point out that this result is not yet widely accepted.

The criticism of the binary pulsar result seems a little over-egged, however. Let's say you measure 3 different parameters for a system. If you have a model (i.e. GR) that claims that these parameters are not independent then you can take two of the parameters and predict what the third one is. If you then compare this predicted value to the measured value and find that it is within 0.5% of the observed value, what would be a reasonable conclusion to draw?

If you measured 3 values, told me two, and I told you that the third number should be 200, when you had measured a value of 201, you might reasonably assume that I had a method. :)

Finally, StevenO claimed that "RST can qualitatively and quantitatively predict the behaviour of quasars and pulsars. This seems to contradict the Larsonists statement that, regarding binary pulsars, "the behavior of these systems is not well understood".

Until someone comes up with a better answer, it seems reasonable to make the working assumption that GR is getting it right here. :)

[Fortis]

Actually looking at the review (http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/reviews/rpp2008-rev-gravity-tests.pdf) by the Particle Data Group, they claim that the pulsar observations mean that the propagation speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to better than one part in one thousand.

[dgavin]

Actually looking at the review (http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/reviews/rpp2008-rev-gravity-tests.pdf) by the Particle Data Group, they claim that the pulsar observations mean that the propagation speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to better than one part in one thousand.

I assume you meant this portion of the review:




The remarkable stability of pulsar
clocks has allowed one to measure the corresponding very small orbital period decay
˙P

b ≡ dPb/dt ∼ −(v/c)5 ∼ −10−12 in several binary systems, thereby giving us a direct
experimental confirmation of the propagation properties of the gravitational field, and,
in particular, an experimental confirmation that the speed of propagation of gravity is
equal to the velocity of light to better than a part in a thousand.


While I agree with most everything that paper says, I have to chime in on this statement of thiers.

While the orbit period decay is an indication of propagation properties, but it doesn't directly relate these properties to gravity. There could be frame draggging, space/time shear forces, and a variety of other effects that could be a component.

I'm suprised that statement made it through a peer review as there is no supporting math showing how they derived the speed of gravity from it (thats what I was hoping to see), nor ruled out other effects.

However I'm not asking you to defend it, just pointing out what was missing when I looked for it, namely how they computed the speed of gravity from the decay in the orbits. I wanted to see that shown in math for once.

I have to say however much as I like this Reciprical System, and heb's SuperSuperSymetry, that so far the best indications are (even if there are not any gravitational waves) that changes to gravity fields propagate at the speed of light.

The sort of puts a damper on both those theories. RST according to the LRC group thats still working on it, is supposed to extend GR and not replace or surrplant it. However I can't see how they can say it extends GR without the propegation speed of gravitational changes being the speed of light.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] I'm suprised that statement made it through a peer review as there is no supporting math showing how they derived the speed of gravity from it (thats what I was hoping to see), nor ruled out other effects. [Snip!]
Have you ever read a scientific paper? In particular, have you ever read a review article? (Such as the one at Particle Data Group referenced above.)

No review article could hope to show every single derivation from every single article that it touches on. The derivations you seek are out there, probably in their reference number 32. For your benefit, I reproduce that reference below.

T. Damour and N. Deruelle, Phys. Lett. A87, 81 (1981).
T. Damour, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 294, 1335 (1982).

I'm not sure how accessible the second one is (I think the C.R. stands for Compte Rendu, someone please correct me), but the first one should be easy to find at a university library.

[Fortis]

dgavin, as Celestial Mechanic said, review articles rarely contain derivations of all of the results that they give. Their purpose is to provide a summary of the literature to date. In the case of the Particle Data Group, they survey the current scientific literature to determine the best values for a range of physical quantities, and validity of various bits of theory. For example, if you wanted to use a value for the electron mass, which value do you use. You could survey the literature yourself, and possibly apply a statistical analysis to derive a composite value (in essence a weighted mean of the experimental values.) Or, you could could go with the PDG value, as they have already done it for you. :)

[StevenO]

Thank you for the link above: I'm assuming that this is the most recent version of the work? The date at the top is August 2008. Unfortunately, some of the knowledge contained therein is roughly 30 years out of date...

You are right, the first version of the work was published in 1959 and the second in 1971 as you could see below the title. Larson passed away in 1990. So, quasars were a very new and hard to study phenomenom then.


Also, though I am curious about the "qualitative predictions," I'm also interested in quantitative ones: modern cosmology and Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN)/quasar research is very quantitative. So, I'm rather curious what these "astronomical enigma's[sic]" are that require qualitative predictions.
You have to understand that Larson's work is in its intent purely qualitative. From his two postulates and two parameters, the 'natural units' of space and time, derived from lightspeed and the Rydberg frequency, he derives the properties and values of our well known physics phenomena, including atomic theory and cosmology. He is for instance able to calculate the periodic table of elements, the inter-atomic distances in thousands of solids or the lifetime of the neutron from these two parameters only. Also, he shows (others have done that too) that the dimensions of all physics constants can be reduced to only dimensions of space and time.



Quoting from Chapter 8, Quasars: The General Picture (http://library.rstheory.org/books/qp/08.html), and writing as I skim:

Which galaxies have been exploding? And what properties of quasars are similar to white dwarfs? I can think of only a handful (at best!) of similarities, and a huge list of differences!
It is Larson's theory that a quasar is an exploding core of a galaxy. In his theory atoms can die of 'old age': they reach an ionization limit by absorption of neutrino's over lifetime after which they are converted to energy. This is the driving process for type II supernova's in RST. Properties that quasars, pulsars and white dwarfs share is that they show up as small objects of very high density because of their superliminal motion contents.


First, this is not the most notable feature of quasars, nor was it necessarily the most notable feature at the time of their discovery (see my conclusions for more on this). Second, this statement is completely false, as of at least 15 years ago. In fact, the record holders for distance are now Lyman-break galaxies with redshifts of ~7 (the highest redshift quasars have 6 < z < 6.5). Also, the furthest resolved galaxies (i.e. we can see their shape) have a redshift > 4, I believe. 30-40 years ago his statement was true, because quasars are brighter than galaxies and spectroscopy was very difficult. These days, we have measured the redshifts for many thousands of galaxies beyond a redshift of 1 (see the GOODS or MUYSC surveys for examples). Many of these galaxies are "perfectly ordinary" spirals and ellipticals, in fact.

Thus, since the Reciprocal Theory does not allow "ordinary" recession velocities greater than 1, you've got a problem! But there's another problem in that chapter that should be apparent from my previous paragraph:
I'm not sure if RST disallows recession velocities >1 since any speed is possible according to the theory. It is just that velocities greater than c are perceived as 'shrinking' objects from the material side of the universe.
And indeed since the work is 40-50 years old it could be out of date wrt. to newer observations.


Uh-oh!

There's some stuff later that seems to be confused about what a volume-limited catalog is. In addition, the quasar luminosity function measured by the 3C catalog was by no means the best measure of what Larson calls "log N-Log S" (e.g. recent work from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey by Schneider and/or Richards et al.). Looks like someone needs to learn about selection criteria!

Wait... where is this "ample evidence" that the radiation from quasars is not, if not isotropic, certainly non-planar and non-beamed?

As to this bit:

it sounds just like Burbidge's complaints which were answered ~25 years ago when the extended sources around quasars were not only identified, but found to be galaxies with absorption-line redshifts at the same distances as the hosted quasar. Plus, there is no real problem understanding how quasars can be so luminous: they are the accretion disks of very high mass objects.

Speaking of being behind the times...
Was all this knowledge available in 1971 when the last version of this work from Larson was updated?

According to Larson quasars are not accretion disks of massive objects. They are extremely strong stellar explosions of old galaxy cores that propel matter to superliminal speeds and convert matter to anti-matter (if 3 dimensions of motion have superluminal speeds). Once converted to anti-matter the matter disappears from our view into the other symmetry side of the universe. Quasars do play some optical tricks because of this.

[StevenO]

A clarification if I may, please?

What is it, precisely, that you are answering questions on and addressing challenges to? As in, which ATM idea ... in detail?

I ask partly because you stated, in an earlier post:
(bold added)

And then, in the post I am quoting, you said: "I was talking about qualitative features here." and "I'm posting here to make people aware that the qualitative predictions of this theory could solve a lot of astronomical enigma's, not that it gives a direct answer to every question." (bold added)

I hope you have read the BAUT rules and are familiar with them, especially the one to do with this ATM section.

I look forward to your response.

ETA: parejkoj's post and mine crossed.

I come here to openly discuss the merits and fallacies of a theory that goes further than mainstream theories by postulating that the sole content of the Universe is pure motion and that time and space are reciprocal symmetrical, not to play a game of shooting duck.

[StevenO]

As shown, the factor of 3/Pi is clearly in conflict with observational evidence, so any "interpretation" that suggests (as your earlier post did) that it is a real conflict with GR is wrong. Which of the three views (as outlined above), holds to this factor?

Given that the observations that conflict with 3/Pi have been around for a number of years, I am surprised that Larsonists haven't noticed them.

At the time of calculation (1981) the result was still within the margin of observation error. Since then it was shown that Larson's opinion that the 'motion' universe's geometry is pure Euclidian cannot hold. There are not enough "Larsonists" around to have this kind of equations reviewed regularly.

[StevenO]

If the theory predicts that gravitational waves don't exist, and yet we have clear observational evidence that these binary pulsars are behaving, to within 0.2%, of what would be expected if they were radiating gravitational waves according to the prediction of GR, then I would hope that your model had an alternative, quantitative, explanation. As far as I can see, RST does not.

As others have already noted, you claim that the predictions are quantitative. So does RST give a good match (within 0.2%) to the behaviour I describe above?

Please see my previous reply's. Larson's theory is based on qualitative concepts. The only parameters he needs are the natural units of space and time.

To quote a fellow "Larsonian":



One big complaint about the Reciprocal System is that Larson doesn't have enough "equations" in it. While digging through some of Larson's old notebooks, I ran across some of the original notes for Basic Properties of Matter and one section in particular stood out, where Larson had made several notes concerning the qualitative content of equations, versus the quantitative. It breaks down into three approaches:


Quantitative: equations that produce numerical results of observed phenomena, with no reason as to why (the reason/concept is later developed from the equations).

Partial qualitative: equations that have SOME connection to a concept, where "constants" are introduced to hide away the unexplained parts (like the gravitational constant, etc).

Qualitative: equations are an expression of concepts and their relationships.

Larson strongly favored the #3, where one could derive an equation from the conceptual model of the RS and every term and function had a reason for being there. I found this note stuck to one of the pages concerning the inter-atomic distance calculation, where he derives the inter-atomic distances directly from motion in the time region. I did not realize that Feynman held a similar view:


Feynman Lectures, Vol. II, page 41-12 wrote:
The next great era of awakening of human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of equations. Today we cannot.
Larson was using this quote, and others, as one of the major features of the RS--it had a qualitative explanation for the equations and he would only include equations in his papers where he had a qualitative explanation. If you look closely at BPOM, you will find that most of the book is dedicated to explaining the WHY of atomic relationships, not just reproducing the observed values. But it is nice when they agree!

Mathematically, the RS and conventional theories use virtually the same equations. The big selling point of the RS is that there is a distinct reason, and concept, behind every addition, multiplication, subtraction, division, power, square root or other function used in an equation.

I believe it is a key point to maintain this clarity when working and presenting equations in the RS. We HAVE that qualitative feature that Feynman is looking for--we should exploit that.

[StevenO]

I assume you meant this portion of the review:



While I agree with most everything that paper says, I have to chime in on this statement of thiers.

While the orbit period decay is an indication of propagation properties, but it doesn't directly relate these properties to gravity. There could be frame draggging, space/time shear forces, and a variety of other effects that could be a component.

I'm suprised that statement made it through a peer review as there is no supporting math showing how they derived the speed of gravity from it (thats what I was hoping to see), nor ruled out other effects.

However I'm not asking you to defend it, just pointing out what was missing when I looked for it, namely how they computed the speed of gravity from the decay in the orbits. I wanted to see that shown in math for once.

I have to say however much as I like this Reciprical System, and heb's SuperSuperSymetry, that so far the best indications are (even if there are not any gravitational waves) that changes to gravity fields propagate at the speed of light.

The sort of puts a damper on both those theories. RST according to the LRC group thats still working on it, is supposed to extend GR and not replace or surrplant it. However I can't see how they can say it extends GR without the propegation speed of gravitational changes being the speed of light.

Point could be that gravitional energy could be radiated away in the form of EM energy.

[Fortis]

You have to understand that Larson's work is in its intent purely qualitative.
This would be another occasion that the theory differs from the mainstream. The mainstream strives to be quantitative. This allows the model to to be tested by observation and experiment.


From his postulates and two parameters, the 'natural units' of space and time, derived from lightspeed and the Rydberg frequency he derives the properties and values of most physics phenomena, including atomic theory and cosmology. He is for instance able to calculate the periodic table of elements and the inter-atomic distances in thousands of solids from these two parameters. Also, he shows (and others have done that too) that the dimensions of all physics constants can be reduced to dimensions of space and time.

Can you show how he would calculate the atomic spacing in silicon? Presumably he would start from the atomic number? Does it depend on the mass number?

[Fortis]

At the time of calculation (1981) the result was still within the margin of observation error. Since then it was shown that Larson's opinion that the 'motion' universe's geometry is pure Euclidian cannot hold. There are not enough "Larsonists" around to have this kind of equations reviewed regularly.
So if Larson got it wrong, what is the geometry of the universe?

[Fortis]

Please see my previous reply's. Larson's theory is based on qualitative concepts. The only parameters he needs are the natural units of space and time.

To quote a fellow "Larsonian":
This is a non-standard use of the term qualitative. Generally "quantitative" is used to indicate that a result is in terms of a quantity, e.g. 5.23 Hz. "Qualitative" is used to indicate that the output is given in terms of a quality, e.g. bigger, brighter, loud, etc.

[Fortis]

Point could be that gravitional energy could be radiated away in the form of EM energy.
Is there any detail to this hypothetical mechanism? Do you think that it would give as good a match? Don't you think that it is a bit of a coincidence that it happens to match the predictions of GR within 0.5% if it isn't down to gravitational radiation?

[StevenO]

This would be another occasion that the theory differs from the mainstream. The mainstream strives to be quantitative. This allows the model to to be tested by observation and experiment.
In Larson's theory qualitative is equal to quantitative since everything can be expressed in ratio's of space and time as the only needed physics constants.


Can you show how he would calculate the atomic spacing in silicon? Presumably he would start from the atomic number? Does it depend on the mass number?
I'll post that tomorrow, time permitting. If you are impatient, a link: Basic Properties of Matter, Chapter II (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bpm/bpm02.htm)

[StevenO]

Is there any detail to this hypothetical mechanism? Do you think that it would give as good a match? Don't you think that it is a bit of a coincidence that it happens to match the predictions of GR within 0.5% if it isn't down to gravitational radiation?
My point was that there could be a mechanism that converts gravitational energy to EM radiation that could lead to mistaking the speed of gravitional waves with lightspeed.

[StevenO]

So if Larson got it wrong, what is the geometry of the universe?
Now, that is a good question. Problem is that fundamental motions are scalar according to Larson and we cannot express that in Euclidian geometry. According to the current 'Larsonians' the best option is projective geometry. Space aspect being Euclidian and time aspect being polar or vice-versa.

[dgavin]

Have you ever read a scientific paper? In particular, have you ever read a review article? (Such as the one at Particle Data Group referenced above.)

No review article could hope to show every single derivation from every single article that it touches on. The derivations you seek are out there, probably in their reference number 32. For your benefit, I reproduce that reference below.

T. Damour and N. Deruelle, Phys. Lett. A87, 81 (1981).
T. Damour, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 294, 1335 (1982).

I'm not sure how accessible the second one is (I think the C.R. stands for Compte Rendu, someone please correct me), but the first one should be easy to find at a university library.

Yes, and have written one, but they are unrelated to the field of Physics.

In the field I am in when you specify a sweeping statement like Direct Evidence or Direct Relation, you always provide the detail, even in a review. Guess I'm used to different standards in a review.

[dgavin]

At the time of calculation (1981) the result was still within the margin of observation error. Since then it was shown that Larson's opinion that the 'motion' universe's geometry is pure Euclidian cannot hold. There are not enough "Larsonists" around to have this kind of equations reviewed regularly.

Ok this I find odd even myself.

Even if it varies from GR on a few points, from what I've seen in it's papers thats not it's point. The point seems to be a theory that builds on GR to the point that you don't need to go through the renormalization equations when going from QM to GR (Or vis versa). It also avoids the need to unify gravity with the other forces.

If it's not getting much support though, that sort of hints that it might be already considered non-valid, or non-useful.

I'll admit that I like it's foundations, as most of it's math if far easier then GR and renormalization, but I'm not about to let that sway the need that a theory needs to be developed, or it's just sort of...pointless.

[parejkoj]

You are right, the first version of the work was published in 1959 and the second in 1971 as you could see below the title. Larson passed away in 1990. So, quasars were a very new and hard to study phenomenom then.

That's fine. But since it apparently doesn't match our observations now, I guess we can drop the whole thing!


It is Larson's theory that a quasar is an exploding core of a galaxy. In his theory atoms can die of 'old age': they reach an ionization limit by absorption of neutrino's over lifetime after which they are converted to energy. This is the driving process for type II supernova's in RST. Properties that quasars, pulsars and white dwarfs share is that they show up as small objects of very high density because of their superliminal motion contents.

Ok.

1. How does his theory explain the observed properties of quasars? By which I mean the various emission and absorption lines in the UV, optical and IR, as well as X-ray and radio features, variability, etc.

2. Pulsars and white dwarfs have no "superluminal motion content," so what do you mean there?

3. How do quasars "show up as objects of very high density?" I really don't know what you mean, and I again state that Larson apparently didn't even know about many of the known features of quasars circa 1970 (such as their optical/UV emission features).


I'm not sure if RST disallows recession velocities >1 since any speed is possible according to the theory. It is just that velocities greater than c are perceived as 'shrinking' objects from the material side of the universe.

Yes, it does not permit recession velocities greater than c for "ordinary motion". Right there in the link that you posted (http://library.rstheory.org/books/qp/08.html):


In the context of the Reciprocal System of theory the recession redshift cannot exceed 1.00, as this value corresponds to the speed of light, the full speed of the progression, the level that is reached when the effect of gravitation becomes negligible.


And in several other places on the same page, he mentions that redshifts beyond 2.326 are "a limit which cannot be exceeded (under normal conditions, at least)." So, observations of ordinary galaxies with redshifts beyond 1, and observations of quasars and galaxies with redshifts beyond 2.326 both contradict his hypothesis. And we've got plenty of each of those.



And indeed since the work is 40-50 years old it could be out of date wrt. to newer observations.
...
Was all this knowledge available in 1971 when the last version of this work from Larson was updated?

Much has changed with respect to quasar observations since the 70s. Heck, almost as much has changed since ~1990. But, the test of a hypothesis is not only whether it can match observations that were made before the hypothesis was created, but also whether it can predict new observations. And it looks like Larson's work fails badly when faced with the observations of modern astrophysics.

Contrast this with, say the Gunn-Peterson effect (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142.1633G): predicted in 1965, and finally observed in ~2001 when the techniques caught up. Or the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Ap&SS...7....3S): predicted in 1969, tentatively observed in ~1983, solidly confirmed around 2003 and with new surveys designed to look specifically for it. Or the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...147...73S): predicted in 1967, it can only be observed in an accelerating universe (one with some form of Dark Energy) and was most strongly confirmed in 2008.



...
Quasars do play some optical tricks because of this.

What "optical tricks" do they play? Please be specific, and cite the observations of these "optical tricks."

In light of all of this, what merit does Larson's hypothesis have in modern observational astrophysics? Not only is it apparently contradicted by observation (and Fortis has pointed out some general relativistic observations that Larson apparently didn't get right), but it doesn't appear to offer anything new that could be of use to astronomers.

[Fortis]

My point was that there could be a mechanism that converts gravitational energy to EM radiation that could lead to mistaking the speed of gravitional waves with lightspeed.
We know of no such mechanism, and as far as I am aware, no such mechanism has been proposed in Larsonian physics. Perhaps there is some unknown mechanism that just happens to convert gravitational energy to EM radiation and produce effects that look amazingly like the effects of gravitational radiation predicted by GR (to the extent of not only generating the qualitative effects, but getting a quantitative match as well.)

Perhaps there are aliens out there that are tinkering with these pulsars, just to make it look as if they are radiating gravitational waves in accord with GR. Perhaps they are doing this to lead us down a blind alley and not discover the technology that would turn the human race into a space-travelling species.

If we observe results that are in extremely good agreement with a theory that has survived plenty of other tests, aren't we just pulling things out of thin air to try to back up Larson, et al?

[tusenfem]

I think it is a bit weird to defend a theory that basically has not changed for over 30 years and is based on knowledge that was "up to date" at that time, but can be easily shown wrong with current observations and such. Would it not be better when StevenO takes the up to date knowledge of quasars and whatevers and set up the whole theory up new. I know it would be an awful lot of work, but discussing this Larson theory does not make any sense, as clearly a lot of stuff is shown to be inconsistent with current knowledge.

[papageno]

It should be evident that the theories are calling upon the electrons to perform two different and contradictory functions. They have been assigned the key position in both the theory of atomic structure and the theory of the electric current, without regard for the fact that the properties that they must have in order to perform the functions required by either one of these theories disqualify them for the functions that they are called upon to perform in the other.

A look in any introductory textbook of Solid State Physics (even thirty years ago) would have shown that this is utterly wrong. Undergraduate students would be able to understand this.

"Mainstream" physics does not attribute contradicting properties to the electrons to explain both atoms, molecules, and electric transport. The properties of the electrons are always the same; what changes is the environment and how they interact with it.

One can actually draw insightful parallels between atoms and solids (for example, ionization energy and work function).

[dgavin]

It should be evident that the theories are calling upon the electrons to perform two different and contradictory functions. They have been assigned the key position in both the theory of atomic structure and the theory of the electric current.

papageno, nice catch, I totally missed this when I looked over the theory.

This is a big problem.

How are they contradictory? An electron in an atom has charge (-), Spin and a probability of being somewhere in it's shell.

An Electron in an electric circuit has a charge (-1), Spin, and probability of interacting with the matter in the circuit.

Where is the difference in properties or theories here?

No only is this work a bit dated, but Larson's work with eliminating re-normalizations is rapidly being overshadowed by that he seemed to have a few crack-pot idea's he slipped into his theory.

Much as I like a theory that gets rid of renormalization, I have to say that this one is definitely suffering from 1. Being un developed since 1970's, and 2. Statements like this one that are not just out in left field, but are left field.

I think that was Einstein's real genius. Not that he came up with GR and then moved onto QM. But that he restricted his work to explain observations and make new testable prediction, and left his feeling's out of it. Einstein hated, with a passion, the Spooky action at a distance. But he still worked on QM and Unification until the end.

I have to agree with tusenfem, this theory isn't really up to date, and fails misserably compared to modern measurments.

[StevenO]

Ok this I find odd even myself.

Even if it varies from GR on a few points, from what I've seen in it's papers thats not it's point. The point seems to be a theory that builds on GR to the point that you don't need to go through the renormalization equations when going from QM to GR (Or vis versa). It also avoids the need to unify gravity with the other forces

RST is not a theory that builds on GR. It's foundation is build from spacetime where space and time are on symmetrical footing (as 'motion'). For most classical formula's RST comes up with with the same solutions. It is mostly in the explanations of the very small, very large and very fast where RST provides an explanation that other theories cannot.

RST needs no unification of forces since motion comes before force in RST, so everything is unified as manifestations of motions. Gravity in RST e.g. is a 3 dimensional 'inward' scalar motion of matter that moves counter to the 'zero action' motion of the vacuum, which is a 3 dimensional scalar 'outward' motion of space (and time). There is no need for a weak and strong nuclear force model in RST and EM radiation comes of the theory naturally.

[Fortis]

RST needs no unification of forces since motion comes before force in RST, so everything is unified as manifestations of motions. Gravity in RST e.g. is a 3 dimensional 'inward' scalar motion of matter that moves counter to the 'zero action' motion of the vacuum, which is a 3 dimensional scalar 'outward' motion of space (and time). There is no need for a weak and strong nuclear force model in RST and EM radiation comes of the theory naturally.
Presumably RST allows us to to calculate the mass of a meson containing one bottom quark and one charm quark?

[Fortis]

For most classical formula's RST comes up with with the same solutions.
Can you go into any detail on those cases where RST gives different results to the mainstream. This could be a good route to go down as it may help us to test the veracity, or otherwise, of the theory. (You saw what happened with the 3/Pi factor, which has at least helped you to rule out versions of RST that use this factor.) :)

[StevenO]

That's fine. But since it apparently doesn't match our observations now, I guess we can drop the whole thing!

You are a little hasty here. Normally you would review if new facts could be explained by the theory too, otherwise astronomical theories would be dropped daily :) Since I am less familiar with the astronomical aspects of RST it escaped me that Larson published an update of his quasar theory in 1984.

At the time Quasars and Pulsars was published only one quasar redshift that exceeded the 2.326 value by any substantial amount had been reported. As pointed out in that work, the 2.326 redshift is not an absolute maximum, but a level at which conversion of the motion of the quasar to a new status, which it will ultimately assume in any event, can take place. Thus the very high value 2.877 attributed to the quasar 4C 05.34 either indicated the existence of some process whereby the conversion that is theoretically able to occur at 2.326 is delayed. or else was an erroneous measurement. Inasmuch as no other data bearing on the issue were available, it did not appear advisable to attempt to decide between the two alternatives at that time. In the subsequent years, many additional redshifts above 2.326 have been found, and it has become evident that extension of the quasar redshifts into these higher levels is a frequent occurrence. The theoretical situation has therefore been reviewed, and the nature of the process that is operative at the higher redshifts has been ascertained.

The update of the work can be found here:
The Quasar situation (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/20.html)
Quasar theory (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/21.html)
Verification (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/22.html)
Quasar Redshifts (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/23.html)
Evolution of Quasars (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/24.html)
The Quasar Populations (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/25.html)
Radio Galaxies (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/26.html)
Pre-Quasar Phenomena (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/27.html)




1. How does his theory explain the observed properties of quasars? By which I mean the various emission and absorption lines in the UV, optical and IR, as well as X-ray and radio features, variability, etc.
I do not know this part of the theory well enough, but from what I know Larson calculated some of the absorption lines in the book chapter I quote below. Please also check here Evolution of Quasars (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/24.html)


2. Pulsars and white dwarfs have no "superluminal motion content," so what do you mean there

3. How do quasars "show up as objects of very high density?" I really don't know what you mean, and I again state that Larson apparently didn't even know about many of the known features of quasars circa 1970 (such as their optical/UV emission features).
In RST theory motion in time is faster than lightspeed.


Yes, it does not permit recession velocities greater than c for "ordinary motion". Right there in the link that you posted (http://library.rstheory.org/books/qp/08.html):
You have misinterpreted that, since in RST speeds can also be over unity and that can be different in each of the three dimensions of scalar speed.

One of the most striking features of the quasars is that their redshifts are fantastically high in comparison with those of other astronomical objects. While the largest redshift thus far (1983) measured for a normal galaxy is 0.67 (Reference 238), some of the quasar redshifts are near 4.00. If we assume, as most astronomers now do, that these are ordinary recession redshifts, then the quasars must be by far the most distant objects ever detected in the universe.

Our theoretical development indicates that from the standpoint of distance in space this conclusion is erroneous. In the context of the theory of the universe of motion, the normal recession redshift cannot exceed 1.0, as this value corresponds to the speed of light, the full speed of the progression of the natural reference system, the level that is reached when the effect of gravitation becomes negligible. Even without any detailed consideration, it is therefore evident that the observed quasar redshift includes another component in addition to the recession shift. From the account that has been given of the origin of the quasar it can readily be seen that this excess over and above the redshift due to the normal recession is a result of the motion in additional dimensions that has been imparted to the quasar by the violent galactic explosion.

As brought out in Chapter 15, an object with a speed intermediate between one unit (the speed of light) and two units is moving in the spatial equivalent of a time magnitude. This motion in equivalent space is not capable of representation in the spatial reference system, except where it reverses a gravitationally caused change of position. The Doppler shift, on the other hand, is a simple numerical relation, a scalar total of the speed magnitudes in all dimensions, independent of the reference system. The effective portion of the speed in equivalent space therefore appears as a component of the quasar redshift.

The qualification “effective” has to be included in the foregoing statement because the quasar motion beyond the unit speed level takes place in two scalar dimensions, only one of which is coincident with the dimension of the spatial reference system. The motion in the other equivalent space dimension has no effect on the outward radial speed, and therefore does not enter into the Doppler shift.

Perhaps it would be well to add some further explanation on this point, since the idea of scalar motion in two dimensions is unfamiliar, and probably somewhat confusing to those who encounter it for the first time. In application to scalar motion, the term “dimension” is being used in the mathematical sense, rather than in the geometrical sense; that is, a two-dimensional scalar quantity is one that requires two independent scalar magnitudes for a complete definition. When such a two-dimensional scalar quantity is superimposed on a commensurable one-dimensional quantity, as in the extension of the one-dimensional scalar motion into the two-dimensional region, only one of the two scalar magnitudes of the two-dimensional quantity adds to the one-dimensional magnitude. Since the other is, by definition, independent of the magnitude with which it is associated in two dimensions, it is likewise independent of the one-dimensional quantity that adds to that associated magnitude.

On the basis of the theory developed in Chapter 15, the total redshift (a measure of the total effective speed) of an object moving with a speed greater than unity is the recession redshift plus half of the two-dimensional addition. As explained in the earlier discussion, the resulting value is normally z + 3.5z½. Since both the recession in space and the explosion-generated motion in equivalent space are directed outward, no blueshifts are produced by either component of the quasar motion.




And in several other places on the same page, he mentions that redshifts beyond 2.326 are "a limit which cannot be exceeded (under normal conditions, at least)." So, observations of ordinary galaxies with redshifts beyond 1, and observations of quasars and galaxies with redshifts beyond 2.326 both contradict his hypothesis. And we've got plenty of each of those.

Much has changed with respect to quasar observations since the 70s. Heck, almost as much has changed since ~1990. But, the test of a hypothesis is not only whether it can match observations that were made before the hypothesis was created, but also whether it can predict new observations. And it looks like Larson's work fails badly when faced with the observations of modern astrophysics.
Larson has detailed his theory later in light of the higher redshifts that were found. There is an update on quasar redshifts by Larson in his book 'Universe of Motion' where he states that the theoretical upper limit redshift value is 7.0, though he states that quasars with redshifts above 2.326 are not at a further distance. At that time the highest found redshift was 3.78.

An increase in the redshift factor due to a change in the dimensional distribution does not involve any increase in the distance in space. All quasars with redshifts of 2.326 and above are therefore at approximately the same spatial distance. This is the explanation of the seeming inconsistency involved in the observed fact that the brightness of the quasars with extremely high redshifts is comparable to that of the quasars in the redshift range around 2.00.


(the latest version of this book was published in 1984). It can be found here:
Quasar Redshifts (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/23.html).


Contrast this with, say the Gunn-Peterson effect (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142.1633G): predicted in 1965, and finally observed in ~2001 when the techniques caught up. Or the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Ap&SS...7....3S): predicted in 1969, tentatively observed in ~1983, solidly confirmed around 2003 and with new surveys designed to look specifically for it. Or the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...147...73S): predicted in 1967, it can only be observed in an accelerating universe (one with some form of Dark Energy) and was most strongly confirmed in 2008.
Could you please explain all these effects? I have no access to these papers.


In light of all of this, what merit does Larson's hypothesis have in modern observational astrophysics? Not only is it apparently contradicted by observation (and Fortis has pointed out some general relativistic observations that Larson apparently didn't get right), but it doesn't appear to offer anything new that could be of use to astronomers.
According to Larson his 1959 claims were:



Altogether, the theoretical study published in 1959 made the following predictions:


That exploding galaxies exist, and would presumably be discovered sooner or later.
That radio astronomy would be the most probable source through which the discovery would be made.
That the distribution of energies in the radiation at radio wavelengths would be non-thermal.
That the exploding galaxies would be giants, the oldest and largest galaxies in existence.
That two distinct kinds of products would be ejected from these exploding galaxies.
That one product would move outward in space at a normal low speed.
That the other, containing the larger part of the ejected material, would move outward at a speed in excess of that of light.
That this product would disappear from view.
That the explosions would resemble radioactive disintegrations, in that they would consist of separate events extending over a long period of time.
That because of the long time scale of the explosions it should be possible to detect many galaxies in the process of exploding.
In the quarter century that has elapsed since these predictions were published, the first three have been confirmed observationally. Evidence confirming the next five is presented in this work. The information now available indicates that the last two are valid only in a somewhat limited sense. We now find that the predicted long series of separate explosions are supernovae in the galactic interiors preceding the final explosion of the galaxy. and that the latter is an event resembling a boiler explosion. There is evidence that the products of the supernova explosions do actually build up in the central regions of the galaxies over a long period of time, as suggested in item 10.

In comparison, the mainstream 'consensus' on Wikipedia is:

A quasar (contraction of QUAsi-StellAr Radio source) is an extremely powerful and distant active galactic nucleus. Quasars were first identified as being high redshift sources of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light, that were point-like, similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies.

While there was initially some controversy over the nature of these objects — as recently as the 1980s, there was no clear consensus as to their nature — there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact region 10-10,000 Schwarzschild radii across surrounding the central supermassive black hole of a galaxy, powered by its accretion disc

[StevenO]

I think it is a bit weird to defend a theory that basically has not changed for over 30 years and is based on knowledge that was "up to date" at that time, but can be easily shown wrong with current observations and such. Would it not be better when StevenO takes the up to date knowledge of quasars and whatevers and set up the whole theory up new. I know it would be an awful lot of work, but discussing this Larson theory does not make any sense, as clearly a lot of stuff is shown to be inconsistent with current knowledge.
Please read the 1984 Larson material carefully and decide again.

[StevenO]

A look in any introductory textbook of Solid State Physics (even thirty years ago) would have shown that this is utterly wrong. Undergraduate students would be able to understand this.
Please read about Larson's atomic theory and electric and magnetic theories first before you make your own interpretations on the basis of a few sentences. You can find it here a.o.:
Structure of the Physical Universe (http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu)
Basic Properties of Matter (http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/index.html)

You'll find that in Larson's theory electron's are an integral part of the atomic motion, so they don't 'orbit' a nucleus, furthermore he shows that there are 'charged' and 'uncharged' electrons with different properties though both forms take part in electric and EM phenomena.

[StevenO]

It should be evident that the theories are calling upon the electrons to perform two different and contradictory functions. They have been assigned the key position in both the theory of atomic structure and the theory of the electric current.

papageno, nice catch, I totally missed this when I looked over the theory.

This is a big problem.

How are they contradictory? An electron in an atom has charge (-), Spin and a probability of being somewhere in it's shell.

An Electron in an electric circuit has a charge (-1), Spin, and probability of interacting with the matter in the circuit.

Where is the difference in properties or theories here?
Please read Larson's material first before making unfounded statements. Check the previous post for material. You'll find that electrons come both charged and uncharged (neutrinos too in current versions of RST).


No only is this work a bit dated, but Larson's work with eliminating re-normalizations is rapidly being overshadowed by that he seemed to have a few crack-pot idea's he slipped into his theory.
You have'nt read enough from Larson's theories to be able to decide he is a crackpot. You just like to play shooting duck.

[StevenO]

Presumably RST allows us to to calculate the mass of a meson containing one bottom quark and one charm quark?
RST shows that quarks are artefacts.

[Nereid]

[...]


Contrast this with, say the Gunn-Peterson effect: predicted in 1965, and finally observed in ~2001 when the techniques caught up. Or the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect: predicted in 1969, tentatively observed in ~1983, solidly confirmed around 2003 and with new surveys designed to look specifically for it. Or the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect: predicted in 1967, it can only be observed in an accelerating universe (one with some form of Dark Energy) and was most strongly confirmed in 2008.
Could you please explain all these effects? I have no access to these papers.

BAUT has an excellent Q&A section, which is the right place for you to ask such questions.

All but perhaps the ISW are very well-known, to anyone seriously interested in this field, which I presume includes you (per the OP).




According to Larson his 1959 claims were:


Altogether, the theoretical study published in 1959 made the following predictions:
1. That exploding galaxies exist, and would presumably be discovered sooner or later.
2. That radio astronomy would be the most probable source through which the discovery would be made.
3. That the distribution of energies in the radiation at radio wavelengths would be non-thermal.
4. That the exploding galaxies would be giants, the oldest and largest galaxies in existence.
5. That two distinct kinds of products would be ejected from these exploding galaxies.
6. That one product would move outward in space at a normal low speed.
7. That the other, containing the larger part of the ejected material, would move outward at a speed in excess of that of light.
8. That this product would disappear from view.
9. That the explosions would resemble radioactive disintegrations, in that they would consist of separate events extending over a long period of time.
10. That because of the long time scale of the explosions it should be possible to detect many galaxies in the process of exploding.

In the quarter century that has elapsed since these predictions were published, the first three have been confirmed observationally. [...]
[...](bold added)

IIRC, you were asked about the first ("exploding galaxies exist"), but I don't recall you actually answered the question asked.

In any case, what is the observational confirmation of the existence of "exploding galaxies"? First according to Larson (whom you quote), and second according to your own research. If you don't know either answer, please say so.

[StevenO]

BAUT has an excellent Q&A section, which is the right place for you to ask such questions.
Please! I'm not allowed to even refer to outside links according to ATM rules and you refer to highly specialized papers. Astronomy is not my profession and you can all explain it in a few sentences I assume.


All but perhaps the ISW are very well-known, to anyone seriously interested in this field, which I presume includes you (per the OP).
Apparently I'm not interested enough :) And what means "per the OP"?
I'm just trying to make people interested in a theory that could provide an answer to some of astronomy's hypothetical entities.


IIRC, you were asked about the first ("exploding galaxies exist"), but I don't recall you actually answered the question asked.

In any case, what is the observational confirmation of the existence of "exploding galaxies"? First according to Larson (whom you quote), and second according to your own research. If you don't know either answer, please say so.
Exploding galaxies is the incorrect wording, it should read 'exploding galaxy cores'.

[Fortis]

RST shows that quarks are artefacts.
O.K. Can you show how RST correctly calculates the mass of a meson that appears to be made up of a charm quark, and a bottom quark? (You did say that there was no need for the strong force.)

[Fortis]

Looking at the various references, am I correct in saying that the various calculations of material properties, using RST, essentially involves the generation of tables of values, and then the identification of these values with those of the measured materials?

i.e. you have an equation such as L = 0.2344.A+0.7329B+0.01273C2

where A, B and C take integer values.

You then generate a table using lots of different combinations of A,B, & C. Next you compare the values of L with the real materials, and pull out those as being a successful prediction of the theory.

Is that how RST typically works for the properties of matter? This is why I asked you to start off with a named material and derive its properties. Can you do this?

As an aside, on this (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bpm/bpm22.htm) page we find


As noted earlier, the diamagnetic susceptibility of an organic compound is equal to its refraction constant with an adjustment for a difference in the initial levels. The magnetic initial level is generally the same as that in refraction except in certain groups in which the level is modified by some factor not yet specifically identified, but apparently geometric. In the compounds listed in Table 34, the CH3, CH2OH, and OH end groups have initial levels 1/9 unit higher, per unit of rotational mass, than the refraction levels. Interior CH2 groups are subject to a similar modification, half as large (1/18 unit) at certain points, as the molecular chains lengthen The sum of the individual differences in initial level, I, is m’/9, where m’ is the number of rotational mass units in the modified end groups of the molecule, plus half of the number of units in the modified interior groups, with appropriate adjustments in special cases. :)

[papageno]

Please read about Larson's atomic theory and electric and magnetic theories first before you make your own interpretations on the basis of a few sentences.

Maybe you should apply the same standard to Larson, because he utterly misrepresents the "mainstream" theories.

Only because I quoted only a few sentences to give the context, it does not mean that I have not read the whole chapter. And from what I read, he does not understand the "mainstream" theories about electric transport.





You'll find that in Larson's theory electron's are an integral part of the atomic motion, so they don't 'orbit' a nucleus, furthermore he shows that there are 'charged' and 'uncharged' electrons with different properties though both forms take part in electric and EM phenomena.

How would uncharged particles take part in electromagnetic phenomena? Where is the evidence of these two types of electrons?

[Fortis]

How would uncharged particles take part in electromagnetic phenomena? Where is the evidence of these two types of electrons?
Probably none. Still, there is an interest (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/crucialprop.htm) in trying to do an "uncharged" repeat of the Geiger Marsden experiment.


In the original scattering experiment, charged helium atoms (alpha particles) were beamed at a gold foil; the resultant scattering was claimed to be due to Coulombic repulsion by charged nuclei. Now suppose that that non-charged helium atoms are beamed at a gold foil. The Reciprocal System of Theory predicts the same scattering in this case. The Rutherford theory predicts no scattering.
There is rather a difference in scale between a helium nucleus and a helium atom...

[captain swoop]

BAUT has an excellent Q&A section, which is the right place for you to ask such questions.
Please! I'm not allowed to even refer to outside links according to ATM rules and you refer to highly specialized papers. Astronomy is not my profession and you can all explain it in a few sentences I assume.

If you have questions about the Mainstream then you can and should ask them in Q&A

[StevenO]

O.K. Can you show how RST correctly calculates the mass of a meson that appears to be made up of a charm quark, and a bottom quark? (You did say that there was no need for the strong force.)

In RST theory atoms are compound motions of vibrating units of spacetime(photons) subjected to a rotational displacement in two dimensions (and thus covering all the three dimensions of space). This rotation can be done in time forming material atoms or in space forming 'cosmic' atoms (anti-matter). RST also identifies subatomic particles like the electron, muon, tau and the corresponding neutrino's with their 'cosmic' counterparts.
Short-lived 'particles' like this pion are shown by Larson to be 'cosmic' atoms created as a decay product. A calculation for the mass and lifetime of the pion in RST can be found here:


Without the gravitational charge, the mass of c-Si27, the decay product resulting from a 7-unit addition to c-Ne20, is 137.95 MeV, and the low speed lifetime is about 10-8 seconds. The corresponding observed particle is the pion, with measured mass 139.57 MeV, and lifetime 2.602×10-8 seconds.

Cosmic Ray Decay (http://library.rstheory.org/books/nbm/15.html)

[StevenO]

Probably none. Still, there is an interest (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/crucialprop.htm) in trying to do an "uncharged" repeat of the Geiger Marsden experiment.
There is rather a difference in scale between a helium nucleus and a helium atom...

RST holds that the nucleus IS the atom.

[Nereid]

Please! I'm not allowed to even refer to outside links according to ATM rules and you refer to highly specialized papers. Astronomy is not my profession and you can all explain it in a few sentences I assume.
OK, I'll have a shot ...

Gunn-Peterson trough: after radiation streamed free (at the 'surface of last scattering'), the universe entered 'the Dark Ages' in which it was opaque to radiation blue-ward of Lyman alpha. As long as the IGM contains (contained) even a quite modest neutral H component, the spectra of objects 'beyond' this IGM would exhibit a clear 'here be an IGM with significant amounts of neutral H' signal.

SZE: as microwave EM, such as the CMB, passes through extensive 'clouds' of hot electrons (the corresponding positive ions don't contribute to the effect, to the first order), it will undergo inverse Compton scattering, leaving a quite distinct signal in the CMB observed through such clouds. The IGM of rich clusters is just such a medium.

ISW: this is an imprint of gravitational redshift on the CMB, and arises only if the universe - along the path of the photons - is dominated by something other than matter (whether baryonic or CDM).

Note: these are very crude explanations, but should be sufficient to get you started on finding answers. Perhaps you could start with what Larson (etc) had to say about them, as they were all published well before his last update of this ideas (though, as parejkoj pointed out, not observed until the 21st century).



Apparently I'm not interested enough :) And what means "per the OP"?
I'm just trying to make people interested in a theory that could provide an answer to some of astronomy's hypothetical entities.(bold added)

Per the OP: per the opening post (by the opening poster).

Two of the sections are titled: "Some astronomical phenomena explained" and "CMB". From that alone I assumed that were fully prepared to discuss the relevant astronomical phenomena.

As I noted earlier, the express scope (mission statement, if you will) of this ATM section is for those who wish to present ATM ideas to do so ... and for them to answer questions on those ideas (as presented) and address challenges to them. If you do not intend to abide by the clearly stated rules, perhaps you should say so, and ask a mod to close this thread.



Exploding galaxies is the incorrect wording, it should read 'exploding galaxy cores'.
Thanks for the clarification.

What is the observational confirmation of the existence of "exploding galaxy cores"? First according to Larson (whom you quote), and second according to your own research. If you don't know either answer, please say so.

[dgavin]

Please read Larson's material first before making unfounded statements. Check the previous post for material. You'll find that electrons come both charged and uncharged (neutrinos too in current versions of RST).

You have'nt read enough from Larson's theories to be able to decide he is a crackpot. You just like to play shooting duck.

There is no such thing as an Uncharged Electron. By their very nature Electrons and Positrons always have a charge.

Electrons always have a -1 Charge and Positrons a +1 Charge. If they didn't then they would not be Electrons and Positrons.

A soon as someone says Electrons don't have a charge, that's fairly crack-potish in my book.

Nice try on pushing the issue into the realm of personal with "You haven't read enough from Larson's theories to be able to decide he is a crackpot. You just like to play shooting duck."

Was that really necessary? Feel Better?

His statement alone that I read and referenced in my post, shows he had unorthodox ideas about electrons, and obviously didn't know that the same forces that work with an Electron in an atom, are the same forces that work with an Electron in Circuitry. Reference all of Quantum Electro Dynamics.

QED's has been in use since the days of the vacuum tubes. Him trying to claim electron's behave any diferently...well it -is- crack pot.

Show me experimental proof that any detection of a Neutral Electron or Neutral Positron has ever happened and I'll retract my statement of crack-pottery.

[dgavin]

RST is not a theory that builds on GR. It's foundation is build from spacetime where space and time are on symmetrical footing (as 'motion'). For most classical formula's RST comes up with with the same solutions. It is mostly in the explanations of the very small, very large and very fast where RST provides an explanation that other theories cannot.

RST needs no unification of forces since motion comes before force in RST, so everything is unified as manifestations of motions. Gravity in RST e.g. is a 3 dimensional 'inward' scalar motion of matter that moves counter to the 'zero action' motion of the vacuum, which is a 3 dimensional scalar 'outward' motion of space (and time). There is no need for a weak and strong nuclear force model in RST and EM radiation comes of the theory naturally.

Incorrect, Larson's own words on his Theory and in a published book.



A change in [the definition of motion that is] the base of the [new] system naturally necessitates many modifications of the details of physical theory. However, the amount of change that is required is not nearly as great as might appear on first consideration, because the new development calls for very little change in the mathematics of present-day theory.

Ergo it was supposed to be an extension of, not a replacement for.

[Fortis]

In RST theory atoms are compound motions of vibrating units of spacetime(photons) subjected to a rotational displacement in two dimensions (and thus covering all the three dimensions of space). This rotation can be done in time forming material atoms or in space forming 'cosmic' atoms (anti-matter). RST also identifies subatomic particles like the electron, muon, tau and the corresponding neutrino's with their 'cosmic' counterparts.
Short-lived 'particles' like this pion are shown by Larson to be 'cosmic' atoms created as a decay product. A calculation for the mass and lifetime of the pion in RST can be found here:
I was looking for the mass of a specific meson, i.e. that which "appears" (as you don't believe in quarks) to be made up of a charm quark and a bottom quark.

Just for background, the mainstream correctly predicted the mass of this specific particle before it was measured. I emphasise that it was this specific particle, not just a claim that some particle with a specifc mass would be detected.

[Fortis]

RST holds that the nucleus IS the atom.
So how large is the doubly charged helium atom (what we think of as a helium nucleus) compared to a neutral helium atom?

[parejkoj]

First off: the three articles I linked to are all freely available. Click either of the green links (PDF or page-by-page GIF) from the links I posted. Old articles like that are almost always available to the public free of charge. Though if you are completely unfamiliar with the subjects, try looking them up on Wikipedia: the articles there are pretty good.


You are a little hasty here. Normally you would review if new facts could be explained by the theory too, otherwise astronomical theories would be dropped daily :) Since I am less familiar with the astronomical aspects of RST it escaped me that Larson published an update of his quasar theory in 1984.

Well, let's take a look at it, shall we?

I still, as yet, see no real discussion of quasar emission lines. He does spend a lot of time talking about radio emission, and a little about absorption. One very important thing to note about many of his figures: there are no units, nor any scale, nor any labeled tick marks. Thus, it is impossible to compare the figures with any other work. Rather poor form, I must say!

Beginning roughly at random:


The analogy between the white dwarfs and the quasars is so obvious that it should have been recognized immediately, in general, if not in detail, when the quasars were first discovered. The white dwarf is a star whose distinctive property is a density far outside the range of the densities of normal stars. The quasar is an aggregate of stars, one of the most distinctive properties of which is a density far outside the range of the densities of normal stellar aggregates.

Huh? What observational evidence is there that quasars are "aggregates of stars?" I didn't see Larson provide any, so perhaps you could? The structure of their UV and optical emission rather precludes this hypothesis...

Following this is a set of quotes from the ~60s and 70s about how astronomers didn't understand anything about quasars. But contrary to his complaining, by 1984, a lot was known about quasars, and many of the theoretical foundations for our modern understanding were already in place. For example, the idea that an accreting supermassive black hole powered the observed emission was proposed in the mid- to late-60s, and generally accepted by the beginning of the 1980s.

Perhaps it would be better for you to familiarize yourself with the state of quasar and AGN research up to the 1980s, as it seems quite apparent that Larson was not himself familiar with it. You might be surprised at just how much was known at that time. Gregory Shield's A Brief History of Active Galactic Nuclei (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111..661S) is an excellent place to start.

And, anyway, the current theory of AGN is certainly up to the task of explaining most (though not all--that's why its such an active area of research!) of the observed features of these objects. There is still some debate in the field about certain details, and arguments about whether one explanation or another is most applicable to any given object. And I suspect that if many of Larson's quotes from astronomers about how we "have no model that explains the nature of quasars" were placed in context would clearly refer to there being several competing ideas, not astronomers had no ideas...



While the largest redshift thus far (1983) measured for a normal galaxy is 0.67 (Reference 238) ...

His "reference 238" is from 1976, so I don't see how he can even make the "thus far (1983)" claim... And, after a few minutes of searching ADS (something that was not available in 1984, but one could always contact a relevant expert, or do a by-hand literature search), I found a list of galaxies with redshifts up to, and above, 1 published in 1981. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...245L..59L) The references for most of those high redshifts are before 1980. So it looks like Larson hadn't done his homework...

Which leads us to:



You have misinterpreted that, since in RST speeds can also be over unity and that can be different in each of the three dimensions of scalar speed.

Hmm... we're at odds on the interpretation of this. It seems to me pretty clear that he is stating that ordinary recessional velocities cannot exceed the speed of light, right in the section of chapter 24 you quoted! So, the existence of ordinary spiral and elliptical galaxies with redshifts well beyond 1 seems to be a problem for his hypothesis, since he is suggesting that quasars have high redshifts because they were "exploded" out of galaxies.


I do not know this part of the theory well enough, but from what I know Larson calculated some of the absorption lines in the book chapter I quote below. Please also check here Evolution of Quasars (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/24.html)

He talks about several different types of absorption systems in quasar spectra, and it is unclear to me whether he is referring to intervening absorption lines (material between us and the quasar) or in situ absorption lines (the host galaxy). In the chapter that you cite there, he gives three rules "regarding the occurrence of absorption redshifts," which might have been true at in the early 1980s, but are certainly no longer true (whether he is referring to intervening or in situ absorption).

And absorption lines are not the most obvious aspect of quasar spectra anyway: I'm still waiting for some discussion of the emission line structure!




2. Pulsars and white dwarfs have no "superluminal motion content," so what do you mean there?

In RST theory motion in time is faster than lightspeed.

Since you seem to have missed the point of my question, let me try and rephrase it: what observational evidence is there that pulsars and white dwarfs have "superluminal motion content?" I didn't see Larson give any.

And in the link to the newer material from Larson keeps referring to pulsars as a form of white dwarf: what observational evidence is there that pulsars are another form of white dwarf?



According to Larson his 1959 claims were:
...
In comparison, the mainstream 'consensus' on Wikipedia is:

What's your point of quoting Wikipedia here and contrasting it with Larson's 1959 claims, which are far to vague to be of any use? Though the Wikipedia page on quasars is fairly good--as wiki pages go--you'll have to do better as far as serious quantitative predictions by Larson about the properties of quasars...

Also, I to am curious about the sizes of the "doubly charged helium atom" vs. the "neutral helium atom."

[StevenO]

How would uncharged particles take part in electromagnetic phenomena? Where is the evidence of these two types of electrons?
Charge in RST is a form of motion called 'rotational vibration' that can be added to existing rotational motion structures like atoms and subatomic particles. Charge can come in one dimensional form (electric charge) or two dimensional form (magnetic charge) and causes ionization. Uncharged electrons can only move through matter. Charged electrons can also move through space.

Here is a very high level description of this in RST(The list should start at #114 instead of 1 for resolving references):

The same considerations apply to the electrostatic force, which, from (112), must also be the force aspect of an electric motion. For an understanding of this motion we return to the question as to the types of scalar motion that can exist in the theoretical universe. Thus far we have encountered three general types: 1) Unidirectional linear motion; 2) Vibrational (simple harmonic) motion, which is linear motion with a continuous change from inward to outward, and vice versa; 3) Scalar rotation, which is a uniform rotationally distributed scalar motion.
Obviously, there is a fourth possibility, a scalar rotational vibration; that is, a rotationally distributed scalar motion with a continuous change from inward to outward and vice versa, a rotational simple harmonic motion.

An independent rotational vibration cannot exist, as there would be nothing to confine the progression to the rotational path, and it would revert to the more probable linear status. But a unit of rotational vibration can be combined with a unit of rotation. The inward phase of the rotational vibration is coincident with the corresponding rotation, and has no physical effect. The outward phase is an effective rotationally distributed scalar motion opposing the atomic rotation in the dimension, or dimensions, of the rotational vibration. It thus conforms to the requirement for stability, as expressed in (58).
From (57), the rotational vibration must not be of the same general nature as the rotation to which it is applied. The effect of this restriction is to bar three-dimensional rotational vibration. The added rotational vibrations may be either one-dimensional or two-dimensional.
We identify a rotational vibration as a charge, and a one-dimensional charge as an electric charge.
Inability to identify any motion connected with the electric charge is one of the reasons why the theorists have accepted the force exerted by the charge as fundamental, even though this conflicts with the definition of force, as noted in (112). The explanation, as indicated above, is that the charge itself is the motion.

From (115), the charge must have a carrier, an atom or particle. Independent charges do not exist.
From (117), the space-time dimensions of the electric charge are t/s; that is, the charge is dimensionally equivalent (97) to energy.
The equivalence is demonstrated by the fact that charge and kinetic energy are interconvertible.

Electric charges may be either positive or negative, but the total displacement is smaller, and therefore more probable, if the displacement of the charge is opposite to that of the rotation. Consequently, a positive rotation takes a negative charge, and vice versa. But in current practice the rotational combinations are designated as positive (or electropositive) if they normally take positive electric charges, and negative (or electronegative) if they normally take negative electric charges. It is not feasible to try to change this firmly established practice, so the usual terminology will be applied in the statements that follow, with the understanding that the significance appertaining to the terms “positive” and “negative” elsewhere in this outline is reversed in application to electric charge.
From (26), we find that in order to represent a scalar motion in a fixed spatial reference system it is necessary to identify a reference point.
The motion of a positive charge (a high speed rotational vibration) is outward from a negative reference point toward more positive values, including the positive reference points. That of a negative charge (a low speed rotational vibration) is outward from a positive reference point toward more negative values, including the negative reference points.
The reference system cannot distinguish between positive and negative reference points. This is another of the deficiencies of the conventional spatial reference system.

From (122), two positive charges move outward from the same reference point, and therefore outward from each other (7). Two negative charges do likewise, but a positive charge moves outward from a negative reference point toward all positive reference points, including the reference point of the negative charge, and therefore toward the negative charge. Thus, like charges repel each other, while unlike charges attract.
These scalar directions of the electrostatic forces are opposite to those of the corresponding electromagnetic forces (109); that is, like electric charges repel, whereas like currents (those moving in the same vectorial direction) attract.
This agrees with the theoretical scalar directions of these two types of motion, which are opposite. The electromagnetic motion (109) is inward, while the electrostatic motion (115) is outward.

An electric charge can be applied either against the electric rotation or against one dimension of the magnetic rotation. All atoms and sub-atomic particles of the material system, except the electron, have at least one effective positive displacement unit. With the one exception, all of them can therefore take positive charges. Negative charges are confined to the sub-atomic particles with negative electric displacement, and to the electronegative elements with electric displacement of 4 or less. Those with higher displacements are usually excluded by the greater probability of positive charges based on the lower magnetic displacements.
Application of an electric charge to the electron neutralizes the net negative displacement of the particle. As a neutral particle, containing both positive and negative components, the charged electron is able to move either through matter (predominantly time) or through space. The charged electrons move through matter in the same manner as their uncharged counterparts; that is, they move freely through good conductors, less easily through poor conductors, and are blocked or impeded by insulators. We identify the various phenomena involved in the production and movement of these charged electrons as static electricity.
Electric charges may also be applied to atoms (existing individually or in combinations), which are then known as ions. As noted in (115), each unit of rotational vibration combines with a unit of rotation. The maximum degree of ionization (number of applied charges) is therefore equal to the net rotational displacement. negative ionization is confined to the most electronegative members of each rotational group, and is limited to the magnitude of the negative electric displacement of each atom. Positive ionization can take place up to the number of net positive rotational displacement units in the atom (the atomic number). An atom in this limiting condition is said to be completely ionized.
A charge (rotational vibration) may be two-dimensional, rather than one-dimensional. In that case, it constitutes a magnetic charge. Material objects carrying magnetic charges are known as magnets. Where the charge persists for a substantial period of time, the term permanent magnet is applied.
Because of the orientation effect noted in (109) which applies to all two-dimensional scalar motion—the scalar direction (inward or outward) of the motion that constitutes the magnetic charge reverses with the direction relative to the reference system. Thus, a magnetic charge exerts an attractive force on a similar charge in one vectorial direction, and a repulsive force on one that is located in the diametrically opposite direction.
The force exerted by a magnet is the net total of the magnetic forces of the individual magnetic charges on the atoms. Each magnet therefore has two centers or poles at which the net magnetic forces in the opposite directions are at a maximum.
From (130) it can be seen that while a magnetically charged object has only two poles, if that object is separated into parts, each part also has two poles.
The existence of magnetic monopoles is excluded by (131).
Present-day physical theory requires the existence of positive and negative monopoles analogous to positive and negative charges, and continuing attempts are being made to find such phenomena, without success.

As in the case of positive and negative electric charges, and for the same reasons (123), like poles repel each other, while unlike poles attract.
Inasmuch as the magnetic charge is the two-dimensional analog of the one-dimensional electric charge, it has the space-time dimensions t2/s2. The dimensions of the quantities involved in magnetostatics, the phenomena of magnetic charges, are therefore related to those of the corresponding electrostatic quantities (where analogous quantities exist) by the factor t/s.
This relation (134) enables us to make a positive identification of the dimensions of the magnetostatic quantities. Magnetic charge, t2/s2, is not recognized under that name in current scientific thought, but an equivalent quantity, magnetic flux, which has these dimensions, is utilized in many of the same applications. The unit of magnetic flux in the SI system is the Weber, which is equal to a volt-second, dimensions t/s2 × t = t2/s2. The analog of electric potential, t/s2, is magnetic potential, also called vector potential, to distinguish it from some other quantities which have, or are thought to have, the characteristics of potential. The dimensions of magnetic potential are t/s2 × t/s = t2/s3.
The SI unit is the Weber per meter, t2/s2 × 1/s = t2/s3. Corresponding to electric field intensity, t/s3, is magnetic field intensity, t/s3 × t/s = t2/s4. This quantity is defined as magnetic flux per unit area, on which basis the space-time dimensions are t2/s2 × 1/s = t2/s4. Thus, all of these magnetic quantities have dimensions equal to the dimensions of the corresponding electric quantities multiplied by the factor t/s, as required by the theory.

In a number of other cases, the dimensions currently assigned to the magnetic quantities do not agree with those derived from theory in the foregoing manner. Here, the currently accepted dimensional assignments have been based on empirical observations, and the accurate dimensional analysis that is now possible shows that the observations have been improperly interpreted.
For example, observations show that magnetomotive force (MMF) is related to the current, I, by the expression MMF = nI, where n is the number of turns in a coil. Since n is dimensionless, this relation indicates that the dimensions of MMF are the same as those of the electric current. The unit of MMF is therefore taken as the ampere, dimensions s/t. But MMF has the characteristics of a force (as the name implies), and the dimensions should be those of magnetic potential, t2/s3. The dimensional study shows that the discrepancy is due to the fact that the analog of electric resistance, the permeability, dimensions t/s × t2/s3 = t3/s4, enters into the physical relation, and this relation is actually MMF = mnI, where m is the permeability. The presence of this quantity is not detected by the usual mathematical analysis, as it takes the unit value in most magnetic applications, and has no numerical effect.
When the magnetic relations are corrected by introducing the permeability, and making the necessary adjustments to remove some other errors, the entire system of magnetic quantities is brought into agreement with the mechanical and electrical dimensions. This completes the identification of a comprehensive and entirely consistent system of dimensional relations covering the full range of physical phenomena.
The demonstrated ability to express the dimensions of all physical quantities in terms of space and time is not only a powerful tool for analyzing physical relations, but also provides an impressive confirmation of the validity of the postulate that the physical universe is composed entirely of these two components.

The most serious error about conventional electric and magnetic theory revealed by the dimensional analysis, is the lack of distinction between electric quantity and electric charge that has resulted from the assumption that the electric current is a movement of charges. In present-day practice, both charge and quantity are measured in the same units—coulombs in the SI system. But the interconvertibility of electric charge and kinetic energy (97) definitely shows that charge has the energy dimensions, t/s, while the relations cited in (104) demonstrate just as definitely that electric quantity has the dimensions of space, s, as required by the theory of the universe of motion.
From (139) it follows that there are two distinct kinds of electric and magnetic phenomena: (1) the electric current and electromagnetism, in which the basic entities are units of electric quantity (dimension s), acted upon by forces due to voltage differences, and (2) the phenomena classed as electrostatic and electromagnetic, the basic units of which are units of electric charge (dimension t/s) and magnetic charge (dimension t2/s2), acted upon by forces due to potential differences.
Electric charges moving through matter or through a gravitational field are carried by particles or atomic constituents with rotational characteristics similar to those of the particles. The movement of these carriers produces electromagnetic effects, while the charges that are being carried produce electrostatic effects.
From (141), an aggregate of charged electrons has both a voltage and a potential.
This explains the operation of such devices as the Van de Graaf generator, in which charged electrons at a low potential flow into a storage sphere in which the potential may be very high. A flow in this direction would be impossible if, as asserted by present-day theory, only one force, electric potential, is operative. But the foregoing development of theory shows, that there are actually two forces involved, and the direction of flow depends on the voltage differential, not on the potential difference. The voltage in the storage sphere is determined by the electron concentration, and may be low, even when the potential is in the million volt range.

[StevenO]

Looking at the various references, am I correct in saying that the various calculations of material properties, using RST, essentially involves the generation of tables of values, and then the identification of these values with those of the measured materials?

i.e. you have an equation such as L = 0.2344.A+0.7329B+0.01273C2

where A, B and C take integer values.
Could you point me to a specific formula, otherwise I cannot explain it or provide further references. An atom in RST is specified by three integer values expressing the speeds of two two-dimensional rotations and one single dimensional rotation.



Is that how RST typically works for the properties of matter? This is why I asked you to start off with a named material and derive its properties. Can you do this?
The properties of matter can be derived from these atomic numbers, though some compensation has to take place to account for the relative distribution of isotopes which contribute additional atomic motions. Since I'm not Dewey Larson I cannot do this with my bare hands.

[StevenO]

OK, I'll have a shot ...

Gunn-Peterson trough: after radiation streamed free (at the 'surface of last scattering'), the universe entered 'the Dark Ages' in which it was opaque to radiation blue-ward of Lyman alpha. As long as the IGM contains (contained) even a quite modest neutral H component, the spectra of objects 'beyond' this IGM would exhibit a clear 'here be an IGM with significant amounts of neutral H' signal.

SZE: as microwave EM, such as the CMB, passes through extensive 'clouds' of hot electrons (the corresponding positive ions don't contribute to the effect, to the first order), it will undergo inverse Compton scattering, leaving a quite distinct signal in the CMB observed through such clouds. The IGM of rich clusters is just such a medium.

ISW: this is an imprint of gravitational redshift on the CMB, and arises only if the universe - along the path of the photons - is dominated by something other than matter (whether baryonic or CDM).

Note: these are very crude explanations, but should be sufficient to get you started on finding answers. Perhaps you could start with what Larson (etc) had to say about them, as they were all published well before his last update of this ideas (though, as parejkoj pointed out, not observed until the 21st century).
Thanks a lot for the explanations. I'm not so sure if I understand them fully, but I'll do my best.

As for Larson's take on this. Here are some one-liner explanations:

1. In the RST Universe there is no Big Bang. The expansion of far away galaxies is caused by the inherent scalar expansion of space. (Larson calls this the 'outward progression' of space and time, this is default happening at a ratio of c). This is normally obscured from observation by gravity. Far away galaxies are out of the reach of local gravity and the inherent space progression then becomes apparent.
2. Since In RST space and time are on symmetrical footing there are two reciprocal parts of the Universe in that theory. The 'material' side, which is what we commonly observe as matter located in space and the 'cosmic' side, having 'cosmic' matter(anti-matter) located in 'time'. Locations in time have only a scalar relation to a three dimensional location in space so the distribution of 'cosmic' material is totally random wrt. to our observed universe. Since photons move on the edge of space and time they are observable on both sides of the universe. Since 'cosmic' star temperature is observed as 'reciprocal' temperature, the radiation of 'cosmic' stars is observed as low temperature isotropic radiation in the material universe. This is RST's explanation of the CMB.
3. As for the IGM. In RST theory supernova explosions convert some material atoms to 'cosmic' atoms. These atoms then move to the 'cosmic' side of the universe where they are observed as cosmic rays. This matter is randomly distributed at the cosmic side of the universe by the scalar relation as described in 2). These atoms aggregate under the influence of gravity until stars are formed. The reverse process also takes place.

So in RST there is a 'steady state' universe with two sectors where material is continuously recycled between the two sectors.


(bold added)

Per the OP: per the opening post (by the opening poster).

Two of the sections are titled: "Some astronomical phenomena explained" and "CMB". From that alone I assumed that were fully prepared to discuss the relevant astronomical phenomena.

As I noted earlier, the express scope (mission statement, if you will) of this ATM section is for those who wish to present ATM ideas to do so ... and for them to answer questions on those ideas (as presented) and address challenges to them. If you do not intend to abide by the clearly stated rules, perhaps you should say so, and ask a mod to close this thread.
You guys like to shoot don't you?



Thanks for the clarification.

What is the observational confirmation of the existence of "exploding galaxy cores"? First according to Larson (whom you quote), and second according to your own research. If you don't know either answer, please say so.
I quoted the wikipedia article that clearly states that 'a quasar is an extremely powerful and distant active galactic nucleus'.

[StevenO]

There is no such thing as an Uncharged Electron. By their very nature Electrons and Positrons always have a charge.

Electrons always have a -1 Charge and Positrons a +1 Charge. If they didn't then they would not be Electrons and Positrons.

A soon as someone says Electrons don't have a charge, that's fairly crack-potish in my book.
You are just calling names instead of deciding on the merits of a theory. I have posted some high level RST material about this two posts above this one.


His statement alone that I read and referenced in my post, shows he had unorthodox ideas about electrons, and obviously didn't know that the same forces that work with an Electron in an atom, are the same forces that work with an Electron in Circuitry. Reference all of Quantum Electro Dynamics.

QED's has been in use since the days of the vacuum tubes. Him trying to claim electron's behave any diferently...well it -is- crack pot.

Show me experimental proof that any detection of a Neutral Electron or Neutral Positron has ever happened and I'll retract my statement of crack-pottery.
QED is a way too simple theory to decide on all features of electrons in and outside atoms. Also I'm an EE and I do not use QED to calculate circuitry.

I think you are way too quick to call somebody a crackpot if some of your idea's are challenged.

As stated in RST uncharged electrons are confined to matter constituting currents. Charged electrons can also move through space. The charge is created by photon motion superimposed on an electron motion(see QED...). A proof could be that DC currents do not exhibit the skin effect.

[StevenO]

I was looking for the mass of a specific meson, i.e. that which "appears" (as you don't believe in quarks) to be made up of a charm quark and a bottom quark.

Just for background, the mainstream correctly predicted the mass of this specific particle before it was measured. I emphasise that it was this specific particle, not just a claim that some particle with a specifc mass would be detected.
There are plenty of occasions where mainstream theory predictions were not so accurate or totally missing.

[StevenO]

So how large is the doubly charged helium atom (what we think of as a helium nucleus) compared to a neutral helium atom?
A charged atom will have a very slightly different mass(order 0.005%) and size than an uncharged atom. I can't find Larson's formula for the size of an atom, but it gives the size that mainstream identifies with the size of the nucleus.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Originally Posted by Fortis
I was looking for the mass of a specific meson, i.e. that which "appears" (as you don't believe in quarks) to be made up of a charm quark and a bottom quark.

Just for background, the mainstream correctly predicted the mass of this specific particle before it was measured. I emphasise that it was this specific particle, not just a claim that some particle with a specifc mass would be detected.There are plenty of occasions where mainstream theory predictions were not so accurate or totally missing.
I'm sure there are plenty, but that is irrelevant here. This does not constitute an answer to Fortis's question. We are interested in RST's predictions. What mass would RST give for the mass of the particle that would appear to have as "artefacts" a bottom quark and a charm anti-quark?

[papageno]

StevenO, you did not address my point about Larson's ignorance of solid state physics.



Charge in RST is a form of motion called 'rotational vibration' that can be added to existing rotational motion structures like atoms and subatomic particles. Charge can come in one dimensional form (electric charge) or two dimensional form (magnetic charge) and causes ionization. Uncharged electrons can only move through matter. Charged electrons can also move through space.

Where is the experimental evidence (not wall-of-text) I asked you?




[SNIP!]

From (115), the charge must have a carrier, an atom or particle. Independent charges do not exist.


Or maybe charge is a property of a particle, like mass.



[SNIP!]

The most serious error about conventional electric and magnetic theory revealed by the dimensional analysis, is the lack of distinction between electric quantity and electric charge that has resulted from the assumption that the electric current is a movement of charges.

It is not an assumption. It is the definition of electric current.
A definition that yields a self-consistent explanation of electromagnetic phenomena in agreement with experimental evidence.




[SNIP!]

This explains the operation of such devices as the Van de Graaf generator, in which charged electrons at a low potential flow into a storage sphere in which the potential may be very high. A flow in this direction would be impossible if, as asserted by present-day theory, only one force, electric potential, is operative.

Present-day explains very well, and quantitatively, how a Van der Graaf generator works.

[papageno]

As stated in RST uncharged electrons are confined to matter constituting currents. Charged electrons can also move through space. So a proof could be that DC currents do not exhibit the skin effect.

The skin effect is well explained within the "mainstream" theories. You just need to know about the Lorentz force to understand qualitatively the skin effect.

[StevenO]

The skin effect is well explained within the "mainstream" theories. You just need to know about the Lorentz force to understand qualitatively the skin effect.
The Lorentz force has nothing to with the skin effect. The skin effect is assigned to eddy currents.

[StevenO]

I'm sure there are plenty, but that is irrelevant here. This does not constitute an answer to Fortis's question. We are interested in RST's predictions. What mass would RST give for the mass of the particle that would appear to have as "artefacts" a bottom quark and a charm anti-quark?
I already gave that answer.

[StevenO]

StevenO, you did not address my point about Larson's ignorance of solid state physics.
Larson was a head of materials research so I doubt he was ignorant. I'm not sure what you mean but I think you are referring to the fact that Larson claims that mainstream physics both measures 'electric quantity' and 'electric charge' as Coulombs while he shows they are two different physical quantities.

You can show that certain electric formula's are dimensionally inconsistent because of that. I'll post that tomorrow since there was some discussion on that in the RST forums and I want to look that up.

Where is the experimental evidence (not wall-of-text) I asked you?
All physical objects and properties in Larson's theory come from a deductive development of his postulates. It is a logical consequence in a universe build of quanta of motion. Sometimes it shows that there is more to a physical phenomenom than meets the eye as in this case. Off course mainstream physics has an explanation for all 'observed' phenomena, which however sometimes are ad hoc.

[Or maybe charge is a property of a particle, like mass.
Eh...yes, they are independent properties. But charge will create some difference in the mass of an object too since it adds to a particle's motion.

[It is not an assumption. It is the definition of electric current.
A definition that yields a self-consistent explanation of electromagnetic phenomena in agreement with experimental evidence.
A definition is not an explanation of a physical phenomenom. And how about electrostatics?

Present-day explains very well, and quantitatively, how a Van der Graaf generator works.
I'll include the inconsistency in my next post.

[Nereid]

OK, I'll have a shot ...

Gunn-Peterson trough: after radiation streamed free (at the 'surface of last scattering'), the universe entered 'the Dark Ages' in which it was opaque to radiation blue-ward of Lyman alpha. As long as the IGM contains (contained) even a quite modest neutral H component, the spectra of objects 'beyond' this IGM would exhibit a clear 'here be an IGM with significant amounts of neutral H' signal.

SZE: as microwave EM, such as the CMB, passes through extensive 'clouds' of hot electrons (the corresponding positive ions don't contribute to the effect, to the first order), it will undergo inverse Compton scattering, leaving a quite distinct signal in the CMB observed through such clouds. The IGM of rich clusters is just such a medium.

ISW: this is an imprint of gravitational redshift on the CMB, and arises only if the universe - along the path of the photons - is dominated by something other than matter (whether baryonic or CDM).

Note: these are very crude explanations, but should be sufficient to get you started on finding answers. Perhaps you could start with what Larson (etc) had to say about them, as they were all published well before his last update of this ideas (though, as parejkoj pointed out, not observed until the 21st century).Thanks a lot for the explanations. I'm not so sure if I understand them fully, but I'll do my best.

As for Larson's take on this. Here are some one-liner explanations:

1. In the RST Universe there is no Big Bang. The expansion of far away galaxies is caused by the inherent scalar expansion of space. (Larson calls this the 'outward progression' of space and time, this is default happening at a ratio of c). This is normally obscured from observation by gravity. Far away galaxies are out of the reach of local gravity and the inherent space progression then becomes apparent.
2. Since In RST space and time are on symmetrical footing there are two reciprocal parts of the Universe in that theory. The 'material' side, which is what we commonly observe as matter located in space and the 'cosmic' side, having 'cosmic' matter(anti-matter) located in 'time'. Locations in time have only a scalar relation to a three dimensional location in space so the distribution of 'cosmic' material is totally random wrt. to our observed universe. Since photons move on the edge of space and time they are observable on both sides of the universe. Since 'cosmic' star temperature is observed as 'reciprocal' temperature, the radiation of 'cosmic' stars is observed as low temperature isotropic radiation in the material universe. This is RST's explanation of the CMB.
3. As for the IGM. In RST theory supernova explosions convert some material atoms to 'cosmic' atoms. These atoms then move to the 'cosmic' side of the universe where they are observed as cosmic rays. This matter is randomly distributed at the cosmic side of the universe by the scalar relation as described in 2). These atoms aggregate under the influence of gravity until stars are formed. The reverse process also takes place.

So in RST there is a 'steady state' universe with two sectors where material is continuously recycled between the two sectors.

These words may have meant something, possibly profound, to Larson.

They may also be meaningful to you.

However, to me they are essentially meaningless wrt even a qualitative account of the Gunn-Peterson trough, the SZE, and the ISW effect.

To what extent are you prepared to answer questions on how these three are accounted for - quantitatively - in the ATM idea you have presented?

If you are not prepared to do that, please say so.




(bold added)

Per the OP: per the opening post (by the opening poster).

Two of the sections are titled: "Some astronomical phenomena explained" and "CMB". From that alone I assumed that were fully prepared to discuss the relevant astronomical phenomena.

As I noted earlier, the express scope (mission statement, if you will) of this ATM section is for those who wish to present ATM ideas to do so ... and for them to answer questions on those ideas (as presented) and address challenges to them. If you do not intend to abide by the clearly stated rules, perhaps you should say so, and ask a mod to close this thread.
You guys like to shoot don't you?


I'm looking for a clear answer here ...

... are you, or are you not, prepared to answer direct questions about the ATM ideas you present here in this thread? Note that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer ...

For avoidance of doubt, if you are not so prepared, then IMHO what you are doing is wasting everyone's time, including your own, with what amounts to little more than an attempt at some free advertising.

I trust that you have read the rules, and that they are quite unambiguous.




Thanks for the clarification.

What is the observational confirmation of the existence of "exploding galaxy cores"? First according to Larson (whom you quote), and second according to your own research. If you don't know either answer, please say so.
I quoted the wikipedia article that clearly states that 'a quasar is an extremely powerful and distant active galactic nucleus'.
Do you mean your post #65 in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/1443080-post65.html)?

If so, you quoted something and declared that it was "Wikipedia"; you did not give a URL. Perhaps you meant this webpage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

IMHO, very, very bad form to quote something without giving proper attribution.

In any case, AFAIK, an AGN (for example a quasar) cannot be said to be an "exploding galaxy core" ... unless you are using an extremely non-standard meaning of the word "exploding".

Can you clarify please?

[Celestial Mechanic]

I already gave that answer.No, you haven't. Fortis and I are looking for a specific number in units of MeV/c2 for a specific particle, namely, the meson consisting of a bottom quark and a charm anti-quark. (Or its anti-particle, which consists of a charm quark and a bottom anti-quark. The mass will be the same.)

If Larson didn't calculate this state, maybe one of his disciples has. I will not consider this question to have been answered until you give a specific number. Of course "I don't know" or "I can't calculate this myself" are acceptable answers.

[papageno]

The Lorentz force has nothing to with the skin effect. The skin effect is assigned to eddy currents.


You are right. That'll teach me to post before going to sleep.







StevenO, you did not address my point about Larson's ignorance of solid state physics.

Larson was a head of materials research so I doubt he was ignorant. I'm not sure what you mean but I think you are referring to the fact that Larson claims that mainstream physics both measures 'electric quantity' and 'electric charge' as Coulombs while he shows they are two different physical quantities.


No, I clearly explained that I referred to his bad misrepresentation of mainstream physics:


"Mainstream" physics does not attribute contradicting properties to the electrons to explain both atoms, molecules, and electric transport. The properties of the electrons are always the same; what changes is the environment and how they interact with it.


Your only response is that I should read more of Larson's writings and the ad hominem above.

Please apply to Larson the same standard you want to apply to me.





You can show that certain electric formula's are dimensionally inconsistent because of that. I'll post that tomorrow since there was some discussion on that in the RST forums and I want to look that up.


They are not inconsistent. You just need to have a look at any introductory book about electromagnetism and solid state physics to see that.

Please do not presume that generations of physicists are too incompetent to do a dimensional analysis of the formulae they use everyday.







Where is the experimental evidence (not wall-of-text) I asked you?

All physical objects and properties in Larson's theory come from a deductive development of his postulates. It is a logical consequence in a universe build of quanta of motion. Sometimes it shows that there is more to a physical phenomenom than meets the eye as in this case. Off course mainstream physics has an explanation for all 'observed' phenomena, which however sometimes are ad hoc.


No, I asked for experimental evidence, not more hand-waving.







Or maybe charge is a property of a particle, like mass.

Eh...yes, they are independent properties. But charge will create some difference in the mass of an object too since it adds to a particle's motion.


Why are you replying "Yes", when you are saying something different?







It is not an assumption. It is the definition of electric current.
A definition that yields a self-consistent explanation of electromagnetic phenomena in agreement with experimental evidence.

A definition is not an explanation of a physical phenomenom.


In Larson's case you are happy with a "deductive development of his postulates". The mainstream theories are also a deductive development of their postulates, which includes the definition of electric current.
So, why the double standard?





And how about electrostatics?


Electrostatics is included in the mainstream theory of electromagnetism. Just open any introductory textbook on electromagnetism to verify.






Present-day [theory] explains very well, and quantitatively, how a Van der Graaf generator works.

I'll include the inconsistency in my next post.


Make sure you read the mainstream explanation before you do.

[dgavin]

You are just calling names instead of deciding on the merits of a theory. I have posted some high level RST material about this two posts above this one.


QED is a way too simple theory to decide on all features of electrons in and outside atoms. Also I'm an EE and I do not use QED to calculate circuitry.

I think you are way too quick to call somebody a crackpot if some of your idea's are challenged.

As stated in RST uncharged electrons are confined to matter constituting currents. Charged electrons can also move through space. The charge is created by photon motion superimposed on an electron motion(see QED...). A proof could be that DC currents do not exhibit the skin effect.

Again, how about some proff that a Neutral Electron has even been observed?

The problem is this part of the theory total contratics all known experimental evidence. In that an Electron is a Quark (Fundamental Particle) unlike Protons and Neutrons that are made up of three quarks.

Being a Fundamental means that it's native properties are the same. An Electron will always have a charge of -1. A positron a +1.

If this theory was even close we would have observed neutral electrons or neutral positrons by now in the colliders. The fact that such a thing has never been detected, puts this part of the theory in the wrong.

There is direct evidence from the past 30 years of particle research that no such animal as an uncharged Electron exists. There is really no getting around this. It puts into question not only this part of the Theory, but all the other related postulates that led to this one.

I think the way his Theory avoids the renomorlizatrion issue is still worth merrit, the rest of it....ugg.... definately not good.

[Grey]

In that an Electron is a Quark (Fundamental Particle) unlike Protons and Neutrons that are made up of three quarks.Careful. An electron does appear to be a fundamental particle in all our tests, but it's not a quark. A quark is a specific type of fundamental particle; an electron is instead a type of lepton.

[Fortis]

I think the way his Theory avoids the renomorlizatrion issue is still worth merrit, the rest of it....ugg.... definately not good.
This is a bit of an aside, but the best way to think about renormalisation is to come at it from the point of view of statistical field theory. Using this technique it is possible to convert, for example, a lattice based ferromagnetic model (with discrete magnetic spins located at lattice points) into a continuum field theory. Curiously, when you try to calculate a number of physical properties, you can end off with a bunch of infinities. Usually the problem happens when you let, for example, limits of integration range over spatial distances from 0 to infinity (or if you prefer, momenta from infinity to zero.) In the ferromagnet case you know that the model must break down at very short distances (or high momenta) because in reality there is a lattice spacing that acts as a natural cut-off. One way around this is to calculate your various terms with a small length scale cut-off, and then start doing your subtractions. Once you do this you can let the limit go to zero and everything is OK. In essence, however, you are doing the same kind of procedure that you see in field theories such as QED, where you end off subtracting "infinities" from other "infinities". One approach is to apply a high momentum cut-off in your calculations (this is akin to a small length cut-off as wavelength is inversely proportional to momentum.) Again, it all works ouot in the end. In the case of the ferromagnet, the reason for the infinities was that the field theory didn't capture the behaviour at extremely small length scales. It could be argued that the reason that we see a problem with infinities in, say, QED, may be that this theory breaks down on extremely small scales, or at extremely high momenta. I don't think that any mainstreamer would be too surprised if that happened. :)

[Fortis]

There are plenty of occasions where mainstream theory predictions were not so accurate or totally missing.
As others have pointed out, that doesn't answer the question. As I have said elsewhere, RST appears to lead to be able to generate an enormous range of particle (or for that matter, solid-state/atomic) properties. It seems that these are then matched to measurements and ad-hoc arguments used to match up the measurements to a subset of all possible values. If you could answer this question, it would demonstrate that I am wrong.

Similarly, if you could start with silicon and then derive its properties (rather than the other way round), it would help greatly. Can this be done?

[Fortis]

Could you point me to a specific formula, otherwise I cannot explain it or provide further references. An atom in RST is specified by three integer values expressing the speeds of two two-dimensional rotations and one single dimensional rotation.

Can you point me to a document that shows what these values are for Si, and then has a list of equations that allow us to go from these values to the mass of silicon, the length of the Si-Si bond, the magnetic moment, and any other property that you care to mention?


The properties of matter can be derived from these atomic numbers, though some compensation has to take place to account for the relative distribution of isotopes which contribute additional atomic motions. Since I'm not Dewey Larson I cannot do this with my bare hands.
If different isotopes confuse, we could just constrain ourselves to just one isotope of silicon. No problem. :)

[StevenO]

Again, how about some proff that a Neutral Electron has even been observed?

The problem is this part of the theory total contratics all known experimental evidence. In that an Electron is a Quark (Fundamental Particle) unlike Protons and Neutrons that are made up of three quarks.

Being a Fundamental means that it's native properties are the same. An Electron will always have a charge of -1. A positron a +1.

If this theory was even close we would have observed neutral electrons or neutral positrons by now in the colliders. The fact that such a thing has never been detected, puts this part of the theory in the wrong.

There is direct evidence from the past 30 years of particle research that no such animal as an uncharged Electron exists. There is really no getting around this. It puts into question not only this part of the Theory, but all the other related postulates that led to this one.

I think the way his Theory avoids the renomorlizatrion issue is still worth merrit, the rest of it....ugg.... definately not good.

Uncharged electrons can only move inside matter, so I think you will not find them with a collider.

[StevenO]

As others have pointed out, that doesn't answer the question. As I have said elsewhere, RST appears to lead to be able to generate an enormous range of particle (or for that matter, solid-state/atomic) properties. It seems that these are then matched to measurements and ad-hoc arguments used to match up the measurements to a subset of all possible values. If you could answer this question, it would demonstrate that I am wrong.

Similarly, if you could start with silicon and then derive its properties (rather than the other way round), it would help greatly. Can this be done?

That's OK with me, but I will need time to prepare that. I could start with how a silicon atom would be defined in RST and what properties can be derived from the current state of theory.

[slang]

Uncharged electrons can only move inside matter, so I think you will not find them with a collider.

There was only one question in the post you respond to. Why don't you answer it, before responding to other remarks in the post? Surely the typo in 'proof' didn't throw you off?

[Fortis]

That's OK with me, but I will need time to prepare that. I could start with how a silicon atom would be defined in RST and what properties can be derived from the current state of theory.
Sounds good. I look forward to it. :)

[StevenO]

No, I clearly explained that I referred to his bad misrepresentation of mainstream physics:
Could you point me to the place where you think he misrepresents mainstream physics?


They are not inconsistent. You just need to have a look at any introductory book about electromagnetism and solid state physics to see that.

Please do not presume that generations of physicists are too incompetent to do a dimensional analysis of the formulae they use everyday.

You are right. Larson did make some dimensional inconsistencies himself here. I verified that and then forgot about it. To err is human...



In Larson's case you are happy with a "deductive development of his postulates". The mainstream theories are also a deductive development of their postulates, which includes the definition of electric current.
So, why the double standard?
Because his postulates are just that the universe is build from three dimensional quanta of motion and that motion is the relation between two uniformly progressing reciprocal quantities: 'space' and 'time'. From this he is able to logically derive all well known physics phenomena. How many postulates and parameters does mainstream physics need at the moment? I would'nt know...



Electrostatics is included in the mainstream theory of electromagnetism. Just open any introductory textbook on electromagnetism to verify.

Make sure you read the mainstream explanation before you do.
I'm an EE, so please spare me.

[StevenO]

There was only one question in the post you respond to. Why don't you answer it, before responding to other remarks in the post? Surely the typo in 'proof' didn't throw you off?


If you insist :) ...here are the other bits;


Again, how about some proff that a Neutral Electron has even been observed?

This is a question that goes right to the heart of defending RST at the moment. I quote from the RST forums since it's better explained in this quote than I can ever do:

RST is undoubtedly a well constructed system of theory. However; if it is the intention of this site and its members to elevate its status and move in the direction of peer review, there must be an understanding that the underlying qualitative nature of the system is debilitating and perhaps prohibitive to this end. Peer review requires a quantitative mathematical structure in order for true scientific evaluation. However, RST is based solely on an axiomatic (self-evident) basis. It is therefore fundamentally deductive in nature, in contrast to an empirical scientific theory, a point that Mr. Larson repeats throughout his works.



The theory of the universe of motion, in its present stage of development, accounts for all of the major physical phenomena and a large and growing assortment of subsidiary phenomena as well, by pure deduction from a single set of basic premises, without the introduction of any supplementary assumptions. A particularly significant point is that this deductive development accounts for the existence of the basic physical entities--matter, radiation, electricity, etc.--as well as the properties of those entities.

Without the quantitative element; RST will retain in its current status. Fortunately, Larson’s Reciprocal System of Theory is an Axiomatic System that may serve as solid foundations for Mathematical Theorems, which could conceivably constitute a complete Grand Unified Mathematical Theory. Theorems are usually expressed in natural language rather than in a completely symbolic form, with the intention that the reader will be able to produce a formal statement from the informal one. In addition, there are often hypotheses which are understood in context, rather than explicitly stated. Accordingly, Larson did not see the need to define a formal mathematical structure or the subsequent deductive systems such as; deduction and transformations rules, term rewriting, or a specific representation of reference frames.

As Bruce Peret points out:


Larson DID NOT postulate a specific COORDINATE SYSTEM, such as Cartesian, to represent the postulates of Euclid in one or more dimensions. Indeed, he specifically created TWO types of coordinate reference systems, one to represent locations ("extension space" or "extension time"--a coordinate reference system), and the "natural reference system" to represent scalar motion. (Larson never did address the connection between the two).


What is interesting is the fact that a scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories. They must be deduced from an original premise (v = d/t).

I personally find Larson’s approach inspiring, specifically, because the foundation is in place. The task at hand then, is the definition of a formal mathematic structure. Based on the platform of RST, we can be confident that there will be a specific reason and concept for every order of operation or function used in equations that emerge from RST. Done correctly, there will be no need for “fudge factors” or “constants” to hide incomplete theory.

[parejkoj]

Though you may still be reading, I am curious about your response to the issues, inconsistencies and falsified predictions that I brought up in this earlier post (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85118-old-physics-theory-shines-light-astronomic-enigmas-3.html#post1443870). Particularly the problem of ordinary galaxies with redshifts greater than unity, and the observational evidence for a variety of Larson's astronomical claims.

[dgavin]

If you insist :) ...here are the other bits;

This is a question that goes right to the heart of defending RST at the moment. I quote from the RST forums since it's better explained in this quote than I can ever do:

If an electron can exist with out a charge, it would be detectable.

I don't see any proof from experiments here that an electron that is part of matter, doesn't have a charge.

Not only that, this statement

The proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories. They must be deduced from an original premise.

Since when?

Any theory can be disproven by either by either 1. Experimental Evidence. or 2. Known Facts.

Electrons having a charge even in matter is proven historically by both experimental evidence and known facts.

[Nereid]

There was only one question in the post you respond to. Why don't you answer it, before responding to other remarks in the post? Surely the typo in 'proof' didn't throw you off?If you insist :) ...here are the other bits;

Again, how about some proff that a Neutral Electron has even been observed?
This is a question that goes right to the heart of defending RST at the moment. I quote from the RST forums since it's better explained in this quote than I can ever do:
RST is undoubtedly a well constructed system of theory. However; if it is the intention of this site and its members to elevate its status and move in the direction of peer review, there must be an understanding that the underlying qualitative nature of the system is debilitating and perhaps prohibitive to this end. Peer review requires a quantitative mathematical structure in order for true scientific evaluation. However, RST is based solely on an axiomatic (self-evident) basis. It is therefore fundamentally deductive in nature, in contrast to an empirical scientific theory, a point that Mr. Larson repeats throughout his works.
The theory of the universe of motion, in its present stage of development, accounts for all of the major physical phenomena and a large and growing assortment of subsidiary phenomena as well, by pure deduction from a single set of basic premises, without the introduction of any supplementary assumptions. A particularly significant point is that this deductive development accounts for the existence of the basic physical entities--matter, radiation, electricity, etc.--as well as the properties of those entities.Without the quantitative element; RST will retain in its current status. Fortunately, Larson’s Reciprocal System of Theory is an Axiomatic System that may serve as solid foundations for Mathematical Theorems, which could conceivably constitute a complete Grand Unified Mathematical Theory. Theorems are usually expressed in natural language rather than in a completely symbolic form, with the intention that the reader will be able to produce a formal statement from the informal one. In addition, there are often hypotheses which are understood in context, rather than explicitly stated. Accordingly, Larson did not see the need to define a formal mathematical structure or the subsequent deductive systems such as; deduction and transformations rules, term rewriting, or a specific representation of reference frames.

As Bruce Peret points out:
Larson DID NOT postulate a specific COORDINATE SYSTEM, such as Cartesian, to represent the postulates of Euclid in one or more dimensions. Indeed, he specifically created TWO types of coordinate reference systems, one to represent locations ("extension space" or "extension time"--a coordinate reference system), and the "natural reference system" to represent scalar motion. (Larson never did address the connection between the two).What is interesting is the fact that a scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories. They must be deduced from an original premise (v = d/t).

I personally find Larson’s approach inspiring, specifically, because the foundation is in place. The task at hand then, is the definition of a formal mathematic structure. Based on the platform of RST, we can be confident that there will be a specific reason and concept for every order of operation or function used in equations that emerge from RST. Done correctly, there will be no need for “fudge factors” or “constants” to hide incomplete theory.(bold added)

Thank you very much, SO! :)

In light of what you have quoted, is there any test - even in principle - that could distinguish between RST and modern physics, astrophysics, or cosmology?

If there are such tests, is there a non-null subset that critically involves quantitative observations, of an astronomical kind (even in principle ones)?

[slang]

If you insist :)

It's not so much about me insisting, it's about the forum rules requiring you to answer direct questions. It's really tiresome to see (I know, nobody forces me to read here) questions ignored, and only tangential comments answered with word salad, no matter how logically consistent that word salad may seem to be. Unfortunately it's all too common in this forum. Fortunately regulars here are acutely aware of it.

[hhEb09'1]

It's really tiresome to see (I know, nobody forces me to read here) questions ignored, and only tangential comments answered with word salad, no matter how logically consistent that word salad may seem to be. I'm going to go out on a vine and insist that "wordsalad" cannot be logically consistent. Or, is sometihng like, say, Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathmatica considered wordsalad?

[dgavin]

I'm going to go out on a vine and insist that "wordsalad" cannot be logically consistent. Or, is sometihng like, say, Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathmatica considered wordsalad?

No Word Salad has connotations of masking the facts or correct knowlege by verbally stunning displays of dancing around them.

It's a slang term so it can't really be inconsistent.

[StevenO]

<...> However, to me they are essentially meaningless wrt even a qualitative account of the Gunn-Peterson trough, the SZE, and the ISW effect.

To what extent are you prepared to answer questions on how these three are accounted for - quantitatively - in the ATM idea you have presented?

If you are not prepared to do that, please say so.
Gunn-Peterson trough: there is no quantative prediction for that in RST.
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect: I'm not able to judge on that
Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect: from my limited judgement I would think RST predicts a similar effect due to the restricted range of gravity in the theory. I have no references to quantify the effect on the CMB.


I'm looking for a clear answer here ...

... are you, or are you not, prepared to answer direct questions about the ATM ideas you present here in this thread? Note that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer ...

For avoidance of doubt, if you are not so prepared, then IMHO what you are doing is wasting everyone's time, including your own, with what amounts to little more than an attempt at some free advertising.

I trust that you have read the rules, and that they are quite unambiguous.

I'm sorry. I'm new here and I did'nt know the rules are that strict. I have no interest in promoting idea's. It is just that I have learned that RST is a consistent theory that has interesting explanations for enigmatic astronomic phenomena, so I thought it was a good idea to share its idea's on this forum. Still, it is free will for everybody and I'm sure it costs me more time to answer all questions than all the other members together to ask them.


Do you mean your post #65 in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/1443080-post65.html)?

If so, you quoted something and declared that it was "Wikipedia"; you did not give a URL. Perhaps you meant this webpage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

IMHO, very, very bad form to quote something without giving proper attribution.
I copied the text, since earlier there was some objection that I posted links.


In any case, AFAIK, an AGN (for example a quasar) cannot be said to be an "exploding galaxy core" ... unless you are using an extremely non-standard meaning of the word "exploding".

Can you clarify please?
The predicted mechanism of a quasar in RST is an old galaxy core where the stars start to explode irregularly with Type II supernovae. There are both visible explosion products and explosion products that disappear from view.

[StevenO]

No, you haven't. Fortis and I are looking for a specific number in units of MeV/c2 for a specific particle, namely, the meson consisting of a bottom quark and a charm anti-quark. (Or its anti-particle, which consists of a charm quark and a bottom anti-quark. The mass will be the same.)

If Larson didn't calculate this state, maybe one of his disciples has. I will not consider this question to have been answered until you give a specific number. Of course "I don't know" or "I can't calculate this myself" are acceptable answers.
The answer was originally posted here: #77 (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85118-old-physics-theory-shines-light-astronomic-enigmas-3.html#post1443401).

According to Larson the (first order prediction of the) mass of the pion, which according to him is actually 'anti-matter' silicon27 is 137.95 MeV with a lifetime in the order of 10-8 seconds. It's main decay sequence as predicted by Larson is into 'anti-matter' Argon35 with a mass of 106.42 MeV.

I have to say that this part of the RST theory is definitely not as 'well developed' as particle physics.

[slang]

It's a slang term so it can't really be inconsistent.

Thanks for the confidence in the consistency of my terms :)

[StevenO]

Being a Fundamental means that it's native properties are the same. An Electron will always have a charge of -1. A positron a +1.

There is direct evidence from the past 30 years of particle research that no such animal as an uncharged Electron exists. There is really no getting around this. It puts into question not only this part of the Theory, but all the other related postulates that led to this one.
Particle theory recognizes the existence of both charged and uncharged pions.

[StevenO]

If an electron can exist with out a charge, it would be detectable.

I don't see any proof from experiments here that an electron that is part of matter, doesn't have a charge

Electrons having a charge even in matter is proven historically by both experimental evidence and known facts.
You are misquoting me. I did not say that ALL electrons in matter have no charge. Both charged and uncharged electrons move through matter but only charged electrons can also move through a vacuum. A 'free particle' electron is thus always charged.

In RST an electric charge is a specific form of motion that is superimposed on the basic motion of atoms and subatomic particles. A neutrino can e.g. be charged or uncharged in RST, charged neutrino's will then show up as neutrino oscillations.

[StevenO]

(bold added)

Thank you very much, SO! :)

In light of what you have quoted, is there any test - even in principle - that could distinguish between RST and modern physics, astrophysics, or cosmology?
Sure there are quite some. RST predicts for instance:
- that the highest atomic number is 118, so element 120 will never be found.
- the lifetime of the neutron. (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/LifetimeNeutron.html) (the 'massless' neutron is the muon neutrino)


(If there are such tests, is there a non-null subset that critically involves quantitative observations, of an astronomical kind (even in principle ones)?

That get's a little harder since so much is obscured from direct observation. Here are a few:

- RST predicts e.g. that the temperature of the solar core is in the order of 1014 Kelvin
- how the sunspot cycle works. (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/SunPartII.html)
- the temperature of the CMB. (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/CosmicBackgroundRadiation.html)
- That the value of the Hubble constant (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/GravitationalLimit.html) is: H = 37302.19/M1/4 km s-1 Mpc-1 , where M is the solar masses of a galaxy
- Thus the mass of our galaxy is about 2.116×1011 solar units
- That the gravitational limit of our sun is about 3.77 lightyears
- That the gravitational limit if our galaxy is about 0.532 Mpc
- That Supernova 1987 A was a Type II supernova (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/Larson/1987a.html)(due to an age limit of the star)

[Nereid]

Gunn-Peterson trough: there is no quantative prediction for that in RST.
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect: I'm not able to judge on that
Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect: from my limited judgement I would think RST predicts a similar effect due to the restricted range of gravity in the theory. I have no references to quantify the effect on the CMB.
Thanks.

If things improve, with RST producing something more like a quantitative explanation for the observed effects, please let us know.




I'm sorry. I'm new here and I did'nt know the rules are that strict. I have no interest in promoting idea's. It is just that I have learned that RST is a consistent theory that has interesting explanations for enigmatic astronomic phenomena, so I thought it was a good idea to share its idea's on this forum. Still, it is free will for everybody and I'm sure it costs me more time to answer all questions than all the other members together to ask them.


I copied the text, since earlier there was some objection that I posted links.


The predicted mechanism of a quasar in RST is an old galaxy core where the stars start to explode irregularly with Type II supernovae. There are both visible explosion products and explosion products that disappear from view.
Thanks.

With this explanation in hand, it seems that we can say - with considerably confidence - that the RST explanation of the observed features (attributes) of quasars is inconsistent with the actual observations. Standard astrophysics 1, RST 0.

[StevenO]

Thanks.

With this explanation in hand, it seems that we can say - with considerably confidence - that the RST explanation of the observed features (attributes) of quasars is inconsistent with the actual observations. Standard astrophysics 1, RST 0.

Please show me what parts in my sentence are inconsistent with quasar observations, so we can both agree on the score.

[Nereid]

Sure there are quite some. RST predicts for instance:
- that the highest atomic number is 118, so element 120 will never be found.
- the lifetime of the neutron. (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/LifetimeNeutron.html) (the 'massless' neutron is the muon neutrino)
According to the PDG (http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/tables/contents_tables_baryons.html), the "mean lifetime" (term per your reference) or "mean life" (PDG's term) is 885.7 ± 0.7 s, which is many, many, many sigma from the "16.859 mins" predicted by RST (per your link).

Universe 1, RST 0.




That get's a little harder since so much is obscured from direct observation. Here are a few:

- RST predicts e.g. that the temperature of the solar core is in the order of 1014 Kelvin
As RST has such a radically different basis than standard astrophysics, to test this it would seem necessary for there to be agreement on how such a temperature could be estimated, from observables. Is there any such available?



- how the sunspot cycle works. (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/SunPartII.html)
- the temperature of the CMB. (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/CosmicBackgroundRadiation.html)
According to RST, how does this temperature change as a function of z (redshift)? As in, the temperature of the CMB that we estimate from consistent application of standard astrophysics to observations of the relative strengths of CO rotational lines, for example.

Does RST predict the CMB dipole (magnitude and direction)? If so, what does it predict?

Does RST predict the angular power spectrum of the CMB? If so, what does it predict?



- That the value of the Hubble constant (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/GravitationalLimit.html) is: H = 37302.19/M1/4 km s-1 Mpc-1 , where M is the solar masses of a galaxy
- Thus the mass of our galaxy is about 2.116×1011 solar units

Let's see if I understand this correctly ...

If we were in a galaxy considerably more massive (or less massive) than the MW, then the observed Hubble constant would be correspondingly considerably different (per the formula); is that right?



- That the gravitational limit of our sun is about 3.77 lightyears
- That the gravitational limit if our galaxy is about 0.532 Mpc

[...]

I'm not sure I follow the explanation in the link; can you clarify please?

Specifically, does "the gravitational limit of our sun" vary by direction? For example, it's greater normal to the galactic plane than towards SgrA*.

Another example: for a star with the same mass as the Sun, but near the centre of a rich globular cluster (such as Omega Cen or 47 Tuc), what would this limit be?

Similar questions re "the gravitational limit if our galaxy", with the latter example being a collision/interaction, similar to the Antennae galaxies perhaps.

[Nereid]

With this explanation in hand, it seems that we can say - with considerably confidence - that the RST explanation of the observed features (attributes) of quasars is inconsistent with the actual observations. Standard astrophysics 1, RST 0.Please show me what parts in my sentence are inconsistent with quasar observations, so we can both agree on the score.
In brief:

* polar jets

* spectra of blazars, especially hard x-ray to TeV gammas

* polarisation of radiation in jets

* blazar flares (luminosity vs time, changes in spectra)

* no SNe II events observed in low luminosity quasars/AGNs

That'll do, off the top of my head; there's a great deal more of course (later).

[parejkoj]

Nereid: I'd add the basic optical and UV spectra of quasars. They look absolutely nothing like type II SN spectra, nor like a superposition of several.

Also, there are quasars observed in relatively "young" galaxies with plenty of recent star-formation, not just "old galaxies."

[Fortis]

The answer was originally posted here: #77 (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85118-old-physics-theory-shines-light-astronomic-enigmas-3.html#post1443401).

According to Larson the (first order prediction of the) mass of the pion, which according to him is actually 'anti-matter' silicon27 is 137.95 MeV with a lifetime in the order of 10-8 seconds. It's main decay sequence as predicted by Larson is into 'anti-matter' Argon35 with a mass of 106.42 MeV.
I wasn't talking about the pion. I was asking about the mass of the meson that appears to consist of a charm quark and a bottom quark. If you are claiming that this is just the pion with a mass of 137.95 MeV, then this would be another failure for RST. I suspect that you just haven't understood the question.

[StevenO]

In brief:

* polar jets

* spectra of blazars, especially hard x-ray to TeV gammas

* polarisation of radiation in jets

* blazar flares (luminosity vs time, changes in spectra)

* no SNe II events observed in low luminosity quasars/AGNs

That'll do, off the top of my head; there's a great deal more of course (later).

The first four effects are predicted in RST to be part of the supernova process. On the last one I cannot judge.

[StevenO]

According to the PDG (http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/tables/contents_tables_baryons.html), the "mean lifetime" (term per your reference) or "mean life" (PDG's term) is 885.7 ± 0.7 s, which is many, many, many sigma from the "16.859 mins" predicted by RST (per your link).

Universe 1, RST 0.

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. I can come up with a lot of explanations that can be the cause of the difference but that is not going to help now. However, I only give mainstream theories a point if you can show me the mainstream theory that predicts the lifetime of the neutron with less sigma's :)



As RST has such a radically different basis than standard astrophysics, to test this it would seem necessary for there to be agreement on how such a temperature could be estimated, from observables. Is there any such available?
In RST it is estimated from the ionization limit of an atom, the point where the atomic motion (a rotation) converts into a lineair motion (radiation). Since the heaviest elements get converted first in RST, the temperature is estimated from the properties of these elements.



According to RST, how does this temperature change as a function of z (redshift)? As in, the temperature of the CMB that we estimate from consistent application of standard astrophysics to observations of the relative strengths of CO rotational lines, for example.
In RST the CMB comes from the radiation of cosmic('anti-matter') stars. The atoms of these stars are only encountered one by one at purely random locations in the material universe since motion in time has nothing to do with motion in space. A redshift is thus not applicable for this radiation.


Does RST predict the CMB dipole (magnitude and direction)? If so, what does it predict?

Does RST predict the angular power spectrum of the CMB? If so, what does it predict?
I would'nt know, so I think not. But that does'nt mean there are no mechanisms in RST that could cause a slight varation in the isotropy of the CMB radiation.


Let's see if I understand this correctly ...

If we were in a galaxy considerably more massive (or less massive) than the MW, then the observed Hubble constant would be correspondingly considerably different (per the formula); is that right?
Yes.


I'm not sure I follow the explanation in the link; can you clarify please?

Specifically, does "the gravitational limit of our sun" vary by direction? For example, it's greater normal to the galactic plane than towards SgrA*.
In RST gravity is an intrinsic motion of matter that offsets the inherent expansion motions of space and time. Since the force of this motion scales with the second order of distance there is a distance where the inherent expansion of space is stronger than gravity again and this distance is the 'gravitational limit'. Beyond this limit interstellar matter will not move towards the astronomical object anymore. Each object thus has it's own 'cell' of gravity.

This is how in RST interstellar matter aggregates into stars, initially in the form of globular clusters, which may combine to form a small elliptical galaxy. A non-central impact would cause rotation to develop. With the increasing size, the gravitational limit is much extended, speeding up the rate of aggregation: small elliptical galaxies become large ones. The increasing rate of accretion cause the galaxies to rotate faster and to assume the dynamically stable structure of the spiral. The spiral galaxies are the largest galaxies and the least abundant.


Another example: for a star with the same mass as the Sun, but near the centre of a rich globular cluster (such as Omega Cen or 47 Tuc), what would this limit be?
Identical though the gravitational limit of the cluster is much higher than each individual star. But one will find that the individual stars are each in their own pocket of gravity.



Similar questions re "the gravitational limit if our galaxy", with the latter example being a collision/interaction, similar to the Antennae galaxies perhaps.
It purely depends on the total mass of the object.

[Nereid]

Nereid: I'd add the basic optical and UV spectra of quasars. They look absolutely nothing like type II SN spectra, nor like a superposition of several.

Also, there are quasars observed in relatively "young" galaxies with plenty of recent star-formation, not just "old galaxies."
Indeed; my post was just what I thought of off the top of my head.

On reflection, I think a better response to SO's request ("Please show me what parts in my sentence are inconsistent with quasar observations, so we can both agree on the score"; "my sentence" is: "The predicted mechanism of a quasar in RST is an old galaxy core where the stars start to explode irregularly with Type II supernovae") might go something like this*:

-> we can divide the observed spectrum of quasars and other AGNs into decades (a wave band whose (frequency or wavelength) bounds are a factor of 10 apart; 1 nm to 10 nm, for example), from ~TeV gammas to ~100 MHz radio

-> in some decades, quasars (and other AGNs) are poorly observed, in others not at all (e.g. ~10 to 100 nm)

-> we can also limit our (initial) scope to the central PSF (unresolved in all quasars and AGNs, and all decades), the jets, and the torus (resolved in some AGNs and some decades)

-> a large number of SNe IIs have been (well) observed, in most (but perhaps not all) the decades for which there are good observations of quasars (and other AGNs), including in the time dimension; ditto SNRs

-> we can parse the observed spectrum of quasars (and AGNs; the PSF, jets, and torus) into continuum and lines (or, for some decades, bands), in all decades observed; the time variation of each (continuum and lines/bands), by component (PSF, jets, torus) also forms part of our initial database

-> we can then ask questions of these kinds:
->A> "to what extent can an arbitrary composite of SNe IIs and SNRs match the continuum in each and every decade (same composite for all decades; all three components)?"
->B> "to what extent can an arbitrary composite of SNe IIs and SNRs match the lines/bands in each and every decade (same composite for all decades; all three components)?"
->C> "to what extent can an arbitrary composite of SNe IIs and SNRs match the time varying continuum in each and every decade (same composite for all decades; all three components)?"
->D> "to what extent can an arbitrary composite of SNe IIs and SNRs match the time varying lines/bands in each and every decade (same composite for all decades; all three components)?"

Conclusion? It is SO's ATM idea (well, he's presenting it), so a more appropriate response, in this part of BAUT, should be something like: could you have a go at answering A, B, C, and D?

* there's a later post by SO that may make much of this moot; see later ...

[StevenO]

I wasn't talking about the pion. I was asking about the mass of the meson that appears to consist of a charm quark and a bottom quark. If you are claiming that this is just the pion with a mass of 137.95 MeV, then this would be another failure for RST. I suspect that you just haven't understood the question.
RST holds that most of the whole particle zoo consists cosmic (anti-matter) atoms. Also there is no quark in the RST atom, though there are two or three rotational motions inside an RST atom that could be mistaken as objects at collisions. So off course you can't ask RST about a prediction for this theoretical particle from the composition of two non-existing entities. If the mass of the particle is known, RST can tell which anti-matter atom would be identified with it. RST does not yet have a complete list of lifetimes and masses of cosmic atoms, though a partial list was compiled a long time ago.

[StevenO]

As a general statement it looks to me that the scope of this ATM topic is probably too wide to have a sensible discussion. Should we close this one and reopen on more specific and focused topics? E.g. that one can prove that all physics constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time and what that would mean? Or is that too general for ATM?

[Fortis]

RST holds that most of the whole particle zoo consists cosmic (anti-matter) atoms. Also there is no quark in the RST atom, though there are two or three rotational motions inside an RST atom that could be mistaken as objects at collisions. So off course you can't ask RST about a prediction for this theoretical particle from the composition of two non-existing entities.

That's why I phrased the question in terms of "appears to contain a bottom quark and a charm quark."


If the mass of the particle is known, RST can tell which anti-matter atom would be identified with it. RST does not yet have a complete list of lifetimes and masses of cosmic atoms, though a partial list was compiled a long time ago.
This goes back to my concern. RST appears to be able to generate a huge number of different particles/atoms with a huge range of masses, etc. From this huge list, those that correspond to observed particles are pulled out as "hits". Again, that is why I have been asking how you go the other way. Can this be done? Has this been done?

[Nereid]

In brief:

* polar jets

* spectra of blazars, especially hard x-ray to TeV gammas

* polarisation of radiation in jets

* blazar flares (luminosity vs time, changes in spectra)

* no SNe II events observed in low luminosity quasars/AGNs

That'll do, off the top of my head; there's a great deal more of course (later).The first four effects are predicted in RST to be part of the supernova process. On the last one I cannot judge.
If you have already posted something concerning the RST view of "the supernova process" (only SNe II? or SNe Ia too?), I seem to have missed it, sorry; would you mind posting it again please?

AFAIK, quasars, and AGNs in general, have at most two observed jets (some have one, some have none). While it is easy enough to imagine how a supernova could have no, one, or two observed jets - and there's a great deal in the way of observations and (mainstream) astrophysics to back this up - I can't imagine how a collection of SNe II's could produce the kinds of jets observed in quasars (and other AGNs), much less the detailed quantitative properties blazars have (per a great many high quality observations, across the EM spectrum from ~TeV gammas to ~100 MHz radio).

So, SO, when you say "The first four effects are predicted in RST to be part of the supernova process", do you mean:

* quantitatively, wrt an individual SNe II?

* quantitatively, wrt a number of (past, present, future) SNe II?

* something else?

Could you please clarify?

[papageno]

Larson was a head of materials research so I doubt he was ignorant. I'm not sure what you mean but I think you are referring to the fact that Larson claims that mainstream physics both measures 'electric quantity' and 'electric charge' as Coulombs while he shows they are two different physical quantities.

No, I clearly explained that I referred to his bad misrepresentation of mainstream physics:

<< "Mainstream" physics does not attribute contradicting properties to the electrons to explain both atoms, molecules, and electric transport. The properties of the electrons are always the same; what changes is the environment and how they interact with it. >>

Your only response is that I should read more of Larson's writings and the ad hominem above.

Please apply to Larson the same standard you want to apply to me.

Could you point me to the place where you think he misrepresents mainstream physics?


That was the whole point of my first post in the thread (#74), which inculded a quote from Larson. Didn't you read it before replying that I should read more carefully Larson's writings?

Larson claims that mainstream physics attributes contradictory properties to the electrons in atoms and to the electrons involved in electric currents.
This is simply not true, as anybody who opened a textbook about atomic and solid state physics can tell you.

After I pointed out this glaring error in Larson's writing, you should have gone to a library and checked for yourself.










You can show that certain electric formula's are dimensionally inconsistent because of that. I'll post that tomorrow since there was some discussion on that in the RST forums and I want to look that up.

They are not inconsistent. You just need to have a look at any introductory book about electromagnetism and solid state physics to see that.

Please do not presume that generations of physicists are too incompetent to do a dimensional analysis of the formulae they use everyday.

You are right. Larson did make some dimensional inconsistencies himself here. I verified that and then forgot about it. To err is human...


You are not addressing the point, again.
Please provide proof that mainstream physics uses dimensionally inconsistent formulae (you said you would post it), or withdraw your assertion explicitly.










All physical objects and properties in Larson's theory come from a deductive development of his postulates. It is a logical consequence in a universe build of quanta of motion. Sometimes it shows that there is more to a physical phenomenom than meets the eye as in this case. Off course mainstream physics has an explanation for all 'observed' phenomena, which however sometimes are ad hoc.

No, I asked for experimental evidence, not more hand-waving.







Eh...yes, they are independent properties. But charge will create some difference in the mass of an object too since it adds to a particle's motion.

Why are you replying "Yes", when you are saying something different?



I see that you have not addressed these points.

Please answer my question: what is the experimental evidence that makes Larson's theory a better explanation than the mainstream theories?
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.








In Larson's case you are happy with a "deductive development of his postulates". The mainstream theories are also a deductive development of their postulates, which includes the definition of electric current.
So, why the double standard?

Because his postulates are just that the universe is build from three dimensional quanta of motion and that motion is the relation between two uniformly progressing reciprocal quantities: 'space' and 'time'. From this he is able to logically derive all well known physics phenomena. How many postulates and parameters does mainstream physics need at the moment? I would'nt know...


The number of postulates is irrelevant.
The experimental evidence decides which theory is correct.








Electrostatics is included in the mainstream theory of electromagnetism. Just open any introductory textbook on electromagnetism to verify.

Make sure you read the mainstream explanation before you do.

I'm an EE, so please spare me.


No, I am not sparing you.
You told me to go and read Larson's writings when I pointed out a glaring error in his assertions.
You implied that generations of physicists are too incompetent to do dimensional analysis on the formulae they use.
The least you could do is to open an introductory textbook of electromagnetism and quantum physics.

Also:




Present-day [theory] explains very well, and quantitatively, how a Van der Graaf generator works.

I'll include the inconsistency in my next post.


Provide the proof that the mainstream explanation of the Van der Graaf generator is inconsistent, or withdraw explicitly your claim.




Addendum:


Uncharged electrons can only move inside matter, so I think you will not find them with a collider.


We have been doing experiments with ballistic electrons in semiconductors for the last 25 years. We can do the same experiments as with electrons in vacuum.
What is the experimental evidence for the uncharged electrons?

[hhEb09'1]

As a general statement it looks to me that the scope of this ATM topic is probably too wide to have a sensible discussion. Should we close this one and reopen on more specific and focused topics? E.g. that one can prove that all physics constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time and what that would mean? Or is that too general for ATM?Too easy :)

You have some open questions (and it appears some commitments that you said you'd deliver). Wrap those up, and we can close this thread if you like.

[StevenO]

That's why I phrased the question in terms of "appears to contain a bottom quark and a charm quark."

This goes back to my concern. RST appears to be able to generate a huge number of different particles/atoms with a huge range of masses, etc. From this huge list, those that correspond to observed particles are pulled out as "hits". Again, that is why I have been asking how you go the other way. Can this be done? Has this been done?
Larson only calculated a "meson resonance" table up to about 3.7 GeV (http://library.rstheory.org/books/nbm/16.html) (I guess those were the heaviest particles known at that time(1979) and it is also a limit on the masses of cosmic elements in RST), that compares pretty well with the PDG list if I glance over it. I am only partially capable of reproducing Larson calculations, so I cannot tell which 'cosmic' element would be identified with the Bc meson in RST and I think it falls outside the range of cosmic element masses.
I can tell the calculated list (http://www.lrcphysics.com/wheel) of regular atoms with RST matches the know known list, even though it was done in 1959. RST predicts the atomic number cannot be higher than 117. Since the regular atoms and cosmic atoms are symmetrical there could be a long list of particles that can be produced in collision experiments.

BTW. You are asking something that cannot be done with mainstream theory either since the mass of the Bc particle cannot be be calculated from the masses of the supposed composing quarks.

[StevenO]

Too easy :)

You have some open questions (and it appears some commitments that you said you'd deliver). Wrap those up, and we can close this thread if you like.

Continuing the discussion is fine with me, but since RST covers the whole breadth of physics it could be a long one :)

[Nereid]

Larson only calculated a "meson resonance" table up to about 3.7 GeV (http://library.rstheory.org/books/nbm/16.html) (I guess those were the heaviest particles known at that time(1979) and it is also a limit on the masses of cosmic elements in RST), that compares pretty well with the PDG list if I glance over it. I am only partially capable of reproducing Larson calculations, so I cannot tell which 'cosmic' element would be identified with the Bc meson in RST and I think it falls outside the range of cosmic element masses.
I can tell the calculated list (http://www.lrcphysics.com/wheel) of regular atoms with RST matches the know known list, even though it was done in 1959. RST predicts the atomic number cannot be higher than 117. Since the regular atoms and cosmic atoms are symmetrical there could be a long list of particles that can be produced in collision experiments.

BTW. You are asking something that cannot be done with mainstream theory either since the mass of the Bc particle cannot be be calculated from the masses of the supposed composing quarks.(bold added)

Then this paper, reporting the production/discovery of element 118 (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRVCAN000074000004044602000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes), would seem to falsify this aspect of RST, wouldn't it?

(there may be other papers on element 118, but that's the one I found with just a quick search).

[StevenO]

If you have already posted something concerning the RST view of "the supernova process" (only SNe II? or SNe Ia too?), I seem to have missed it, sorry; would you mind posting it again please?
Please allow me first to give a short introduction to the origin of stars and star systems in RST theory (orginal article content by Ronald Satz):


According to Larson's RST if the creation of the (space-time) universe did indeed take place, it was created in the full form as found presently. The equivalence and symmetry of single units of space and time causes the primitive space-time progression (the physical equivalent of nothing), which is the reference system from which all physical actions extend. Displacements from the one-to-one ratio, that is more space (higher speed) or more time (lower speed), are manifested as physical phenomena. Not developing from natural processes, the existing displacements are given (necessary) features of the universe, the total number remaining constant. This is the basis of the Conservation Law. The simplest displacements 'photons' may combine to form positron-electron pairs. With more energy neutrino's, other subatomic particles and hydrogen atoms (in that order, over a very long period of clock time) are formed.

Because of the low particle densities and correspondingly few collisions, the proportion of elements above hydrogen decreases with atomic number. But as time goes on, more combinations occur and the probability of heavy elements increases.

The rotational displacement type of atoms complicates this development to some extent. Consider the iron group of elements, which in RST are centered on the displacement 3-2-9 and 3-3-(9). The probability of accomplishing an increase in the subordinate magnetic displacement (the second index in the list) from 2 to 3 is much less than that of accomplishing an increase in the electric displacement (the third index). Thus the total amount of the ferrous group must build up until the larger quantity availalable offsets the lower probability of the next addition reaction. Consequently the iron group becomes abundant in the universe. Likewise with silicon and carbon, the center elements of the next two lower groups. But we find that the higher group of ruthenium, rhodium and palladium is quite rare--in fact we find that all elements above the iron group are. Since there is no insurmountable barrier to the formation of heavier elements (although the proportion would in general decrease with atomic number) a process must exist which destroys these elements after formation. This process will be discussed shortly.

Under gravitation, atoms (mostly hydrogen) come together at a particular coordinate location to form a cloud of dust and gas. This contraction process transforms potential energy into kinetic heat energy, and the cloud turns into and infrared star. As the entire structure becomes fluid (in RST the material state is a property of the individual atom) the relatively few heavy elements (lead, etc.) make their way to the center. Because of this gravitational segregation, the ligher elements (which Larson groups together as 'substance A') constitute the outer part of a star, whereas the heavier elements (which Larson groups together as 'substance B') constitute the inner part of the star.

The contraction process causes a rise in temperature, or space displacement, some of which is transformed into rotational displacement of the atoms. Rising temperature makes more and more space displacement available for this ionization, the amount of which can increase until the number of positive charges equals the net total number of rotational time displacement units (atomic number). After attaining complete ionization, additional space displacement goes into the atom's regular unidirectional rotational space displacement, the unit of rotational time displacement is neutralized, converting into a very large amount of lineair displacement which is radiant energy! Because the maximum ionization increases with atomic number, a smaller quantity of thermal motion is needed to bring the total space displacement of a fully ionized heavier atom up to the limit than a lighter atom; the result is the establishment of a temperature limit for each element which is inversely related to atomic number. This the heaviest elements, which are in the center, are the first to disintegrate into radiation.

The infrared star has now become a red giant. Represented by the topright corner in the Hertzsprung-Russel. This newly formed star radiates from a very large surface and is therefore more luminous than the usual main sequence star. With further contraction, the surface of the giant decreases, lessening the emission correspondingly; the star moves downward on the H-R diagram. If the interstellar material that is aggregated by the star is of low density, the downwards evolution towards the main sequence prevails. If the interstellar material is of high density, the star's rate of accretion is stepped up in which the star evolutes towards the topleft corner in the H-R diagram.

Increased thermal motion spreads to successively lighter elements. The reaching of the destructive thermal limit of a lighter, more plentiful element would cause not only more heat and radiation but also a rapid expansion of the star. This swelling in turn would cool the interior of the star and the temperature would drop below the recently attained limit, closing off the new energy supply. As the expanded material contracts, the temperature would once more rise and the process would be repeated again: heating, expansion, cooling, contracting. Larson identifies such pulsating stars to be intrinsic variables. Since hotter stars can return to initial conditions more quickly, the period of a variable star is inversely related to the temperature. Long period variables are newer, cooler stars; the cepheids are more advanced stars.

For billions of years the mass and the temperature slowly increase. Eventually the topleft corner of the H-R diagram is attained. The outer region of this hot, massive Wolf-Rayet star is in a condition of violent agitation. In the interior, the thermal velocities approach the speed of light. Finally, the destructive limit of the iron group elements, present in large concentrations, is reached.
Then a tremendous explosion, a supernova occurs at the first conversion to energy of the iron group and the rest is dispersed. The iron group elements can thus continue building up with age, but the heavier elements must start anew after each explosion. This type of supernova is of type 1A.

Substance A, the group of lighter elements, is blown away at very high velocities. But substance B, the group of heavier elements in the center of the star, was near unit velocity (the speed of light) before the explosion. With the destruction of the star, the velocities of many of these atoms go above unity and are therefore blown apart in coordinate time, rather than in coordinate space. Since all of this motion takes place in the same units of space in which it originated, the matter remains localized in coordinate space.
Thus substance A is dispersed outward in coordinate space by less-than-unit velocities to form a cloud of particles.; substance B is dispersed outward in coordinate time (which is inward in coordinate space) by greater-than-unit velocities to form a tiny pulsar. The pulses result from adjustment of star time, including that given by the expansion, to clock time.

After the expansive forces of the supernova are spent, the force of gravitation reasserts itself. For those particles dispersed outward in coordinate space, gravitation ultimately causes condensation of the particles into a red giant. For those particles dispersed outward in coordinate time, gravitation reduces the amount of empty coordinate time between them. That is, gravitation in the time region is, from our standpoint in space, a force of repulsion (decrease in empty time equals increase in empty space). The aforementioned pulsar thus increases in volume to become a white dwarf star.

The eventual product of the supernova, if violent enough, is therefore a binary star system in which one component is a red giant, a star in which the constituent particles are seperated by rather large amounts of coordinate space; and the other component is a white dwarf, a star in which the constituent particles are separated by equally large amounts of empty coordinate time. Further contraction in space and in time, respectively, eliminates the empty space and empty time and brings, from opposite directions, both stars to positions on the main sequence in the H-R diagram.

The paths of the red giant to the main sequence have already been given; let us turn to Larson's view of the evolution of the white dwarf in the H-R diagram. The white dwarf are located roughly in the lower left region of the H-R diagram. The small surface area causes low luminosity; the small volume high temperatures. With contraction in coordinate time (which is expansion in coordinate space) the luminosity increases but temperature drops, and the star follows either a path to the topleft corner or the center of the H-R diagram, depending on the rate of accretion.
In the center of the white dwarf, compression in coordinate time is greatest. Here, with empty coordinate time eliminated first, thermal forces develop which give rise to a gass pressure. With high enough pressure, the central gas bursts through the enveloping material to appear on the surface of the star, increasing the luminosity by a stupendous amount. To this phenomenom has been assigned the inapt term nova. The highly ionized iron and nickel (substance B from the center) cool; but the thermal forces develop one new gas bubble after another so that the nova is a periodic event. As the white dwarf grows older, the additional expansion needed to initiate the explosion is reduced. Thus, with age, the time interval between the explosions is reduced, eventually becoming less than 100 years. Larson indentifies the short period novae with what is now called cataclysmic variable stars.


This concludes the description of events that lead to type 1A supernova's. Next post I'll discuss Larson's view on type II supernova's.

[StevenO]

(bold added)

Then this paper, reporting the production/discovery of element 118 (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRVCAN000074000004044602000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes), would seem to falsify this aspect of RST, wouldn't it?

(there may be other papers on element 118, but that's the one I found with just a quick search).
Wikipedia reports element 118 as 'unconfirmed' and I read that sofar only three atoms of element 118 would have been produced, so who is to say that it is not an isotope of element 117?

In RST hydrogen takes a special place as being more of a subatomic particle than a real atom. So I could imagine something similar happening at the other end of the atomic element spectrum.

[Nereid]

Wikipedia reports element 118 as 'unconfirmed'
Surely Wikipedia cannot be used as an authoritative source, for something like this, can it?


and I read that sofar only three atoms of element 118 would have been produced, so who is to say that it is not an isotope of element 117?

Well, who is to say that it is not an isotope of element 119?

Perhaps a careful reading of the paper I cited might help?



In RST hydrogen takes a special place as being more of a subatomic particle than a real atom. So I could imagine something similar happening at the other end of the atomic element spectrum.
But as this is a science-based internet discussion forum, our criteria should be rather stronger than "I imagine", shouldn't they?

[Fortis]

BTW. You are asking something that cannot be done with mainstream theory either since the mass of the Bc particle cannot be be calculated from the masses of the supposed composing quarks.
Odd that you should claim this as the mass of the Bc was predicted (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/wingate/wingateHPQCD-SDAC2005.pdf) prior to being experimentally measured. The prediction matched the measurement to within 0.3%. Any comment?

[papageno]

StevenO, you still have not addressed my post (#136) and answered my questions.

[StevenO]

Perhaps a careful reading of the paper I cited might help?

But as this is a science-based internet discussion forum, our criteria should be rather stronger than "I imagine", shouldn't they?
I'm not going to spend $25 to read the paper. From what I see in the abstract they only observed a reaction that they "assign" to the decay of element 118. From RST the authors could have learned that other reactions could be at play here too.

I'm not claiming that RST's replaces current science. Just that it can provide a unified explanation for physical phenomena by explaining the symmetry between space and time and the consequences of that.

[parejkoj]

So far, it appears to not be able to explain some of the most obvious features of quasars: their emission lines. Is this discussed in any RST literature? It also appears to have failed because there are many ordinary-seeming objects with redshifts well beyond 1.

[Nereid]

Perhaps a careful reading of the paper I cited might help?

But as this is a science-based internet discussion forum, our criteria should be rather stronger than "I imagine", shouldn't they?I'm not going to spend $25 to read the paper. From what I see in the abstract they only observed a reaction that they "assign" to the decay of element 118. From RST the authors could have learned that other reactions could be at play here too.
OK.

Here (http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2006/split/797-1.html) is an associated document that gives some insight into why the authors were pretty certain they found element 118 (and not anything else).

And for the record, from Nereid's idea of mischievous invisible pink fairies, the authors could have learned that other explanations could be at play here too.



I'm not claiming that RST's replaces current science. Just that it can provide a unified explanation for physical phenomena by explaining the symmetry between space and time and the consequences of that.
In this case, though, weren't you claiming that element 118 could not exist?

[captain swoop]

According to Larson's RST if the creation of the (space-time) universe did indeed take place,

Is there any doubt that the Universe was at sometime created by some means?

[StevenO]

Odd that you should claim this as the mass of the Bc was predicted (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/wingate/wingateHPQCD-SDAC2005.pdf) prior to being experimentally measured. The prediction matched the measurement to within 0.3%. Any comment?

That's a great achievement. I wonder how much had to go into the simulation model to get this out. Do you have a reference on how they calculate quark masses from 'first principles'?

In RST there is no QCD since the 'colorful' sea is not recognized as stable particles. The space-time lattice already gets somewhat closer to the RST model of quanta of motion.

[StevenO]

Is there any doubt that the Universe was at sometime created by some means?

:silenced: :)

In RST philosophy it is really different, since the RST universe consists of motion. Space and time are then inseperable aspects of motion, so there is no such thing as a 'beginning of time'. The RST assumption is that the total amount of motion in the universe is constant, which implies the universe is eternal.

[StevenO]

StevenO, you still have not addressed my post (#136) and answered my questions.

I'm sorry. I'm just one man with 24hrs in a day. Here it is:



That was the whole point of my first post in the thread (#74), which inculded a quote from Larson. Didn't you read it before replying that I should read more carefully Larson's writings?

Larson claims that mainstream physics attributes contradictory properties to the electrons in atoms and to the electrons involved in electric currents.
This is simply not true, as anybody who opened a textbook about atomic and solid state physics can tell you.

After I pointed out this glaring error in Larson's writing, you should have gone to a library and checked for yourself.
My point is that I cannot find this claim from Larson that you are referring to.

Larson's statement is that emission and absorption of electrons by atoms is no different from emission and absorption of photons. There is no reason to assume they are part of the atom because sometimes they are emitted when the atoms disintegrates. In RST an electron is not a building block of the atom. It is a form of motion that can be absorbed or generated by the atomic motion. It is a transient entity that can easily be created or destroyed.


You are not addressing the point, again.
Please provide proof that mainstream physics uses dimensionally inconsistent formulae (you said you would post it), or withdraw your assertion explicitly.
I'm withdrawing the claim since Larson made the dimensional inconsistencies here.


I see that you have not addressed these points.

Please answer my question: what is the experimental evidence that makes Larson's theory a better explanation than the mainstream theories?
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.
Researchers Discover New States Of Electrons That Behave Like Light (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080725152314.htm)


Provide the proof that the mainstream explanation of the Van der Graaf generator is inconsistent, or withdraw explicitly your claim.
I'm withdrawing the claim for the moment since I have no time to find out if the argument still holds after Larson's dimensional mistakes.



We have been doing experiments with ballistic electrons in semiconductors for the last 25 years. We can do the same experiments as with electrons in vacuum.
What is the experimental evidence for the uncharged electrons?
Ballistic transport of electrons is a good example of uncharged electrons being restricted to move inside matter.

[papageno]

That was the whole point of my first post in the thread (#74), which included a quote from Larson. Didn't you read it before replying that I should read more carefully Larson's writings?

Larson claims that mainstream physics attributes contradictory properties to the electrons in atoms and to the electrons involved in electric currents.
This is simply not true, as anybody who opened a textbook about atomic and solid state physics can tell you.

After I pointed out this glaring error in Larson's writing, you should have gone to a library and checked for yourself.

My point is that I cannot find this claim from Larson that you are referring to.


How about actually reading the links you give us?
My first post (#74) included a chapter reference (chapter 9, "Electric currents") where the quote and Larson's strawman can be found.

Please apologize for telling me to read Larson's writings before commenting, because you obviously have not bothered to read the parts of your links I was referring to.





Larson's statement ... [SNIP!]


Please read about Larson's electric current theory first before you make your own interpretations on the basis of a few sentences.







You are not addressing the point, again.
Please provide proof that mainstream physics uses dimensionally inconsistent formulae (you said you would post it), or withdraw your assertion explicitly.

I'm withdrawing the claim since Larson made the dimensional inconsistencies here.


Thank you.







I see that you have not addressed these points.

Please answer my question: what is the experimental evidence that makes Larson's theory a better explanation than the mainstream theories?
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080725152314.htm (Researchers Discover New States Of Electrons That Behave Like Light
)


Have you actually read the link?
Let me quote from the original publication (Phase Transitions of Dirac Electrons in Bismuth (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;321/5888/547?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=phuan+ong+2007+princeton&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)):


The Dirac Hamiltonian, which successfully describes relativistic fermions, applies equally well to electrons in solids with linear energy dispersion, for example, in bismuth and graphene. A characteristic of these materials is that a magnetic field less than 10 tesla suffices to force the Dirac electrons into the lowest Landau level, with resultant strong enhancement of the Coulomb interaction energy. Moreover, the Dirac electrons usually come with multiple flavors or valley degeneracy. These ingredients favor transitions to a collective state with novel quantum properties in large field. By using torque magnetometry, we have investigated the magnetization of bismuth to fields of 31 tesla. We report the observation of sharp field-induced phase transitions into a state with striking magnetic anisotropy, consistent with the breaking of the threefold valley degeneracy.


Basically, the experiment confirms mainstream theories about the behavior of electrons in solids. It seems that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Larson theory.

Now, show us exactly how Larson's theory explains this experimental result better than mainstream physics, or withdraw explicitly your claim.
If you want, I can send you the full text of the Science article as a PDF file, and you can take your time to read through it.







The number of postulates is irrelevant.
The experimental evidence decides which theory is correct.




I see no comment from you. Do you agree or not?








No, I am not sparing you.
You told me to go and read Larson's writings when I pointed out a glaring error in his assertions.
You implied that generations of physicists are too incompetent to do dimensional analysis on the formulae they use.
The least you could do is to open an introductory textbook of electromagnetism and quantum physics.




Again, no comment.
Have you tried to look at actual textbooks, or do you simply trust Larson when he speaks about mainstream physics?







Provide the proof that the mainstream explanation of the Van der Graaf generator is inconsistent, or withdraw explicitly your claim.

I'm withdrawing the claim for the moment since I have no time to find out if the argument still holds after Larson's dimensional mistakes.


Thank you. But why don't you take time to check before making claims?







We have been doing experiments with ballistic electrons in semiconductors for the last 25 years. We can do the same experiments as with electrons in vacuum.
What is the experimental evidence for the uncharged electrons?

Ballistic transport of electrons is a good example of uncharged electrons being restricted to move inside matter.


How do you distinguish experimentally between charge and uncharged electrons?

I am still waiting for you to provide actual experimental evidence in support of Larson's theory.

[papageno]

I'll use an analogy to clarify what is wrong with Larson's assertions about the mainstream theories.

Mainstream: "StevenO walks at home and swims in the pool."

Larson: "According to mainstream theories, StevenO is a man at home and a fish in the swimming pool."


While mainstream theories show that how electrons move and react to external forces depends on their environment and interactions with other particles, Larson says that mainstream physics attributes different intrinsic properties to the electrons.

[Fortis]

That's a great achievement. I wonder how much had to go into the simulation model to get this out. Do you have a reference on how they calculate quark masses from 'first principles'?
It is a great achievment. Consider that the meson mass was correctly predicted, within 0.3%, before the mass of the meson was experimentally measured. I assume that your reference to "first principles" is a reference to the fact that we currently cannot derive the masses of quarks from first principles, i.e. they are values that we have to assume at the start. That would be true, but the hope is that a deeper theory would enable us to derive the quark masses from first principles.


In RST there is no QCD since the 'colorful' sea is not recognized as stable particles. The space-time lattice already gets somewhat closer to the RST model of quanta of motion.
Should RST be able to reproduce the validated results of QCD? I don't, for example, see any evidence that RST has any conserved quantities. Are there any conserved quantities, e.g charge, lepton number, etc? The conserved properties of hadrons and mesons led to the development of the quark model.

[StevenO]

How about actually reading the links you give us?
My first post (#74) included a chapter reference (chapter 9, "Electric currents") where the quote and Larson's strawman can be found.

Please apologize for telling me to read Larson's writings before commenting, because you obviously have not bothered to read the parts of your links I was referring to.
I'm sorry if I irritated you here, but the quote you gave was not very specific. Larson makes a few claims in this section and I assume you refer to this one:



The most significant weakness of the conventional theory of the electric current, the theory based on the foregoing assumptions, as we now see it in the light of the more complete understanding of physical fundamentals derived from the theory of the universe of motion, is that it assigns two different, and incompatible, roles to the electrons. These particles, according to present-day theory, are components of the atomic structure, yet at least some of them are presumed to be free to accommodate themselves to any electrical forces applied to the conductor. On the one hand, each is so firmly bound to the remainder of the atom that it plays a significant part in determining the properties of that atom, and a substantial force (the ionization potential) must be applied in order to separate it from the atom. On the other hand, these electrons are so free to move that they will respond to thermal or electrical forces whose magnitude is only slightly above zero. They must exist in a conductor in specific numbers in order to account for the fact that the conductor is electrically neutral while carrying current, but at the same time they must be free to leave the conductor, either in large or small quantities, if they acquire sufficient kinetic energy.

My understanding is that he refers to the fact that according to the ionization energy or work function it should take a few eV of energy per electron to free an electron from a copper atom, while according to the "free electron model" they should be free to move inside the metal and also free to leave the metal in great quantities when conducting current.

I have to admit Larson's chapters on electricity are definitely not his best. I wonder if his distinction between 'electric charge' and 'electric quantity' is still so distinct once you fix the dimensional inconsistencies. Larson assigns the dimension t/s(energy) to electric charge, while it should also have the dimension of 's' (space) like electrical quantity.


Please read about Larson's electric current theory first before you make your own interpretations on the basis of a few sentences.
:) This was from Larson's atomic theory, not his electric current chapter.
You can find it here:

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Ch 3, Electrons (http://library.rstheory.org/books/cana/03.html)


Have you actually read the link?
Let me quote from the original publication (Phase Transitions of Dirac Electrons in Bismuth (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;321/5888/547?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=phuan+ong+2007+princeton&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)):

Basically, the experiment confirms mainstream theories about the behavior of electrons in solids. It seems that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Larson theory.

Now, show us exactly how Larson's theory explains this experimental result better than mainstream physics, or withdraw explicitly your claim.
If you want, I can send you the full text of the Science article as a PDF file, and you can take your time to read through it.
I have not claimed that the observed behaviour of electrons would be any different. I have claimed that, according to Larson's theory:
- there are charged and uncharged electrons
- uncharged electrons can only move inside matter
- only charged electrons can travel through a vacuum, they can also travel inside matter




I see no comment from you. Do you agree or not?
I agree with "Experimental evidence", if you add "observational evidence" since otherwise astronomics would have a problem :)
I do not agree with "the number of postulates is irrelevant". A theory that gives the correct results with less postulates must be a better one according to the principle of least action.




Again, no comment.
Have you tried to look at actual textbooks, or do you simply trust Larson when he speaks about mainstream physics?
I have already explained that Larson is wrong here wrt. to his dimensions of electric quantity and electric charge. If you have an actual textbook that explains how all electrical constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time I'll be happy to study it...



Thank you. But why don't you take time to check before making claims?
It was not my intention to go into these aspects of Larson's theory here, only the astronomical aspects, so in my rush I forgot about the dimensional inconsistencies Larson made here.


How do you distinguish experimentally between charged and uncharged electrons?

I am still waiting for you to provide actual experimental evidence in support of Larson's theory.
The experimental observations would'nt be any different, just the explanations.

Larson's one-liner description can be read here:

Larson describes the uncharged electron as acting photon-like, being carried by the progression of the natural reference system at the speed of light. When the electron acquires a charge, it no longer moves at the speed of light but becomes a free-roaming “particle”, “static electricity.”


The charge on the electron is a captured photon.

[StevenO]

I'll use an analogy to clarify what is wrong with Larson's assertions about the mainstream theories.

Mainstream: "StevenO walks at home and swims in the pool."

Larson: "According to mainstream theories, StevenO is a man at home and a fish in the swimming pool."


While mainstream theories show that how electrons move and react to external forces depends on their environment and interactions with other particles, Larson says that mainstream physics attributes different intrinsic properties to the electrons.

Mainstream: photons can be emitted and absorbed by atoms but are not part of inherent atomic structure. Electrons are part of inherent atomic structure.

Larson: both photons and electrons can be emitted and absorbed by atomic motion. Atomic structure is a multidimensional scalar rotation motion. Photon is a vibrating quantum of motion. Electron is a rotating quantum of space.

[StevenO]

It is a great achievment. Consider that the meson mass was correctly predicted, within 0.3%, before the mass of the meson was experimentally measured. I assume that your reference to "first principles" is a reference to the fact that we currently cannot derive the masses of quarks from first principles, i.e. they are values that we have to assume at the start. That would be true, but the hope is that a deeper theory would enable us to derive the quark masses from first principles.
In the poster you linked it states they were able to calculate the quark masses from 'first principles'. I was curious about how they would to that. Check at the section below "QCD Coupling and Quark Masses'. It reads "The quark masses have also been computed from first principles by lattice QCD (Fig. 7)."


Should RST be able to reproduce the validated results of QCD? I don't, for example, see any evidence that RST has any conserved quantities. Are there any conserved quantities, e.g charge, lepton number, etc? The conserved properties of hadrons and mesons led to the development of the quark model.

From what I know in RST there is definitely no equivalent of QCD. However the spacetime grid looks like the reference system in RST: space and time interleaved and with orthogonal phase, moving in a lightspeed ratio in three dimensions (not sure if this word salad is any help :).
In RST, motion is the conserved quantity. Since the RST universe only consists of motion this leads to a number of conservation laws, but it also shows that not all conservation laws are what they look since motions can be converted into other motions and only certain combinations of motions form stable particles.

[Fortis]

My understanding is that he refers to the fact that according to the ionization energy or work function it should take a few eV of energy per electron to free an electron from a copper atom, while according to the "free electron model" they should be free to move inside the metal and also free to leave the metal in great quantities when conducting current.
Are you familiar with band theory?

[Fortis]

In the poster you linked it states they were able to calculate the quark masses from 'first principles'. I was curious about how they would to that. Check at the section below "QCD Coupling and Quark Masses'. It reads "The quark masses have also been computed from first principles by lattice QCD (Fig. 7)."
In essence you apply lattice QCD to derive the quark masses for hadrons or mesons with known particle masses. You then use these masses as the basis for a lattice QCD calculation of the mass of a hadron/meson that you haven't measured yet.

Are you implying that there was anything iffy, or circular about that?

[StevenO]

Are you familiar with band theory?
Band theory does'nt explain for me why it takes 5eV of energy to free a single electron from a copper atom, while if I would put 1 million atoms together it would suddenly take no energy to move many electrons outside the metal. Where does the energy come from? Does it take >5MeV of energy to put 1 million copper atoms into a lattice?

Let's take a reasonable number: 10^23 copper atoms to put a few grams of copper together. That is roughly about 800 KJ to assemble a copper lattice of a few grams from individual atoms, given it takes about 5 eV to free up one electron/atom according to its ionization energy. Or does band theory overrule conservation of energy?

[Fortis]

Band theory does'nt explain for me why it takes 5eV of energy to free a single electron from a copper atom, while if I would put 1 million atoms together it would suddenly take no energy to move many electrons outside the metal. Where does the energy come from? Does it take >5MeV of energy to put 1 million copper atoms into a lattice?

Let's take a reasonable number: 10^23 copper atoms to put a few grams of copper together. That is roughly about 800 KJ to assemble a copper lattice of a few grams from individual atoms, given it takes about 5 eV to free up one electron/atom according to its ionization energy. Or does band theory overrule conservation of energy?
I'm guessing that you do not understand band theory.

May I suggest you read this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure), and then ask again, if you still do not understand how conduction works.

[StevenO]

I'm guessing that you do not understand band theory.

May I suggest you read this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure), and then ask again, if you still do not understand how conduction works.
I was not talking about conduction. I was asking why in a chemical reaction one needs 5eV to free up a copper electron per atom while if you would just put copper atoms together into a crystal structure this energy would not be needed. Or can you show me that it takes >800KJ of external energy to make a copper crystal of a few grams?

I have read this page and it does not explain how much energy it takes to assemble a conducting copper lattice from individual copper atoms. It does not explain how the ionization energy is compensated when atoms are put together. If you could point me to how that is explained I would be happy.

[Fortis]

I was not talking about conduction.
Are you sure? Aren't you trying to understand the minimal energy required for electrons to freely move around inside the copper lattice, or move between a copper lattice and another metal lattice?

[StevenO]

Are you sure? Aren't you trying to understand the minimal energy required for electrons to freely move around inside the copper lattice, or move between a copper lattice and another metal lattice?
I thought it was pretty clear: why does it take 5eV of energy per atom to move an electron out of an atom in one theory and virtually no energy in the other since we know conservation of energy and 1+1=2? Or: how much energy does it take to create the band structure? I calculated at least 800KJ for a few grams of copper, which looks like rather much too me.

[Fortis]

I thought it was pretty clear: why does it take 5eV of energy per atom to move an electron out of an atom in one theory and virtually no energy in the other since we know conservation of energy and 1+1=2? Or: how much energy does it take to create the band structure? I calculated at least 800KJ for a few grams of copper, which looks like rather much too me.
Are you wanting to understand what the specific heat of of vapourisation of copper, i.e. the energy required to liberate free copper atoms from solid copper?

[Fortis]

I thought it was pretty clear: why does it take 5eV of energy per atom to move an electron out of an atom in one theory and virtually no energy in the other since we know conservation of energy and 1+1=2? Or: how much energy does it take to create the band structure? I calculated at least 800KJ for a few grams of copper, which looks like rather much too me.
If it is the heat of vapourisation that you are wanting, it is roughly 300 kJ/mol, where one mole of copper is 63 g. 800 kJ seems like a plausible rough order of magnitude. What is your concern?

[StevenO]

If it is the heat of vapourisation that you are wanting, it is roughly 300 kJ/mol, where one mole of copper is 63 g. 800 kJ seems like a plausible rough order of magnitude. What is your concern?
Vapourisation? No, I was talking about the act of putting individual copper atoms into a crystal structure, where according to band theory these conducting bands start to build that have the power to overcome the individual copper atom ionization energies. The total ionization energy that has to be overcome by the band structure for 1/6 mole(10 g) of copper would be about 800KJ. Where does it come from? According to you it even takes less energy to vapourise that amount of copper...:lol:

[Fortis]

Vapourisation? No, I was talking about the act of putting individual copper atoms into a crystal structure, where according to band theory these conducting bands start to build that have the power to overcome the individual copper atom ionization energies. The total ionization energy that has to be overcome by the band structure for 1/6 mole(10 g) of copper would be about 800KJ. Where does it come from? According to you it even takes less energy to vapourise that amount of copper...:lol:
I am still struggling to see what your issue is. Let's take a really simple system, the hydrogen molecule.

The ionization energy of a single hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV. The binding energy of a hydrogen molecule (2 hydrogen atoms) is 4.5 eV. Clearly this does not equal 2x13.6 eV. Is it this difference that you have a problem with?

Are you aware that the ionization energy of an atom is the energy required to move it's outermost electron to infinity (effectively just very far away). Why should that be directly related to the binding energy? The process isn't anything like ionization.

[papageno]

How about actually reading the links you give us?
My first post (#74) included a chapter reference (chapter 9, "Electric currents") where the quote and Larson's strawman can be found.

Please apologize for telling me to read Larson's writings before commenting, because you obviously have not bothered to read the parts of your links I was referring to.

I'm sorry if I irritated you here, but the quote you gave was not very specific.


And yet, instead of asking more details about the reference, you just told me to read more of Larson. While, in fact, you were the one who needed to read more. This is called hypocrisy.








Larson makes a few claims in this section and I assume you refer to this one:
[SNIP!]

My understanding is that he refers to the fact that according to the ionization energy or work function it should take a few eV of energy per electron to free an electron from a copper atom, while according to the "free electron model" they should be free to move inside the metal and also free to leave the metal in great quantities when conducting current.

[SNIP!]


If you open a textbook on solid state physics and look for "work function of a metal", you will find out that your understanding is wrong.

It takes a small amount of energy to move the electron inside a metal, but it takes a large amount (comparable to the ionization energy of atoms) to extract an electron from the volume of the metal.







Please read about Larson's electric current theory first before you make your own interpretations on the basis of a few sentences.

This was from Larson's atomic theory, not his electric current chapter.


And I told you to go and read more about his "electric currents" chapter before commenting my critique of Larson.







Have you actually read the link?
Let me quote from the original publication (Phase Transitions of Dirac Electrons in Bismuth):

[SNIP!]

Basically, the experiment confirms mainstream theories about the behavior of electrons in solids. It seems that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Larson theory.

Now, show us exactly how Larson's theory explains this experimental result better than mainstream physics, or withdraw explicitly your claim.
If you want, I can send you the full text of the Science article as a PDF file, and you can take your time to read through it.


I have not claimed that the observed behaviour of electrons would be any different.
[SNIP!]


You gave me the link about that experiment in reply to my question: "What is the experimental evidence that makes Larson's theory a better explanation than the mainstream theories?"
You obviously implied that Larson's theory can explain that experimental result better than the mainstream theories (clearly missing the fact that the mainstream theory predicted that effect).

Now, stop dodging the issue, and prove your implication or withdraw explicitly your claim.







"The number of postulates is irrelevant.
The experimental evidence decides which theory is correct."

I see no comment from you. Do you agree or not?

I agree with "Experimental evidence", if you add "observational evidence" since otherwise astronomics would have a problem


Hair-splitting won't hide the fact that you have been dodging the issue of experimental evidence.





I do not agree with "the number of postulates is irrelevant". A theory that gives the correct results with less postulates must be a better one according to the principle of least action.


But you still have not proved that Larson's theory explains the experimental results at least as well as mainstream theory.
I have asked again and again, but you never provided anything substantial.







Again, no comment.
Have you tried to look at actual textbooks, or do you simply trust Larson when he speaks about mainstream physics?

I have already explained that Larson is wrong here wrt. to his dimensions of electric quantity and electric charge. If you have an actual textbook that explains how all electrical constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time I'll be happy to study it...


Please don't change the subject.
We are talking about how Larson is representing the mainstream theories. You obviously are happy to believe what he says, instead of checking for yourself.







Thank you. But why don't you take time to check before making claims?

It was not my intention to go into these aspects of Larson's theory here, only the astronomical aspects, so in my rush I forgot about the dimensional inconsistencies Larson made here.


So, your response to my critique was a knee-jerk reaction.








How do you distinguish experimentally between charged and uncharged electrons?

I am still waiting for you to provide actual experimental evidence in support of Larson's theory.

The experimental observations would'nt be any different, just the explanations.

[SNIP!]


Are you saying that there is no experimental result that would enable us to distinguish Larson's theory and the mainstream theories?
If so, prove that Larson's theory provides better explanations than mainstream theories.


Or are you saying that it is not possible to distinguish charged electrons from uncharged electrons?

Since you prefer the theory with the least number of postulates, which theory would you choose? The theory which requires only charged electrons, or the one that requires both charged and uncharged electrons?







I'll use an analogy to clarify what is wrong with Larson's assertions about the mainstream theories.

Mainstream: "StevenO walks at home and swims in the pool."

Larson: "According to mainstream theories, StevenO is a man at home and a fish in the swimming pool."


While mainstream theories show that how electrons move and react to external forces depends on their environment and interactions with other particles, Larson says that mainstream physics attributes different intrinsic properties to the electrons.

Mainstream: photons can be emitted and absorbed by atoms but are not part of inherent atomic structure. Electrons are part of inherent atomic structure.

Larson: both photons and electrons can be emitted and absorbed by atomic motion. Atomic structure is a multidimensional scalar rotation motion. Photon is a vibrating quantum of motion. Electron is a rotating quantum of space.


Why do you keep changing the subject?

My point is not about what Larson says about his own theory, but what he says about the mainstream theories.





Band theory does'nt explain for me why it takes 5eV of energy to free a single electron from a copper atom, while if I would put 1 million atoms together it would suddenly take no energy to move many electrons outside the metal.
[SNIP!]


But that is not what mainstream theories say.
Please go and open a book on solid state physics, or, if you are to lazy, have a look at Wikipedia: work function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function).

[Nereid]

Please allow me first to give a short introduction to the origin of stars and star systems in RST theory (orginal article content by Ronald Satz):


According to Larson's RST if the creation of the (space-time) universe did indeed take place, it was created in the full form as found presently. The equivalence and symmetry of single units of space and time causes the primitive space-time progression (the physical equivalent of nothing), which is the reference system from which all physical actions extend. Displacements from the one-to-one ratio, that is more space (higher speed) or more time (lower speed), are manifested as physical phenomena. Not developing from natural processes, the existing displacements are given (necessary) features of the universe, the total number remaining constant. This is the basis of the Conservation Law. The simplest displacements 'photons' may combine to form positron-electron pairs. With more energy neutrino's, other subatomic particles and hydrogen atoms (in that order, over a very long period of clock time) are formed.

Because of the low particle densities and correspondingly few collisions, the proportion of elements above hydrogen decreases with atomic number. But as time goes on, more combinations occur and the probability of heavy elements increases.

The rotational displacement type of atoms complicates this development to some extent. Consider the iron group of elements, which in RST are centered on the displacement 3-2-9 and 3-3-(9). The probability of accomplishing an increase in the subordinate magnetic displacement (the second index in the list) from 2 to 3 is much less than that of accomplishing an increase in the electric displacement (the third index). Thus the total amount of the ferrous group must build up until the larger quantity availalable offsets the lower probability of the next addition reaction. Consequently the iron group becomes abundant in the universe. Likewise with silicon and carbon, the center elements of the next two lower groups. But we find that the higher group of ruthenium, rhodium and palladium is quite rare--in fact we find that all elements above the iron group are. Since there is no insurmountable barrier to the formation of heavier elements (although the proportion would in general decrease with atomic number) a process must exist which destroys these elements after formation. This process will be discussed shortly.

Under gravitation, atoms (mostly hydrogen) come together at a particular coordinate location to form a cloud of dust and gas. This contraction process transforms potential energy into kinetic heat energy, and the cloud turns into and infrared star. As the entire structure becomes fluid (in RST the material state is a property of the individual atom) the relatively few heavy elements (lead, etc.) make their way to the center. Because of this gravitational segregation, the ligher elements (which Larson groups together as 'substance A') constitute the outer part of a star, whereas the heavier elements (which Larson groups together as 'substance B') constitute the inner part of the star.

The contraction process causes a rise in temperature, or space displacement, some of which is transformed into rotational displacement of the atoms. Rising temperature makes more and more space displacement available for this ionization, the amount of which can increase until the number of positive charges equals the net total number of rotational time displacement units (atomic number). After attaining complete ionization, additional space displacement goes into the atom's regular unidirectional rotational space displacement, the unit of rotational time displacement is neutralized, converting into a very large amount of lineair displacement which is radiant energy! Because the maximum ionization increases with atomic number, a smaller quantity of thermal motion is needed to bring the total space displacement of a fully ionized heavier atom up to the limit than a lighter atom; the result is the establishment of a temperature limit for each element which is inversely related to atomic number. This the heaviest elements, which are in the center, are the first to disintegrate into radiation.

The infrared star has now become a red giant. Represented by the topright corner in the Hertzsprung-Russel. This newly formed star radiates from a very large surface and is therefore more luminous than the usual main sequence star. With further contraction, the surface of the giant decreases, lessening the emission correspondingly; the star moves downward on the H-R diagram. If the interstellar material that is aggregated by the star is of low density, the downwards evolution towards the main sequence prevails. If the interstellar material is of high density, the star's rate of accretion is stepped up in which the star evolutes towards the topleft corner in the H-R diagram.

Increased thermal motion spreads to successively lighter elements. The reaching of the destructive thermal limit of a lighter, more plentiful element would cause not only more heat and radiation but also a rapid expansion of the star. This swelling in turn would cool the interior of the star and the temperature would drop below the recently attained limit, closing off the new energy supply. As the expanded material contracts, the temperature would once more rise and the process would be repeated again: heating, expansion, cooling, contracting. Larson identifies such pulsating stars to be intrinsic variables. Since hotter stars can return to initial conditions more quickly, the period of a variable star is inversely related to the temperature. Long period variables are newer, cooler stars; the cepheids are more advanced stars.

For billions of years the mass and the temperature slowly increase. Eventually the topleft corner of the H-R diagram is attained. The outer region of this hot, massive Wolf-Rayet star is in a condition of violent agitation. In the interior, the thermal velocities approach the speed of light. Finally, the destructive limit of the iron group elements, present in large concentrations, is reached.
Then a tremendous explosion, a supernova occurs at the first conversion to energy of the iron group and the rest is dispersed. The iron group elements can thus continue building up with age, but the heavier elements must start anew after each explosion. This type of supernova is of type 1A.

Substance A, the group of lighter elements, is blown away at very high velocities. But substance B, the group of heavier elements in the center of the star, was near unit velocity (the speed of light) before the explosion. With the destruction of the star, the velocities of many of these atoms go above unity and are therefore blown apart in coordinate time, rather than in coordinate space. Since all of this motion takes place in the same units of space in which it originated, the matter remains localized in coordinate space.
Thus substance A is dispersed outward in coordinate space by less-than-unit velocities to form a cloud of particles.; substance B is dispersed outward in coordinate time (which is inward in coordinate space) by greater-than-unit velocities to form a tiny pulsar. The pulses result from adjustment of star time, including that given by the expansion, to clock time.

After the expansive forces of the supernova are spent, the force of gravitation reasserts itself. For those particles dispersed outward in coordinate space, gravitation ultimately causes condensation of the particles into a red giant. For those particles dispersed outward in coordinate time, gravitation reduces the amount of empty coordinate time between them. That is, gravitation in the time region is, from our standpoint in space, a force of repulsion (decrease in empty time equals increase in empty space). The aforementioned pulsar thus increases in volume to become a white dwarf star.

The eventual product of the supernova, if violent enough, is therefore a binary star system in which one component is a red giant, a star in which the constituent particles are seperated by rather large amounts of coordinate space; and the other component is a white dwarf, a star in which the constituent particles are separated by equally large amounts of empty coordinate time. Further contraction in space and in time, respectively, eliminates the empty space and empty time and brings, from opposite directions, both stars to positions on the main sequence in the H-R diagram.

The paths of the red giant to the main sequence have already been given; let us turn to Larson's view of the evolution of the white dwarf in the H-R diagram. The white dwarf are located roughly in the lower left region of the H-R diagram. The small surface area causes low luminosity; the small volume high temperatures. With contraction in coordinate time (which is expansion in coordinate space) the luminosity increases but temperature drops, and the star follows either a path to the topleft corner or the center of the H-R diagram, depending on the rate of accretion.
In the center of the white dwarf, compression in coordinate time is greatest. Here, with empty coordinate time eliminated first, thermal forces develop which give rise to a gass pressure. With high enough pressure, the central gas bursts through the enveloping material to appear on the surface of the star, increasing the luminosity by a stupendous amount. To this phenomenom has been assigned the inapt term nova. The highly ionized iron and nickel (substance B from the center) cool; but the thermal forces develop one new gas bubble after another so that the nova is a periodic event. As the white dwarf grows older, the additional expansion needed to initiate the explosion is reduced. Thus, with age, the time interval between the explosions is reduced, eventually becoming less than 100 years. Larson indentifies the short period novae with what is now called cataclysmic variable stars.


This concludes the description of events that lead to type 1A supernova's. Next post I'll discuss Larson's view on type II supernova's.
Thanks.

I'm looking forward to the material on SNe IIs.

When do you think you'll be posting it?

In any case, do you intend to address the questions concerning how the ATM ideas on quasars you've posted match with the relevant observations of quasars?

[StevenO]

I am still struggling to see what your issue is. Let's take a really simple system, the hydrogen molecule.

The ionization energy of a single hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV. The binding energy of a hydrogen molecule (2 hydrogen atoms) is 4.5 eV. Clearly this does not equal 2x13.6 eV. Is it this difference that you have a problem with?

Are you aware that the ionization energy of an atom is the energy required to move it's outermost electron to infinity (effectively just very far away). Why should that be directly related to the binding energy? The process isn't anything like ionization.
What I have trouble understanding is:

1. Imagine one mole of copper in gaseous state
2. The ionization energy of that one mole of copper is about 750KJ to remove one electron from each atom
3. Now if I cool one mole of copper down to form liquid copper, this would normally release energy, you mentioned 300KJ/mole for vapourisation.
4. However, liquid copper is conductive, so it should follow band theory.
5. Band theory provides a structure that overcomes the ionization energy for each individual copper atom since it allows electrons to be stripped from the atoms and move around in the material
6. So if this structure would supply the ionization energy for one electron per atom to do this it would take 750KJ of energy to condensate copper gas into copper liquid instead of releasing energy...
7. Then I might be mistaken here in the sense that I do not know the number of 'free electrons' in one mole of liquid copper, but the 'free electron' model used for metallic solids states that "all valence electrons are assumed to be completely detached from their ions", which would support my statement that the band gap structure has to provide the 1st ionization energy for ALL atoms

[StevenO]

Thanks.

I'm looking forward to the material on SNe IIs.

When do you think you'll be posting it?

In any case, do you intend to address the questions concerning how the ATM ideas on quasars you've posted match with the relevant observations of quasars?
I won't have much time today, so I hope to post some more material tomorrow. It is hard for me to condense the material into a comprehensible article while still explaining all concepts, which are mostly quite foreign. It will include explanations about features of these objects, like jets, odd spectra, compactness, etc.

[Fortis]

5. Band theory provides a structure that overcomes the ionization energy for each individual copper atom since it allows electrons to be stripped from the atoms and move around in the material
I think that this is the nub of your confusion. Conduction has nothing to do with ionization. One way that you might want to look at this is to think about the following picture. We have a ball sat on a paving stone. To remove this to infinity requires a lot of energy, in essence the ball needs to shoot upwards at the escape velocity. Now let's put another paving stone next to the first. It still takes a lot of energy to lift the ball all the way up to Pluto and beyond. However, it take a negligible amount of energy to move it to the adjacent paving stone.

This isn't a perfect analogy, and really you do need to do the quantum mechanics, but I hope it shows why the two cases, ionization, and conduction, are quite different things. :)

[StevenO]

I think that this is the nub of your confusion. Conduction has nothing to do with ionization. One way that you might want to look at this is to think about the following picture. We have a ball sat on a paving stone. To remove this to infinity requires a lot of energy, in essence the ball needs to shoot upwards at the escape velocity. Now let's put another paving stone next to the first. It still takes a lot of energy to lift the ball all the way up to Pluto and beyond. However, it take a negligible amount of energy to move it to the adjacent paving stone.

This isn't a perfect analogy, and really you do need to do the quantum mechanics, but I hope it shows why the two cases, ionization, and conduction, are quite different things. :)
Thanks for the analogy Fortis.

Still I have a hard time with this. In my mind the analogy is that it takes energy to lift a ball (the electron) out of a box (the atom). Now, if you put two identical boxes side by side it does'nt take energy anymore because a hole between the two boxes shows up? Creating a hole would take energy too, would'nt it? Or do the wave functions suddenly align in a copper crystal?

[Fortis]

Thanks for the analogy Fortis.

Still I have a hard time with this. In my mind the analogy is that it takes energy to lift a ball (the electron) out of a box (the atom). Now, if you put two identical boxes side by side it does'nt take energy anymore because a hole between the two boxes shows up? Creating a hole would take energy too, would'nt it? Or do the wave functions suddenly align in a copper crystal?
Let's say you had an atom of copper, and a copper ion that we want to transfer the electron to. The energy required to remove the electron from the atom, is exactly the same as the energy released when the electron is added to the copper ion. What we have is an energy barrier. You have to get the electron "over a hill". If the hill is lower, then it is easier to get the electron to the other side. This isn't that weird, as this is basically how catalysts work. They provide a route for a reaction that has a lower energy barrier.

I still have to emphasise that this is a very inexact analogy. This is probably not the place to provide a course on solid state physics. Suffice it to say, the problems that Larson (and presumably yourself?) identify, are not problems for the mainstream theory.

[dgavin]

Thanks for the analogy Fortis.

Still I have a hard time with this. In my mind the analogy is that it takes energy to lift a ball (the electron) out of a box (the atom). Now, if you put two identical boxes side by side it does'nt take energy anymore because a hole between the two boxes shows up? Creating a hole would take energy too, would'nt it? Or do the wave functions suddenly align in a copper crystal?

Well it helps to understand this sort of crystalization reaction.

There are two types of crystalization bonding, Ion bonding and Covelescent Bonding.

In both forms, the energy comesfrom the ambiant temperature of the solution/substance.

Bascially the way crystalization works is that the electrons are already in a semi-excited state from the tempurature. As two atoms get closer, there is a chance that electrons in the atoms due to the supersaturated state of the medium (Ionic 1 electron, Covelescent 2 electrons) will instead of jumping from one atom to another, will enter a shell orbit that is are shared by both atoms. Once this happens the excited electron shell and atoms, enter a stable, less excited state (They lose thier heat into the surrounding supersaturated medium).

A good way to see this in operation is to grow you own sugar crystals a glass. You will be able to see the heat plume rising up from the formations into the surrounding solution.

[StevenO]

Let's say you had an atom of copper, and a copper ion that we want to transfer the electron to. The energy required to remove the electron from the atom, is exactly the same as the energy released when the electron is added to the copper ion. What we have is an energy barrier. You have to get the electron "over a hill". If the hill is lower, then it is easier to get the electron to the other side. This isn't that weird, as this is basically how catalysts work. They provide a route for a reaction that has a lower energy barrier.

I still have to emphasise that this is a very inexact analogy. This is probably not the place to provide a course on solid state physics. Suffice it to say, the problems that Larson (and presumably yourself?) identify, are not problems for the mainstream theory.

Thanks, Fortis. It is pretty clear for me now. I think we can now say that Larson's statement:

The most significant weakness of the conventional theory of the electric current, the theory based on the foregoing assumptions, as we now see it in the light of the more complete understanding of physical fundamentals derived from the theory of the universe of motion, is that it assigns two different, and incompatible, roles to the electrons. These particles, according to present-day theory, are components of the atomic structure, yet at least some of them are presumed to be free to accommodate themselves to any electrical forces applied to the conductor. On the one hand, each is so firmly bound to the remainder of the atom that it plays a significant part in determining the properties of that atom, and a substantial force (the ionization potential) must be applied in order to separate it from the atom. On the other hand, these electrons are so free to move that they will respond to thermal or electrical forces whose magnitude is only slightly above zero. They must exist in a conductor in specific numbers in order to account for the fact that the conductor is electrically neutral while carrying current, but at the same time they must be free to leave the conductor, either in large or small quantities, if they acquire sufficient kinetic energy.

is not correct. We also have to state that Papageno is correct in the fact that Larson is misrepresenting mainstream theories here.

What does not change is the status of electrons in RST theory. Atoms in RST consist of combinations of purely rotational motion, giving atoms the required stability. Electron motion can be created from the atom motion, similar to photon motion. According to deductive reasoning from the theory's postulates, electric charge is a motion that can be superimposed on rotational particle motion, giving rise to charged and uncharged atoms, electrons/positrons and neutrino's. Charged neutrino's e.g. are suggested as the cause for neutrino oscillations in extensions of RST theory.

[StevenO]

I now like to post some material from RST as a precursor to details on type II supernova's and quasars. It contains some basic descriptions of the effects of 'scalar' motion and how scalar motions above unity (c) cause compact objects. It also explains how white dwarfs result from supernova's.

The material is straight from Larson's work "Universe of Motion" and is (in Larson's style) quite lengthy. I was not able to shorten it, given my limited time at the moment. I hope you can all bear that.

Universe of Motion, Chapter 6, "The Dwarf Star Cycle"


Due to possible copyright infringement, please read the text here (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/06.html). Tusenfem

[StevenO]

The name “white dwarf” was applied to these stars in the early days just after their discovery, when only a few of them were known. These had temperatures in the white region of the spectrum, and the designation that was given them was intended to distinguish them from the red dwarfs in the lower portions of the main sequence. In the meantime it has been found that the temperature range of these stars extends to much lower levels, leading to the use of such expressions as “red white dwarf.” But by this time the name “white dwarf” is firmly established by usage, and it will no doubt be permanent, even though it is no longer appropriate.


Due to possible copyright infringement, please read the rest of the text here (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/06.html). Tusenfem

[StevenO]

Contraction of the matter of the white dwarf star under pressure has the opposite effect, just as it does in the case of ordinary matter. Pressure thus reduces the density measured on this same basis. The constituents of a white dwarf star, like those of any other star, are subject to the gravitational effect of the structure as a whole, and the atoms in the interior are therefore under a pressure. The natural direction of gravitation is always toward unity. In the intermediate region (speeds above unity), as in the time region (distances below unity) that we explored in the earlier volumes, toward unity is outward in the context of a fixed spatial reference system, the datum level of which is zero. Thus the gravitational force in the white dwarf star is inverse relative to the fixed system of reference. It operates to move the atoms closer together in time, which is equivalent to farther apart in space. At the location where the pressure due to the gravitational force is the strongest, the center of the star, the compression in time is the greatest, and since compression in time is equivalent to expansion in space, the center of a white dwarf is the region of lowest density. As we will see later, this inverse density gradient plays an important part in determining the properties of the white dwarfs.


Due to possible copyright infringement, please read the rest of the text here (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/06.html). Tusenfem

[StevenO]

And yet, instead of asking more details about the reference, you just told me to read more of Larson. While, in fact, you were the one who needed to read more. This is called hypocrisy.
You are completely right. I bow my head in shame.



If you open a textbook on solid state physics and look for "work function of a metal", you will find out that your understanding is wrong.

It takes a small amount of energy to move the electron inside a metal, but it takes a large amount (comparable to the ionization energy of atoms) to extract an electron from the volume of the metal.
idem.



You gave me the link about that experiment in reply to my question: "What is the experimental evidence that makes Larson's theory a better explanation than the mainstream theories?"
You obviously implied that Larson's theory can explain that experimental result better than the mainstream theories (clearly missing the fact that the mainstream theory predicted that effect).

Now, stop dodging the issue, and prove your implication or withdraw explicitly your claim.
It is Larson's claim that electrons in matter move in a similar manner as light, but that is as detailed as his descriptions go. Since I have nothing better to show and definitely no calculations like these researchers show I'm explicitly withdrawing this claim.



Please don't change the subject.
We are talking about how Larson is representing the mainstream theories. You obviously are happy to believe what he says, instead of checking for yourself.
You're right. Larson is misrepresenting mainstream theories here.


Are you saying that there is no experimental result that would enable us to distinguish Larson's theory and the mainstream theories?
If so, prove that Larson's theory provides better explanations than mainstream theories.

Or are you saying that it is not possible to distinguish charged electrons from uncharged electrons?
I can't come up with an experiment at the moment that would make any observations different from mainstream theory. In Larson's theory uncharged electrons are the carriers of electric current while charged electrons are responsible for electrostatic fields. The difference between the two are photons. Off course a moving charged electron also constitutes a current.


Since you prefer the theory with the least number of postulates, which theory would you choose? The theory which requires only charged electrons, or the one that requires both charged and uncharged electrons?
The theory that can derive all physics properties from quanta of motion :)

[Fortis]

The theory that can derive all physics properties from quanta of motion :)
Doesn't sound like RST, though. There are plenty of physical phenomena that you have yet to derive. The mass of the charmed B meson? The properties of silicon? The 21 cm wavelength hyperfine transition in neutral hydrogen? The decay in the orbital period of binary pulsar systems? The gravitational bending of light by massive bodies? I could go on... :)

[StevenO]

Doesn't sound like RST, though.
There are plenty of physical phenomena that you have yet to derive.
It's a lot of work to derive ALL physics properties from one theory...give us some slack :lol:

The mass of the charmed B meson?
According to RST the charmed B meson is irrelevant, so please allow us to focus on other things first.

The properties of silicon?
I owe you that one

The 21 cm wavelength hyperfine transition in neutral hydrogen?
RST predicts neutral hydrogen is evenly distributed throughout the whole universe.

The decay in the orbital period of binary pulsar systems?
We'll get to that.

The gravitational bending of light by massive bodies? I could go on... :)
That result I gave you. In RST it is identical to the GR prediction, though much simpler to derive.

[Fortis]

According to RST the charmed B meson is irrelevant, so please allow us to focus on other things first.

It represents a phenomena that is measured by experiment. Can RST reproduce the experimental phenomena?


I owe you that one

:)


RST predicts neutral hydrogen is evenly distributed throughout the whole universe.

I'm not referring to the distribution of neutral hydrogen. I was referring to the 21 cm hyperfine transition in neutral hydrogen. Can RST derive that?


We'll get to that.

I look forward to it.


That result I gave you. In RST it is identical to the GR prediction, though much simpler to derive.
Can you identify the point where the error apears in this RST derivation (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/deflect.htm)?

[StevenO]

It represents a phenomena that is measured by experiment. Can RST reproduce the experimental phenomena?
I think it can, but I'm not going to volunteer.


I'm not referring to the distribution of neutral hydrogen. I was referring to the 21 cm hyperfine transition in neutral hydrogen. Can RST derive that?
Yes, it can, but I have no direct calculation for you.


Can you identify the point where the error apears in this RST derivation (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/deflect.htm)?
Ooops. :silenced: Forgot about that one. Thought it was about the advance perihelion.

[papageno]

And yet, instead of asking more details about the reference, you just told me to read more of Larson. While, in fact, you were the one who needed to read more. This is called hypocrisy.

You are completely right. I bow my head in shame.




If you open a textbook on solid state physics and look for "work function of a metal", you will find out that your understanding is wrong.

It takes a small amount of energy to move the electron inside a metal, but it takes a large amount (comparable to the ionization energy of atoms) to extract an electron from the volume of the metal.

idem.

I would like to know if you actually checked for yourself in a textbook.








You gave me the link about that experiment in reply to my question: "What is the experimental evidence that makes Larson's theory a better explanation than the mainstream theories?"
You obviously implied that Larson's theory can explain that experimental result better than the mainstream theories (clearly missing the fact that the mainstream theory predicted that effect).

Now, stop dodging the issue, and prove your implication or withdraw explicitly your claim.

It is Larson's claim that electrons in matter move in a similar manner as light, but that is as detailed as his descriptions go. Since I have nothing better to show and definitely no calculations like these researchers show I'm explicitly withdrawing this claim.


Thank you.
I hope you understand now that you should check the facts before making claims.







We are talking about how Larson is representing the mainstream theories. You obviously are happy to believe what he says, instead of checking for yourself.

You're right. Larson is misrepresenting mainstream theories here.


Thank you.
But it is a pity that you did not consider checking for yourself before defending Larson's assertions.







Are you saying that there is no experimental result that would enable us to distinguish Larson's theory and the mainstream theories?
If so, prove that Larson's theory provides better explanations than mainstream theories.

Or are you saying that it is not possible to distinguish charged electrons from uncharged electrons?

I can't come up with an experiment at the moment that would make any observations different from mainstream theory.


And you did not think of this before claiming that "Ballistic transport of electrons is a good example of uncharged electrons being restricted to move inside matter" ?
After all, I don't see any explanation from Larson's theory about this.





In Larson's theory uncharged electrons are the carriers of electric current while charged electrons are responsible for electrostatic fields.


Maxwell unified succesfully electrostatic, magnetostatic and electrodynamic phenomena at least 130 years ago. Maybe it's time for an update.




The difference between the two are photons. Of course a moving charged electron also constitutes a current.


Meaning-less hand-waving.







Since you prefer the theory with the least number of postulates, which theory would you choose? The theory which requires only charged electrons, or the one that requires both charged and uncharged electrons?

The theory that can derive all physics properties from quanta of motion :)
But Larson's theory isn't actually doing it.

So, if we apply your criteria ("A theory that gives the correct results with less postulates must be a better one according to the principle of least action."), you should choose the mainstream theories because they don't postulate the existence of unobservable particles to explain electric currents.


----------------




What does not change is the status of electrons in RST theory. Atoms in RST consist of combinations of purely rotational motion, giving atoms the required stability.


Hand-waving.

The solutions of the time-independent Schroedinger equation give the mathematical representation of the stable states of an atom. You just need to know the intrinsic properties of the particles involved and you can get a quantative prediction.





Electron motion can be created from the atom motion, similar to photon motion. According to deductive reasoning from the theory's postulates, electric charge is a motion that can be superimposed on rotational particle motion, giving rise to charged and uncharged atoms, electrons/positrons and neutrino's. Charged neutrino's e.g. are suggested as the cause for neutrino oscillations in extensions of RST theory.


I won't hold my breath waiting for some quantitative predictions that make it possbile to distinguish Larson's theory from the mainstream theories.
In the meantime, mainstream researcher will keep applying maintream theories to engineer device that actually work.

[StevenO]

I would like to know if you actually checked for yourself in a textbook.
No, I've only checked wikipedia.

And you did not think of this before claiming that "Ballistic transport of electrons is a good example of uncharged electrons being restricted to move inside matter" ?
After all, I don't see any explanation from Larson's theory about this.
There have been so many observations in EM and electronics that I do not think RST will change anything about that except give a possibly better explanation of the underlying particle mechanisms.

Maxwell unified succesfully electrostatic, magnetostatic and electrodynamic phenomena at least 130 years ago. Maybe it's time for an update.
Larson does not claim to change Maxwell's laws.

Meaning-less hand-waving.
So you claim ion transport does not constitute current?

But Larson's theory isn't actually doing it.
So, if we apply your criteria ("A theory that gives the correct results with less postulates must be a better one according to the principle of least action."), you should choose the mainstream theories because they don't postulate the existence of unobservable particles to explain electric currents.
RST is an approach to a unified physics theory that is not out to replace mainstream theories but to a better explanation of phenomena.

Hand-waving.

The solutions of the time-independent Schroedinger equation give the mathematical representation of the stable states of an atom. You just need to know the intrinsic properties of the particles involved and you can get a quantative prediction.
Sure, as long as your atom is not more complicated than hydrogen you can get to results. RST claims there are easier methods to calculate material properties.

In RST, the QM equations can be derived out of mathematics of motion in the 'time region'(the three dimensional temporal reference frame that is the reciprocal of the three dimensional spatial reference frame). The energy term in the Schroedinger equation is shown not to be the energy of an orbiting electron, but the energy of the atom itself.
‘Quantum Mechanics’ as the Mechanics of the Time Region (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/QuantumMechanics.html)
The Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/WaveMechanics.html)

I won't hold my breath waiting for some quantitative predictions that make it possbile to distinguish Larson's theory from the mainstream theories.
In the meantime, mainstream researcher will keep applying maintream theories to engineer device that actually work.
While others research for possible next generations of mainstream devices.

[StevenO]

Originally Posted by StevenO
According to RST the charmed B meson is irrelevant, so please allow us to focus on other things first.

It represents a phenomena that is measured by experiment. Can RST reproduce the experimental phenomena?

An article on how RST views the state of high-energy physics:

High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System
(http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/HighEnergyPhysics.html)

[papageno]

I would like to know if you actually checked for yourself in a textbook.

No, I've only checked wikipedia.


And in your experience as an electrical engineer, would you say that Wikipedia is a more reliable source than a university library?








And you did not think of this before claiming that "Ballistic transport of electrons is a good example of uncharged electrons being restricted to move inside matter" ?
After all, I don't see any explanation from Larson's theory about this.

There have been so many observations in EM and electronics that I do not think RST will change anything about that except give a possibly better explanation of the underlying particle mechanisms.


But Larson's theory is not providing a better explanation. It is just hand-waving something about uncharged electrons, without even proposing experimental tests.

I asked to give us this better explanation, but all we got is word-salad. Unless you can explain us in detail how ballistic transport is better explained by Larson's uncharged electrons than the mainstream theories.








Maxwell unified succesfully electrostatic, magnetostatic and electrodynamic phenomena at least 130 years ago. Maybe it's time for an update.

Larson does not claim to change Maxwell's laws.


But he is separating the source of electrostatic fields and the source of electric current.
By postulating the existence of uncharged electrons he is increasing the number of postulates compared to the mainstream theories, and without even providing better explanation for the experimental results.







<< "In Larson's theory uncharged electrons are the carriers of electric current while charged electrons are responsible for electrostatic fields. The difference between the two are photons. Of course a moving charged electron also constitutes a current." >>

Meaning-less hand-waving.

So you claim ion transport does not constitute current?


Please do not put words in my mouth.

Saying "the difference between charged and uncharged electrons are photons" is hand-waving.
And until Larson's supporters can come up with an actual explanation of what that means and experimental tests to distinguish the two, it will remain hand-waving.








<< "The theory that can derive all physics properties from quanta of motion." >>

But Larson's theory isn't actually doing it.

So, if we apply your criteria ("A theory that gives the correct results with less postulates must be a better one according to the principle of least action."), you should choose the mainstream theories because they don't postulate the existence of unobservable particles to explain electric currents.

RST is an approach to a unified physics theory that is not out to replace mainstream theories but to a better explanation of phenomena.


If it were a better explanation, it would replace mainstream theories.








<< "What does not change is the status of electrons in RST theory. Atoms in RST consist of combinations of purely rotational motion, giving atoms the required stability." >>

Hand-waving.

The solutions of the time-independent Schroedinger equation give the mathematical representation of the stable states of an atom. You just need to know the intrinsic properties of the particles involved and you can get a quantitative prediction.

Sure, as long as your atom is not more complicated than hydrogen you can get to results. RST claims there are easier methods to calculate material properties.


I would have expected that an engineer would not be limited to the fact that only hydrogen-like atoms can be solved analytically (at undergraduate level, by the way). There are other methods (mostly numerical) to obtain useful results.






In RST, the QM equations can be derived out of mathematics of motion in the 'time region'(the three dimensional temporal reference frame that is the reciprocal of the three dimensional spatial reference frame). The energy term in the Schroedinger equation is shown not to be the energy of an orbiting electron, but the energy of the atom itself.


The hydrogen-like atom is a two-body problem. Since you like Wikipedia, check this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem) (although you are supposed to have learned this in undergraduate engineering).

The Schroedinger equation that is usually quoted for hydrogen-like atoms, is the reduced form. And since the mass of the nucleus is so much larger than the mass of the electron, we are looking at the atom in the frame of reference where the nucleus is at rest.





‘Quantum Mechanics’ as the Mechanics of the Time Region (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/QuantumMechanics.html)


Just a couple of points about this link.



The preliminary results of a critical study of the Wave Mechanics carried out in the light of the knowledge of the Reciprocal System of theory have been reported earlier.1 Some of its important findings are as follows. While the Wave Mechanics has been very successful mathematically, it contains some fundamental errors. The principal stumbling block has been the ignorance of the existence of the Time Region and its peculiar characteristics. The crucial points that need to be recognized are that the wave associated with a moving particle, in a system of atomic dimensions, exists in the equivalent space of the Time Region... [SNIP!]


Please explain diffraction and interference effects of quantum particles.




The so-called exclusion principle was originally promulgated by Wolfgang Pauli. This is an empirical law to which no exception was ever found. It has been a heuristic guiding rule for understanding many an important quantum phenomenon. In spite of its important role, the explanation of its origin has defied the theorists.


Utterly false.

The exclusion principle is a consequence of the indistinguishability of quantum particles.
This indistinguishability puts constraints of the wavefunctions of system of identical particles, resulting in the two quantum statistics: Fermi-Dirac statistics (of which the exclusion principle is a special case), for anti-symmetric wavefunctions; Bose-Einstein statistics for symmetric wavefunction.
The link between statistics and spin of a particle, is given by a theorem in relativistic quantum mechanics. [For example, follow this link (http://www.connotea.org/add?uri=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6647/full/389127a0.html). ]





The Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/WaveMechanics.html)


One point about this link:


Let us take a look at the original points linking the concepts of the wave with that of the moving particle. The frequency f and the wavelength l of the wave are respectively given by

f = E/h = M.c^2/h (1)

l = h/p = h/(M.v) (2)

where E is the energy, p the particle momentum, M the mass, v the particle speed, c the speed of light and h Planck’s constant.


Sorry, but E = h f works only for a mass-less particle (or particles with linear dispersion), and E = mc^2 works only for a massive particle at rest.
Trying to combine these two together, and with De Broglie wavelength, like described in the link, is very naive and misguided.

This is just another example of how little RST proponents understand about the mainstream theories.

(And let's not forget that wave mechanics is only one way -- not the only way -- to formulate quantum mechanics.)







I won't hold my breath waiting for some quantitative predictions that make it possbile to distinguish Larson's theory from the mainstream theories.
In the meantime, mainstream researcher will keep applying maintream theories to engineer device that actually work.

While others research for possible next generations of mainstream devices.


Like those people in Princeton, and in other research centres and universities.

[Fortis]

An article on how RST views the state of high-energy physics:

High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System
(http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/HighEnergyPhysics.html)
I can't see anything here with the same mass as the charmed B meson, i.e. 6276 MeV.

The lists on this page also illustrate one of the problems with RST. It appears that RST, in this instance, is just a framework for generating a series of masses. Ther perception is that these masses are then just paired off against the nearest masses of mesons, or other particles, that seem to have a vague match. For example, here is a group of three D mesons.

D+ 1,869.62 ± 0.20 MeV
D0 1,864.84 ± 0.17 MeV
D+s 1,968.49 ± 0.34 MeV

In your list of RST particle masses, I can find particles with masses

1831 MeV (RST) matched to an unidentifed meson with mass 1840 MeV
and
1914 MeV (RST) matched to an unidentified meson with mass 1930 MeV

Doesn't look like a great match. What I also fail to see are the associated charge, and spin, etc, for these RST particles.

Do you see why I have a problem with this?

[StevenO]

And in your experience as an electrical engineer, would you say that Wikipedia is a more reliable source than a university library?
I think in this case it does'nt matter. Larson clearly does'nt describe band theory or the work function, so he is mistaken here, and there are more mistakes in his electric theory, like his description of superconductivity and his assignment of different dimensions to electric charge and electric quantity.



But Larson's theory is not providing a better explanation. It is just hand-waving something about uncharged electrons, without even proposing experimental tests.

I asked to give us this better explanation, but all we got is word-salad. Unless you can explain us in detail how ballistic transport is better explained by Larson's uncharged electrons than the mainstream theories.
Larson's theory is quite immature here, so I think it cannot even begin to compare with mainstream theories.

But he is separating the source of electrostatic fields and the source of electric current.
By postulating the existence of uncharged electrons he is increasing the number of postulates compared to the mainstream theories, and without even providing better explanation for the experimental results.
Larson is not postulating uncharged electrons. His only postulate is that the universe is build of quanta of motion in three dimensions with space and time two reciprocal aspects of that motion. Physics objects are then deduced from this axiom as compound motions without additional postulates and with a clear match. One of his deductions is that electric charge is a motion that is added on top of the motion that constitutes a particle, hence his conclusion that electrons also exist in uncharged form. It is not a postulate falling out of the air.


Please do not put words in my mouth.

Saying "the difference between charged and uncharged electrons are photons" is hand-waving.
And until Larson's supporters can come up with an actual explanation of what that means and experimental tests to distinguish the two, it will remain hand-waving.
I have to agree with you. Until a decisive experiment would show that electrons exist in two forms it is mere theory.
Since according to RST protons also come in charged and uncharged form with a small mass difference, one RST author suggests that we should be able to see that when measuring the mass of the proton (there should be two mass distribution peaks when proton mass is measured from statistical samples).
http://library.rstheory.org/articles/Peret/SubMass.html
http://library.rstheory.org/articles/Peret/SubMassUpdate.html


I would have expected that an engineer would not be limited to the fact that only hydrogen-like atoms can be solved analytically (at undergraduate level, by the way). There are other methods (mostly numerical) to obtain useful results.
Off course you are right. Larson's theory is'nt necessarily simpler, but it allows to calculate some gross properties almost directly from the basic rotations that make up the atom(ic nucleus), e.g. inter-atomic distance, compressibility and some heat properties.


Just a couple of points about this link.

Please explain diffraction and interference effects of quantum particles.
The RST explanation is given here:

§5. Photon Wave.
According to the Reciprocal System the photon is situated permanently in the space unit (of its origin) of the background space-time progression. As these space units are ever moving scalarly outward, away from one another, no two photons can ever contact each other. However, both may be able to contact a gravitating particle since the latter is moving scalarly inward, and can enter the space unit in which a photon is situated. That bosons, the class of particles of which photon is a member, do not interact with each other is an observed fact. If this is so, one may ask, how do we explain the phenomena like interference and diffraction, wherein the waves associated with the photons are apparently interacting! The answer from the Reciprocal System has already been explained in detail elsewhere[3] where we have shown that the photon interacts with itself, by virtue of the nonlocality feature of the Time Region. The wave associated with the photon is actually in the Time Region and is to be represented by complex vibration rather than a real vibration. The projection on the real axis appears sinusoidal.
The original article can be found here (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/SpinThoughts.html).


One point about this link:

Sorry, but E = h f works only for a mass-less particle (or particles with linear dispersion), and E = mc^2 works only for a massive particle at rest.
Trying to combine these two together, and with De Broglie wavelength, like described in the link, is very naive and misguided.

This is just another example of how little RST proponents understand about the mainstream theories.

(And let's not forget that wave mechanics is only one way -- not the only way -- to formulate quantum mechanics.)
Yeah, I think this article by Nehru is misguided. The treatment of the Time Region in RST is complicated, a reason e.g. why Larson postponed quantitative treatment of spectroscopy. It could also be that Larson missed the inclusion of electron shells in his atom model. Something that now follows from analysis of the time region geometry. It is clear that the theory here is still immature..

Sigh :confused: I think I will come back to the forum in another 50 years, when there is some more maturity in the theory (it was 50 years ago now that Larson published his first book on it).

[StevenO]

I can't see anything here with the same mass as the charmed B meson, i.e. 6276 MeV.

The lists on this page also illustrate one of the problems with RST. It appears that RST, in this instance, is just a framework for generating a series of masses. Ther perception is that these masses are then just paired off against the nearest masses of mesons, or other particles, that seem to have a vague match. For example, here is a group of three D mesons.

D+ 1,869.62 ± 0.20 MeV
D0 1,864.84 ± 0.17 MeV
D+s 1,968.49 ± 0.34 MeV

In your list of RST particle masses, I can find particles with masses

1831 MeV (RST) matched to an unidentifed meson with mass 1840 MeV
and
1914 MeV (RST) matched to an unidentified meson with mass 1930 MeV

Doesn't look like a great match. What I also fail to see are the associated charge, and spin, etc, for these RST particles.

Do you see why I have a problem with this?
The mass of the charmed B meson is a problem for the theory since it would require a cosmic atom with an atomic number smaller than 1. The maximum mass predicted by the theory is cosmic hydrogen (~1850MeV) + two material isotopic charges (about 930MeV each) is around 3710MeV. So you have a point here. The theory here is not accurate in predicting charge or spin.

The masses calculated in the table are the first order estimated masses of cosmic atoms(1862/Z MeV), with isotopes selected to match the meson table as close as possible. The gravitational charge is the addition of a muon neutrino as a material isotope(+931MeV) instead of cosmic isotope(something that is apparently possible).

[StevenO]

RST predicts that cosmic rays (which are anti-matter atoms decaying mostly all the way back to hydrogen) redistribute matter evenly throughout the universe and that that matter aggregates into dust particles of about 1 micron size eventually aggregating into stars and globular clusters.

Some recent observations seem to confirm that view:
Colors of Quasars Reveal a Dusty Universe (http://www.physorg.com/news154893222.html)
New Stars from Old Gas Surprise Astronomers (http://www.physorg.com/news154186484.html)
Oldest Known Objects are Surprisingly Immature (http://www.physorg.com/news128698769.html)

[Fortis]

RST predicts that cosmic rays (which are anti-matter atoms decaying mostly all the way back to hydrogen) redistribute matter evenly throughout the universe and that that matter aggregates into dust particles of about 1 micron size eventually aggregating into stars and globular clusters.

Some recent observations seem to confirm that view:
Colors of Quasars Reveal a Dusty Universe (http://www.physorg.com/news154893222.html)
New Stars from Old Gas Surprise Astronomers (http://www.physorg.com/news154186484.html)
Oldest Known Objects are Surprisingly Immature (http://www.physorg.com/news128698769.html)
It didn't seem to be able to explain the 21 cm line of hydrogen, IIRC. In part, this is due to the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The QED prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment is one of the greatest predictions of modern physics. It matches observation to 10 significant figures. It's pretty much the gold standard. Is there any result from RST that can match that?

[Fortis]

The mass of the charmed B meson is a problem for the theory since it would require a cosmic atom with an atomic number smaller than 1. The maximum mass predicted by the theory is cosmic hydrogen (~1850MeV) + two material isotopic charges (about 930MeV each) is around 3710MeV. So you have a point here.

So can we discount the claimed RST predictions of particle masses?


The theory here is not accurate in predicting charge or spin.

Yet that is something that drops out naturally from the much maligned (if you are a Larsonist) quark model.


The masses calculated in the table are the first order estimated masses of cosmic atoms(1862/Z MeV), with isotopes selected to match the meson table as close as possible.

This is exactly the problem that I indicated earlier. You have an equation with multiple free parameters. You then find the values of the free parameters that give the masses that are observed, and then claim this as a successful prediction. What you do not do is have a set of rules that say in advance what those free parameters should be. Let's take the following equation (that I have just made up.)

M = 100.a+10.b.+c MeV

where a, b, and c are integer values. Do you think that I could find values for a, b, and c that would give a good match to an arbitary particle mass? Perhaps not. :)

[papageno]

And in your experience as an electrical engineer, would you say that Wikipedia is a more reliable source than a university library?

I think in this case it doesn't matter.


Of course it matters, because RST proponents claim that Larson's theory is so much better than the mainstream.
Reading actual textbooks found in proper university library would help RST proponents to actually understand the mainstream theories and stop misrepresenting them, as they are doing now.





Larson clearly doesn't describe band theory or the work function, so he is mistaken here, and there are more mistakes in his electric theory, like his description of superconductivity and his assignment of different dimensions to electric charge and electric quantity.



But Larson's theory is not providing a better explanation. It is just hand-waving something about uncharged electrons, without even proposing experimental tests.

I asked to give us this better explanation, but all we got is word-salad. Unless you can explain us in detail how ballistic transport is better explained by Larson's uncharged electrons than the mainstream theories.

Larson's theory is quite immature here, so I think it cannot even begin to compare with mainstream theories.


And doesn't it bother you that a unified theory of physics has so many problems, and is still so immature after thirty years?








But he is separating the source of electrostatic fields and the source of electric current.

...


I see no comment about how Larson is undoing the unification of electrostatic and electrodynamic phenomena.







By postulating the existence of uncharged electrons he is increasing the number of postulates compared to the mainstream theories, and without even providing better explanation for the experimental results.

Larson is not postulating uncharged electrons. His only postulate is that the universe is build of quanta of motion in three dimensions with space and time two reciprocal aspects of that motion. Physics objects are then deduced from this axiom as compound motions without additional postulates and with a clear match.


Please open a textbook on quantum mechanics and count (literally) the number of postulates of the formal theory.





One of his deductions is that electric charge is a motion that is added on top of the motion that constitutes a particle, hence his conclusion that electrons also exist in uncharged form. It is not a postulate falling out of the air.


Please explain in detail how this deduction works.







Please do not put words in my mouth.

Saying "the difference between charged and uncharged electrons are photons" is hand-waving.
And until Larson's supporters can come up with an actual explanation of what that means and experimental tests to distinguish the two, it will remain hand-waving.

I have to agree with you. Until a decisive experiment would show that electrons exist in two forms it is mere theory.


It is not even a theory, because of all the errors it contains, by your own admission.

When asked for actual experimental results supporting Larson's theory, RST supporters have been as bad as EU supporters (EU: "See? This press release about astrophysics says 'electric current', so it must be proof of EU"!; RST: "See? This press release about electrons says 'like light', so it must be in support of RST!")




Since according to RST protons also ... [SNIP!]


Please don't change the subject.







I would have expected that an engineer would not be limited to the fact that only hydrogen-like atoms can be solved analytically (at undergraduate level, by the way). There are other methods (mostly numerical) to obtain useful results.

Off course you are right. Larson's theory isn't necessarily simpler, but it allows to calculate some gross properties almost directly from the basic rotations that make up the atom(ic nucleus), e.g. inter-atomic distance, compressibility and some heat properties.


Please explain how these calculations work.







<< "In RST, the QM equations can be derived out of mathematics of motion in the 'time region'(the three dimensional temporal reference frame that is the reciprocal of the three dimensional spatial reference frame). The energy term in the Schroedinger equation is shown not to be the energy of an orbiting electron, but the energy of the atom itself." >>

The hydrogen-like atom is a two-body problem. Since you like Wikipedia, check this link (although you are supposed to have learned this in undergraduate engineering).

The Schroedinger equation that is usually quoted for hydrogen-like atoms, is the reduced form. And since the mass of the nucleus is so much larger than the mass of the electron, we are looking at the atom in the frame of reference where the nucleus is at rest.

...


Please address this point.







<< " ‘Quantum Mechanics’ as the Mechanics of the Time Region" >>

Just a couple of points about this link.

[SNIP!]

Please explain diffraction and interference effects of quantum particles.

The RST explanation is given here:


§5. Photon Wave.
[SNIP!]

The original article can be found here (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/SpinThoughts.html).


That is just more hand-waving, and it does not even address the experimental results obtained for all sorts of particles (from subatomic to molecules).








<< RST: "The so-called exclusion principle was originally promulgated by Wolfgang Pauli. This is an empirical law to which no exception was ever found. It has been a heuristic guiding rule for understanding many an important quantum phenomenon. In spite of its important role, the explanation of its origin has defied the theorists." >>

Utterly false.

The exclusion principle is a consequence of the indistinguishability of quantum particles.
This indistinguishability puts constraints of the wavefunctions of system of identical particles, resulting in the two quantum statistics: Fermi-Dirac statistics (of which the exclusion principle is a special case), for anti-symmetric wavefunctions; Bose-Einstein statistics for symmetric wavefunction.
The link between statistics and spin of a particle, is given by a theorem in relativistic quantum mechanics. [For example, follow this link. ]

...


Please address this point.








<< "The Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System" >>

One point about this link:

[SNIP!]

Sorry, but E = h f works only for a mass-less particle (or particles with linear dispersion), and E = mc^2 works only for a massive particle at rest.
Trying to combine these two together, and with De Broglie wavelength, like described in the link, is very naive and misguided.

This is just another example of how little RST proponents understand about the mainstream theories.

(And let's not forget that wave mechanics is only one way -- not the only way -- to formulate quantum mechanics.)

Yeah, I think this article by Nehru is misguided.


Doesn't it bother you that a quick glance at the RST website brings up so many problems in Larson's theory and misrepresentations of the mainstream theories?
This is supposed to be the result of thirty years of research!





The treatment of the Time Region in RST is complicated, a reason e.g. why Larson postponed quantitative treatment of spectroscopy. It could also be that Larson missed the inclusion of electron shells in his atom model. Something that now follows from analysis of the time region geometry. It is clear that the theory here is still immature..


Let me say that again: 30 years of research!





I think I will come back to the forum in another 50 years, when there is some more maturity in the theory (it was 50 years ago now that Larson published his first book on it).


Oh please! The first thing the RST proponents should do, is to actually learn about the mainstream theories, instead of quote mining and building strawmans.
It is unexcusable and unacceptable that Satz does not understand how energy in ideal electrostatic systems works, when undergraduate engineering students know that (see his pathetic "paper" on capacitor theory).

RST is not immature, it is pseudo-science.

[dgavin]

RST is not immature, it is pseudo-science.

I sort of reached the same conclusion when it supported charged and uncharged electrons. If what larson was saying was accurate about those, then there would be no hall effect devices.

[StevenO]

It didn't seem to be able to explain the 21 cm line of hydrogen, IIRC. In part, this is due to the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The QED prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment is one of the greatest predictions of modern physics. It matches observation to 10 significant figures. It's pretty much the gold standard. Is there any result from RST that can match that?
It can describe the operation of the universe as a consistent whole :)
I would'nt know any RST calculation that has 10 digit precision. Some mass calculations seem to be pretty accurate, but I would have to study that.

[StevenO]

So can we discount the claimed RST predictions of particle masses?
Not so fast. In RST there are also a few particles with intermediate status between the massless particles and full atoms, which might explain the heavier particles. Also, Larson claims that some particles might be cosmic molecules, giving rise to even more options for particle masses. Fact remains that I have unsufficient knowledge to make any convincing statement. Fact is also that the status of this topic in RST is no match for the maturity of e.g. QCD.


Yet that is something that drops out naturally from the much maligned (if you are a Larsonist) quark model.
Yes, but the question would compare to asking if the quark model predicts the magnetic rotation number of the cosmic atom in RST. Further study might reveal that some of the properties are indeed related.


This is exactly the problem that I indicated earlier. You have an equation with multiple free parameters. You then find the values of the free parameters that give the masses that are observed, and then claim this as a successful prediction. What you do not do is have a set of rules that say in advance what those free parameters should be. Let's take the following equation (that I have just made up.)

M = 100.a+10.b.+c MeV

where a, b, and c are integer values. Do you think that I could find values for a, b, and c that would give a good match to an arbitary particle mass? Perhaps not. :)
Your assumption is that it is an arbitrary formula, which it is'nt. The atom masses are not free parameters. But there are a lot of atom masses...

[StevenO]

Of course it matters, because RST proponents claim that Larson's theory is so much better than the mainstream.
Reading actual textbooks found in proper university library would help RST proponents to actually understand the mainstream theories and stop misrepresenting them, as they are doing now.
The charm of Larson's theory is that he claims to explain the process of the whole universe with one postulate. That it takes another few thousand debilitating pages without assistance of formula's, models or diagrams to read to appreciate a little why this is the case turns certain people into 'believers' instead of critical thinkers. Larson suffered from this himself. He might have found that his own atom model would allow to capture electrons in shells instead of deriding the mainstream explanation.

And doesn't it bother you that a unified theory of physics has so many problems, and is still so immature after thirty years?

Sure it bothers me. That's why I come here for critical review. I think proponents would have to focus on just one topic where they can show to provide better results than mainstream, otherwise the theory will keep the same status for the next 50 years. But..., how many thousands of manyears have been spend on string theory with how many results? Definitely more than on RST...

I see no comment about how Larson is undoing the unification of electrostatic and electrodynamic phenomena.
I'm not sure if I understand your remark. Larson states:

It is not feasible to isolate and examine the individual charged electrons in matter as we do in space, but we can recognize the presence of these particles by evidence of freely moving charges within the material aggregate. Aside from the special characteristics due to the electric charges, these charged electrons in matter have the same properties as the uncharged units. They travel readily through good conductors, less readily through poor conductors, are restrained by insulators, move in response to potential differences, and so on. In their various activities within aggregates of matter these charged electrons are known as static electricity.


Please open a textbook on quantum mechanics and count (literally) the number of postulates of the formal theory.
Can't be less than one :)

Please explain in detail how this deduction works.
The whole deduction in outline is given here: Deductive development (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/Larson/Outline.html).
Larson distinguishes basic forms of (scalar) motion, which he identifies with physics objects. E.g.

Thus far we have considered three general types of motion: unidirectional linear motion, unidirectional rotational motion, and vibratory linear motion. To complete the coverage in this respect we now turn to the fourth of the basic types: vibratory rotational motion. Such a rotational vibration, which is identical with the basic linear vibration except in direction, will be identified as a charge. Since the primary rotations of the atoms and other rotational combinations are either one-dimensional or two-dimensional it follows that the corresponding rotational vibrations are also one dimensional and two-dimensional respectively. A one-dimensional rotational vibration will be identified as an electric charge and a two-dimensional motion of the same character as a magnetic charge.

It is not even a theory, because of all the errors it contains, by your own admission.
I'm happy to have found the errors, it should help the theory forward or to conclusion.

When asked for actual experimental results supporting Larson's theory, RST supporters have been as bad as EU supporters (EU: "See? This press release about astrophysics says 'electric current', so it must be proof of EU"!; RST: "See? This press release about electrons says 'like light', so it must be in support of RST!")
There are no funded researchers working on this theory, that limits the possibilities for identifying positive facts. I can only bring it to the attention of people with critical judgement, limited by my own restricted understanding of the theory.

Please don't change the subject.
In RST this is no different subject. Since uncharged protons are not restricted to be inside matter they would be easier observed than uncharged electrons.

Please explain how these calculations work.
A description can be found here:Solid Cohesion (http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/01.html)I'm not capable of repeating this in my own words.


Please address this point.
I have to look this up.


That is just more hand-waving, and it does not even address the experimental results obtained for all sorts of particles (from subatomic to molecules).
I'm not sure what you refer to here.


Please address this point.
I cannot explain it any better than Nehru. In RST, since the contact between space and time in a motion can only be scalar, the transfer of motion from the time region to the space region is ruled by statistics.



Doesn't it bother you that a quick glance at the RST website brings up so many problems in Larson's theory and misrepresentations of the mainstream theories?
This is supposed to be the result of thirty years of research!
You're using hyperboles so you can quickly dismiss Larson's theory.



Let me say that again: 30 years of research!
Larson covered the whole of physics and astronomy in his work. There are no professional researchers of RST, it remains the hobby of some people. In light of that, 30 years does not look long to me. I think it deserves more than a quick dismissal since errors will be found in real reviews.

Larson shows that all physics constants can be expressed in dimensions of space and time. This has been independently concluded by other researchers as well. In light of that I think it is worthwhile to study the symmetry between space and time and the consequences of three dimensional time.



Oh please! The first thing the RST proponents should do, is to actually learn about the mainstream theories, instead of quote mining and building strawmans.
You are starting to repeat yourself.


It is unexcusable and unacceptable that Satz does not understand how energy in ideal electrostatic systems works, when undergraduate engineering students know that (see his pathetic "paper" on capacitor theory).
I agree that is a bad paper based on the mistakes of Larson.


RST is not immature, it is pseudo-science.
It is pseudo-science by any definition. RST can only be disproven since it claims to be a universal theory. Still, I think it has more potential than string theory as the next model of spacetime.

[Fortis]

Not so fast. In RST there are also a few particles with intermediate status between the massless particles and full atoms, which might explain the heavier particles. Also, Larson claims that some particles might be cosmic molecules, giving rise to even more options for particle masses.
Does this provide another free parameter? Remember all I have seen is the selection by finding those masses that most closely fit observed particles. No other criteria appears to have been applied.


Fact remains that I have unsufficient knowledge to make any convincing statement. Fact is also that the status of this topic in RST is no match for the maturity of e.g. QCD.

You wouldn't know that from the criticisms of the mainstream model that are presented on the various RST sites.


Yes, but the question would compare to asking if the quark model predicts the magnetic rotation number of the cosmic atom in RST. Further study might reveal that some of the properties are indeed related.

Don't we both agree on a property called "charge". You have mentioned this in the context of the electron. We may disagree on the origin of electric charge, but we bot accept that it is a measurable property. In that case, I am a little disappointed that RST can't match charges to the masses. Of course it is much easier to have an equation for mass that maps mass to a set of parameters, than to also have an equation that maps those parameters to charge as well. In other words RST appears to have a function, m(a,b,c), which generates masses. Values of a, b, c, are then derived so that the masses give a best fit to observed masses. This appears to be the only selection criteria applied to the parameters. What may have been far more convincing would have been if there existed an additional equation, Q(a,b,c), of the same parameters that predicted the corresponding charge (or spin, or lifetime, or whatever) of the parrticle.

Unless such a thing exists, the mass predictions do not provide any real support to for RST.


Your assumption is that it is an arbitrary formula, which it is'nt. The atom masses are not free parameters. But there are a lot of atom masses...
I'm not suggesting that the equation is arbitrary, or that the "atom" masses are free parameters. The free parameters are the quantities that feed into the mass equation to generate the masses. Is this a fair comment?

[StevenO]

I sort of reached the same conclusion when it supported charged and uncharged electrons. If what larson was saying was accurate about those, then there would be no hall effect devices.
Could you please explain that?

[Fortis]

It can describe the operation of the universe as a consistent whole :)

There are plenty of theories/models that make the same claim. I'm afraid that RST does not seem to be able to do that, however.

[Fortis]

Larson shows that all physics constants can be expressed in dimensions of space and time.
Do you have the expressions for the speed of light, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant G, and the fine-structure constant?

[StevenO]

Wow...I went from zero to 'senior member' in two weeks...everything I state now must be seen in the light of my seniority.:whistle:


Does this provide another free parameter? Remember all I have seen is the selection by finding those masses that most closely fit observed particles. No other criteria appears to have been applied.
It is not a free parameter but I doubt it would give the mass of the charmed B meson. The process in RST will be really different since everything in RST is units of motion and there are rules for transforming one motion into another, including many rules that are only pertained by statistics.


You wouldn't know that from the criticisms of the mainstream model that are presented on the various RST sites.
A little enthusiasm gets you through the day :) For most people physics and astronomics theories sound like fairy tales, so they are only quick to embrace something they think they can understand. RST actually states that mostly they end up with the same formula's as mainstream, only the explanation of the very large, the very small and the very fast differs.



Don't we both agree on a property called "charge". You have mentioned this in the context of the electron. We may disagree on the origin of electric charge, but we bot accept that it is a measurable property. In that case, I am a little disappointed that RST can't match charges to the masses. Of course it is much easier to have an equation for mass that maps mass to a set of parameters, than to also have an equation that maps those parameters to charge as well. In other words RST appears to have a function, m(a,b,c), which generates masses. Values of a, b, c, are then derived so that the masses give a best fit to observed masses. This appears to be the only selection criteria applied to the parameters. What may have been far more convincing would have been if there existed an additional equation, Q(a,b,c), of the same parameters that predicted the corresponding charge (or spin, or lifetime, or whatever) of the parrticle.
Sure, but nobody has ever looked into that since RST do not consider this very interesting. Charge in RST can be electric charge (one dimensional) or magnetic charge(2D)


Unless such a thing exists, the mass predictions do not provide any real support to for RST.

I'm not suggesting that the equation is arbitrary, or that the "atom" masses are free parameters. The free parameters are the quantities that feed into the mass equation to generate the masses. Is this a fair comment?
Agreed.

[Fortis]

Wow...I went from zero to 'senior member' in two weeks...everything I state now must be seen in the light of my seniority.:whistle::)


It is not a free parameter but I doubt it would give the mass of the charmed B meson. The process in RST will be really different since everything in RST is units of motion and there are rules for transforming one motion into another, including many rules that are only pertained by statistics.

Where did these rules come from?


A little enthusiasm gets you through the day :) For most people physics and astronomics theories sound like fairy tales, so they are only quick to embrace something they think they can understand. RST actually states that mostly they end up with the same formula's as mainstream, only the explanation of the very large, the very small and the very fast differs.
Larsonists "state", but rarely seem to "show". Can they predict the atomic spectra of the hydrogen atom with any real accuracy, for example?


Sure, but nobody has ever looked into that since RST do not consider this very interesting. Charge in RST can be electric charge (one dimensional) or magnetic charge(2D)

My suspicion is that Larsonists just can't do it. I'm sure that if they thought that they could predict charge, then they would have been more than happy to publish it.

[StevenO]

There are plenty of theories/models that make the same claim. I'm afraid that RST does not seem to be able to do that, however.
You cannot make that judgement on basis of your limited assessment. Please read at least the Deductive Development (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/Larson/Outline.html)and point out what is inconsistent then. It is only a few pages.

[papageno]

Of course it matters, because RST proponents claim that Larson's theory is so much better than the mainstream.
Reading actual textbooks found in proper university library would help RST proponents to actually understand the mainstream theories and stop misrepresenting them, as they are doing now.

The charm of Larson's theory is that he claims to explain the process of the whole universe with one postulate.


Every crackpot claims that. This doesn't make Larson's ideas special.





That it takes another few thousand debilitating pages without assistance of formula's, models or diagrams to read to appreciate a little why this is the case turns certain people into 'believers' instead of critical thinkers.


A scientific theory does not require faith to be accepted.




Larson suffered from this himself. He might have found that his own atom model would allow to capture electrons in shells instead of deriding the mainstream explanation.


Let me correct that for you: "... instead of deriding the strawman he made of the mainstream explanation."








And doesn't it bother you that a unified theory of physics has so many problems, and is still so immature after thirty years?

Sure it bothers me. That's why I come here for critical review. I think proponents would have to focus on just one topic where they can show to provide better results than mainstream, otherwise the theory will keep the same status for the next 50 years.


No, the RST proponents should first learn and understand the mainstream explanation, before dismissing it.




But..., how many thousands of manyears have been spend on string theory with how many results? Definitely more than on RST...


What does string theory have to do with the validity of RST?







I see no comment about how Larson is undoing the unification of electrostatic and electrodynamic phenomena.

I'm not sure if I understand your remark. Larson states: [SNIP!]


Let me give you the context, which was lost:


StevenO: "In Larson's theory uncharged electrons are the carriers of electric current while charged electrons are responsible for electrostatic fields."

papageno: "Maxwell unified succesfully electrostatic, magnetostatic and electrodynamic phenomena at least 130 years ago. Maybe it's time for an update."

StevenO: "Larson does not claim to change Maxwell's laws."

papageno: "But he is separating the source of electrostatic fields and the source of electric current."

StevenO: " ... "

papageno: "I see no comment about how Larson is undoing the unification of electrostatic and electrodynamic phenomena."


Can you explain how RST "can describe the operation of the universe as a consistent whole", after separating what had been successfully unified?







Please open a textbook on quantum mechanics and count (literally) the number of postulates of the formal theory.

Can't be less than one


Please don't dodge the issue.







<< "One of his deductions is that electric charge is a motion that is added on top of the motion that constitutes a particle, hence his conclusion that electrons also exist in uncharged form. It is not a postulate falling out of the air." >>

Please explain in detail how this deduction works.

The whole deduction in outline is given here: Deductive development. [SNIP!]


What I see are assumptions:


C. We postulate that the universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions and in discrete units.

D. We define motion as the relation between two uniformly progressing reciprocal quantities, space and time.

That the progression is uniform is a postulate, because the definition of motion does not require uniformity.



6. The initial point of the progression of an individual unit of motion is zero. [SNIP!]

8. From the foregoing, any two physical locations are progressing outward from each other at unit speed; that is, their separation is increasing at the rate of one unit of space per unit of time.

11. We identify unit speed as the speed of light. [SNIP!]

Other three assumptions.



13. We identify the outward progression of the natural reference system relative to the stationary system of reference as the “expansion of the universe” reported by the astronomers. [SNIP!]

16. The continuity of the progression within the units enables the existence of another type of scalar motion of physical locations. This is a motion in which there is a continuous and uniform change from outward to inward and vice versa; that is, a simple harmonic motion. [SNIP!]

20. We identify such scalar motion combinations as photons. A system of photons is electromagnetic radiation. [SNIP!]

21. The outward movement of physical locations due to the motion of the natural reference system relative to the stationary spatial system carries with it not only the photons, but also any other physical entities that occupy such locations. [SNIP!]

More assumptions.

I stopped here because I got bored. That wall of text seems to have more assumptions than deductions. Where is the deduction you were talking about?








It is not even a theory, because of all the errors it contains, by your own admission.

I'm happy to have found the errors, it should help the theory forward or to conclusion.



When asked for actual experimental results supporting Larson's theory, RST supporters have been as bad as EU supporters (EU: "See? This press release about astrophysics says 'electric current', so it must be proof of EU"!; RST: "See? This press release about electrons says 'like light', so it must be in support of RST!")

There are no funded researchers working on this theory, that limits the possibilities for identifying positive facts.


Hogwash! A couple of weeks of unfunded critical review on this board, and we seem to have found more holes than the RST proponents in thirty years.





I can only bring it to the attention of people with critical judgement, limited by my own restricted understanding of the theory.


We have examined the documents on that website, and it seem that the problems in the RST theory is not due to your limited understanding of it.







<< "Since according to RST protons also ... [SNIP!]" >>

Please don't change the subject.

In RST this is no different subject.


Then why bring it up now?




Since uncharged protons are not restricted to be inside matter they would be easier observed than uncharged electrons.


Most of our modern technology relies on controlling electrons: what makes you think that we would not be able to observe these uncharged electrons, if they exist?

Also, we do plenty of experiments with protons and ions, so explain what experiment would enable us to distinguish charged and uncharged protons.







<< "Larson's theory isn't necessarily simpler, but it allows to calculate some gross properties" [SNIP!]>>
Please explain how these calculations work.

A description can be found here:Solid Cohesion I'm not capable of repeating this in my own words.


That page does not describe a calculation: Larson has a formula with free parameters, which he chooses based on the result he he wants. There is no rigorous method to choose those parameters.
It is basically numerology (as Fortis has already noted), not science.

Also most of the wall of text seems to be rants against the mainstream theories, which is badly misrepresented.







<< "The energy term in the Schroedinger equation is shown not to be the energy of an orbiting electron, but the energy of the atom itself."

The Schroedinger equation that is usually quoted for hydrogen-like atoms, is the reduced form. And since the mass of the nucleus is so much larger than the mass of the electron, we are looking at the atom in the frame of reference where the nucleus is at rest.>>

Please address this point.

I cannot explain it any better than Nehru. In RST, since the contact between space and time in a motion can only be scalar, the transfer of motion from the time region to the space region is ruled by statistics.


This has nothing to do with my point: RST proponents misrepresent again the mainstream theories, by saying that the energy in the Schroedinger equation is not the energy of the whole atom.








<< Please explain diffraction and interference effects of quantum particles.

"The original article can be found here (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/SpinThoughts.html)." >>

That is just more hand-waving, and it does not even address the experimental results obtained for all sorts of particles (from subatomic to molecules).

I'm not sure what you refer to here.


The page you linked, specifically talks about particles interacting with themselves.

Typical experiments testing quantum mechanics, include double slit interference of single particles. There has been a boatload of experiments involving different particles (photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, alpha particles, for example) and molecules, whose results are in agreement with quantum mechanics.

Diffraction and interference are observed in all sorts of experiments involving quantum particles, both in vacuum and in condensed matter. If RST proponents cannot address the relevant experimental results, they have no business criticizing mainstream theories.








<< The exclusion principle is a consequence of the indistinguishability of quantum particles. >>

Please address this point.

I have to look this up.


Yes, please check for yourself how badly RST proponents misrepresent the mainstream theories.









Doesn't it bother you that a quick glance at the RST website brings up so many problems in Larson's theory and misrepresentations of the mainstream theories?
This is supposed to be the result of thirty years of research!

You're using hyperboles so you can quickly dismiss Larson's theory.


No, I have examined the writings of RST proponents, and found them well below scientific standards.
Thirty years is not an hyperbole: their journal dates back to the early 80s, at least.

And reading all the strawmans RST proponents build of mainstream theories, it appears that they are the ones quickly dismissing the mainstream explanations.

But please tell me, what research have you done before dismissing mainstream theories and accepting Larson's ideas?







Let me say that again: 30 years of research!

Larson covered the whole of physics and astronomy in his work.


But he actually did not, because he left out a lot of experimental results.





There are no professional researchers of RST, it remains the hobby of some people.


That might be because professional researcher have the competence and the experience to realize that RST is a "not-even-wrong" theory.
How do you know that Larson's has not been examined by professional researchers and found to be a dead-end, just like it is happening on this board?






In light of that, 30 years does not look long to me. I think it deserves more than a quick dismissal since errors will be found in real reviews.


What quick dismissal? Errors have been found in a quick review.






Larson shows that all physics constants can be expressed in dimensions of space and time. This has been independently concluded by other researchers as well. In light of that I think it is worthwhile to study the symmetry between space and time and the consequences of three dimensional time.


No, Larson and RST proponents are doing numerology and algebraic contorsionism. And this is a conclusion based on the examination of their writings.








Oh please! The first thing the RST proponents should do, is to actually learn about the mainstream theories, instead of quote mining and building strawmans.

You are starting to repeat yourself.


It's a point worth repeating.
If RST proponents cannot be bothered to inform themselves correctly on the mainstream theories, then they are not in a position to claim that RST has been too quickly dismissed and mainstream explanations are wrong and nonsense.







It is unexcusable and unacceptable that Satz does not understand how energy in ideal electrostatic systems works, when undergraduate engineering students know that (see his pathetic "paper" on capacitor theory).

I agree that is a bad paper based on the mistakes of Larson.


Considering how many bad writings there are on that website, it appears that RST proponents utterly lack quality in their publications.
How do they expect to be taken seriously?







RST is not immature, it is pseudo-science.

It is pseudo-science by any definition. RST can only be disproven since it claims to be a universal theory.


It is not even a scientific theory, because it lacks a rigorous method to make predictions.





Still, I think it has more potential than string theory as the next model of spacetime.


What research have you done on both the RST and string theory to determine that RST is a more viable candidate?

[Fortis]

You cannot make that judgement on basis of your limited assessment. Please read at least the Deductive Development (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/Larson/Outline.html)and point out what is inconsistent then. It is only a few pages.
We know that it gets things wrong, e.g. deflection of light by massive bodies. We have the problem with the uncharged electrons. It appears unable to generate more than one property at a time for a material/object/particle, etc. I see no evidence that it can have any explanatory power for multi-electron atoms. According to Larson, the Newtonian version of gravity is correct, and GR is wrong. Larson himself claimed that the only test taht stands up to any scrutiny is the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Thus he ignores gravitational redshift, gravitational lensing, decay of the orbits of binary pulsars, the Shapiro effect, and lastly, without the theory of GR there would be no GPS. To be fair, he died before some of these tests were available, but that is no excuse for the Larsonists.

I could go on. :)

[dgavin]

Could you please explain that?

Yes. the Hall Effect in semi conductors, is produced by a magnetic field, perpendicular to the current flow, alterting how the current flows through the semi conductor itself.

The magnetic field reacts with the electrons bound in the semiconductor meterial, causing any current flow to instead of taking the shortest direct path, to take a curved path through the material. The known formulas for hall effect computations only work, if every electron in the material has a charge. Always.

If some electrons had no charge as specified by some conditions in Larson's theory, then a magnetic field would not alter the path of current flow in a semi conductor at the currently demonstrated values of the Hall Effect. Infact there might not even be a hall effect in some cases.

[StevenO]

We know that it gets things wrong, e.g. deflection of light by massive bodies. We have the problem with the uncharged electrons. It appears unable to generate more than one property at a time for a material/object/particle, etc. I see no evidence that it can have any explanatory power for multi-electron atoms. According to Larson, the Newtonian version of gravity is correct, and GR is wrong. Larson himself claimed that the only test taht stands up to any scrutiny is the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Thus he ignores gravitational redshift, gravitational lensing, decay of the orbits of binary pulsars, the Shapiro effect, and lastly, without the theory of GR there would be no GPS. To be fair, he died before some of these tests were available, but that is no excuse for the Larsonists.

I could go on. :)
Well, it is clear you did'nt bother to read the Deductive Development of the theory then. The rest of the list is no convincing evidence for me to dismiss the theory.
- Deflection of light:
is off by a constant factor that can be due to a misunderstanding between Nehru's and Larson's explanations. No conclusion for me yet.
- Uncharged electrons:
there is no disproof of them
- It appears unable to generate more than one property at a time for a material/object/particle, etc..
Not sure what you mean here...but according to RST most of the particle zoo is irrelevant, so don't expect much developments in that area.
- I see no evidence that it can have any explanatory power for multi-electron atoms.
Here you have a point. According to Larson atomic properties all come from what classic theory labels the nucleus. More recent studies in RST however show that the atom is also able to capture electrons in shells.
- According to Larson, the Newtonian version of gravity is correct, and GR is wrong.
It is clear that you did'nt read Larson's explanation of gravity.
- Thus he ignores gravitational redshift, gravitational lensing, decay of the orbits of binary pulsars, the Shapiro effect, and lastly, without the theory of GR there would be no GPS.
These effects are all in RST, but we have'nt discussed that yet and I wonder if we will get that far...

[dgavin]

- Uncharged electrons:
there is no disproof of them


Uncharged Electrons (?)


Supported by:



Not supported by:

Particle collision experiments for past 2 decades. Electrons and Positrons show up in collider detectors by the paths they take through the magnetic fields. Neutral particles by the paths that are not effected by magnetic fields. There has been no detection, ever, of either a Neutral electron or Positron in collision experiments they always exhibit a charge.

Hall Effect of electrical currents through semi conductors in presence of a magnetic field (as explained earlier).

Quantum Electrodynamics (as explained far earlier)

Nuclear and Matter/anti matter reactions. An electron and positron annihilate completely into two gamma rays. A Neutral particle is always it's own anti-particle, and does not annihilate with another particle of the same kind. Temporary charges to Neutral particles would not effect this. If electrons were neutral except when they absorb a photon, there would be no positron anti-particle, just oppositely Temporarily charged Neutrals that would not annihilate, but just lose the charge when interacting.


Sorry, there is just to much science thats validated that contradicts any concept of an uncharged electron.

[Tensor]

- Thus he ignores gravitational redshift, gravitational lensing, decay of the orbits of binary pulsars, the Shapiro effect, and lastly, without the theory of GR there would be no GPS.
These effects are all in RST, but we have'nt discussed that yet and I wonder if we will get that far...

This is what I've been waiting for. But I didn't want to jump in just yet, seeing all the problems RST is having with the small side of things.

[papageno]

Well, it is clear you did'nt bother to read the Deductive Development of the theory then.

Throwing stones from a glass house...




The rest of the list is no convincing evidence for me to dismiss the theory.
- Deflection of light:
is off by a constant factor that can be due to a misunderstanding between Nehru's and Larson's explanations. No conclusion for me yet.

Misunderstandings would not happen if the explanations were something more substantial than vague hand-waving.




- Uncharged electrons:
there is no disproof of them

There is no disproof of invisible dwarf pink unicorns under my desk either...




- It appears unable to generate more than one property at a time for a material/object/particle, etc..
Not sure what you mean here...but according to RST most of the particle zoo is irrelevant, so don't expect much developments in that area.

We are not expecting any development in any area, because RST proponents behave more like a religious cult than a scientific research enterprise (see Satz's demotion of three members of ISUS because they dared proposing their own ideas, instead of accepting blindly Larson's gospel).




- I see no evidence that it can have any explanatory power for multi-electron atoms.
Here you have a point. According to Larson atomic properties all come from what classic theory labels the nucleus. More recent studies in RST however show that the atom is also able to capture electrons in shells.

Studies?




- According to Larson, the Newtonian version of gravity is correct, and GR is wrong.
It is clear that you did'nt read Larson's explanation of gravity.

Throwing stones from a glass house...




- Thus he ignores gravitational redshift, gravitational lensing, decay of the orbits of binary pulsars, the Shapiro effect, and lastly, without the theory of GR there would be no GPS.
These effects are all in RST, but we have'nt discussed that yet and I wonder if we will get that far...

How can we discuss it with you, if you are limited to copy and paste, and to saying "you clearly have not read ..."?

[Fortis]

- According to Larson, the Newtonian version of gravity is correct, and GR is wrong.
It is clear that you did'nt read Larson's explanation of gravity.
On this page (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bn/part05.htm) Larson writes


The gravitational theory derived from the postulates of the Reciprocal System is Newton’s gravitational law. The detailed development of this theory shows that the objections that have been lodged against Newton’s Law by modern investigators are based on erroneous conclusions, and that his gravitational equation is actually valid throughout the universe, precisely and with no exceptions.

[Fortis]

- Deflection of light:
is off by a constant factor that can be due to a misunderstanding between Nehru's and Larson's explanations. No conclusion for me yet.
I had asked if you could identify the error in the short derivation of the deflection (applying RST) that led to the erroneous pre-factor. IIRC you weren't able to identify it.

While looking for evidence that there was some sort of disagreement by Larsonists on this topic, I came across this post (http://forum.rstheory.org/viewtopic.php?p=5053&sid=9d4eb421ca5649bebec2baee00604637) by yourself. This was the only thing I could find that suggested that the 3/Pi was not the correct Larsonist solution. Can you point to any other place where someone has indicated a "misunderstanding"?

[StevenO]

Uncharged Electrons (?)


Supported by:



Not supported by:

Particle collision experiments for past 2 decades. Electrons and Positrons show up in collider detectors by the paths they take through the magnetic fields. Neutral particles by the paths that are not effected by magnetic fields. There has been no detection, ever, of either a Neutral electron or Positron in collision experiments they always exhibit a charge.
As explained earlier only charged electrons can move through space.


Hall Effect of electrical currents through semi conductors in presence of a magnetic field (as explained earlier).
That's a point taken.


Quantum Electrodynamics (as explained far earlier)

Nuclear and Matter/anti matter reactions. An electron and positron annihilate completely into two gamma rays. A Neutral particle is always it's own anti-particle, and does not annihilate with another particle of the same kind. Temporary charges to Neutral particles would not effect this. If electrons were neutral except when they absorb a photon, there would be no positron anti-particle, just oppositely Temporarily charged Neutrals that would not annihilate, but just lose the charge when interacting.
In RST a neutral particle is not equal to it's own anti-particle, but there is always conservation of motion. The anti-particle is the particle with its motions inverted wrt. to the lightspeed reference.


Sorry, there is just to much science thats validated that contradicts any concept of an uncharged electron.
That's an unjustified conclusion. Uncharged electrons in matter will have wave properties, just like the QM explanation.

[StevenO]

This is what I've been waiting for. But I didn't want to jump in just yet, seeing all the problems RST is having with the small side of things.
I was referring to the fact that we will not get to discussing those topics on this forum seen all the eagerness to dismiss RST. That's too bad since I think the astronomical implications of RST are the most interesting ones to discuss.

[StevenO]

- According to Larson, the Newtonian version of gravity is correct, and GR is wrong.
It is clear that you did'nt read Larson's explanation of gravity.

On this page Larson writes



The gravitational theory derived from the postulates of the Reciprocal System is Newton’s gravitational law. The detailed development of this theory shows that the objections that have been lodged against Newton’s Law by modern investigators are based on erroneous conclusions, and that his gravitational equation is actually valid throughout the universe, precisely and with no exceptions.
My apologies. Did'nt realize Larson stated that explicitly. But I was referring to the fact that Larson describes a mechanism for gravity, while Newton does'nt.

[dgavin]

As explained earlier only charged electrons can move through space.

I'm no physisist, but I have trouble a lot of trouble with this. Mainly it means the uncharged state is undetectable. However even if this state was undetectable there are interactions in a collider that would allow for them to be inferred.


That's a point taken.

There are other formulars of similar ilk in electronics, that are based on all electrons having a charge. This is just the most obvious one where uncharged electrons would mean our formulaa at current; would be wrong, as the hall effect would operate slightly different if there were uncharged electrons in materials.

In RST a neutral particle is not equal to it's own anti-particle, but there is always conservation of motion. The anti-particle is the particle with its motions inverted wrt. to the lightspeed reference.

Hmmmm...i think there is an issue here, but let me think on it.

That's an unjustified conclusion. Uncharged electrons in matter will have wave properties, just like the QM explanation.

Even if you throw out everything but the hall effect issue, that one alone is extremely good driect evidence that electrons always have a charge.

I think i'll stand by my conclusuon unless you have some evidence or mesurment examples of uncharged states?

[Nereid]

I now like to post some material from RST as a precursor to details on type II supernova's and quasars. [...]
(bold added)

Any idea when you will be presenting the "details on type II supernova's and quasars"?

As I count it, this thread has only a little over a week left before it is automatically closed.

[Fortis]

- It appears unable to generate more than one property at a time for a material/object/particle, etc..
Not sure what you mean here...but according to RST most of the particle zoo is irrelevant, so don't expect much developments in that area.
Is that akin to refusing to look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter? What is observed daily on many accelerators is irrelevant? Surely you must be interested in explaining the various aspects of the physical world?

Anyway, if you noticed, my question used the compound term "material/object/particle etc." Let's give an example of the sort of thing that I was talking about. Can RST simultaneously derive the bond length of an H2+ ion (i.e. partially ionised) and the ionisation energy required to remove the last electron?

As I have said before, RST frequently appears to provide tools to generate properties for far more materials than we ever observe, and "success" is then claimed by combing through this long list to find those that give some level of match to real materials.

[Tensor]

But I was referring to the fact that Larson describes a mechanism for gravity, while Newton does'nt.

So? Either way, they're both wrong. Newton's laws are very good approximations, but they are still not fully correct.

[Fortis]

StevenO, what is the definition of current?

[StevenO]

(bold added)

Any idea when you will be presenting the "details on type II supernova's and quasars"?

As I count it, this thread has only a little over a week left before it is automatically closed.
Unfortunately I have litte time this weekend, but I hope to post something comprehensive tomorrow.

[StevenO]

StevenO, what is the definition of current?
Identical to the mainstream definition, delta charge/delta time. In RST it is introduced as:


The electron motion itself will be identified as an electric current.

Inasmuch as each electron is essentially a unit of space, the movement of these electrons in conductors constitutes motion of space through matter. The magnitude of the motion is measured by the number of electrons per unit of time; that is, units of space per unit of time. But this is the definition of velocity; hence the electric current is a velocity. From a mathematical standpoint it is immaterial whether a mass is moving through space or space is moving through the mass.
Larson makes a distinction between electric quantity (#electrons) and electric charge (#charges) but that has been identified as a dimensional mistake.

[Fortis]

Identical to the mainstream definition, delta charge/delta time. In RST it is introduced as:
So how can un-charged electrons be related to electric current?

[StevenO]

Is that akin to refusing to look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter? What is observed daily on many accelerators is irrelevant? Surely you must be interested in explaining the various aspects of the physical world?

Anyway, if you noticed, my question used the compound term "material/object/particle etc." Let's give an example of the sort of thing that I was talking about. Can RST simultaneously derive the bond length of an H2+ ion (i.e. partially ionised) and the ionisation energy required to remove the last electron?

As I have said before, RST frequently appears to provide tools to generate properties for far more materials than we ever observe, and "success" is then claimed by combing through this long list to find those that give some level of match to real materials.
Sure I like to look through a telescope, but not from the wrong end :)

Bonding theory in RST is not described through electrons. In RST solid cohesion is given by the fact that when atoms approach eachother within one unit of space, they can only effectively move in time. This movement in time reverses the force of gravitation and the natural outward progression and through this creates an equilibrium condition.

This bonding distance is not number manipulation as it apparantly appears to you, but quite straightforward to calculate from the atomic rotation properties (which are given for an element). The formula's are given here: Inter-atomic distance. (http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/05.html)

Larson has not developed electron capture/ionization theories for his atom model. Only recently RST adopts have realized that electron capture is likely in Larson's atom model. However, the quantum states are still given by the atom (which mainstream would identify with the nucleus) itself.

Seen the undeveloped state of this in RST I cannot give you a calculation of ionization energy.

[Fortis]

Sure I like to look through a telescope, but not from the wrong end :)

Bonding theory in RST is not described through electrons. In RST solid cohesion is given by the fact that when atoms approach eachother within one unit of space, they can only effectively move in time. This movement in time reverses the force of gravitation and the natural outward progression and through this creates an equilibrium condition.

This bonding distance not number manipulation as it appears to you, but quite straightforward to calculate from the atomic rotation properties (which are given for an element). The formula's are given here:
Inter-atomic distance. (http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/05.html)

Larson has not developed electron capture/ionization theories for his atom model. Only recently RST adopts have realized that electron capture is likely in Larson's atom model. However, the quantum states are still given by the atom (which mainstream would identify with the nucleus) itself.

Seen the undeveloped state of this in RST I cannot give you a calculation of ionization energy.
So am I correct in saying that RST is currently unable to predict two (or more) measurable properties of a material?

[StevenO]

So how can un-charged electrons be related to electric current?
I filled in the charge part myself. Larson would have called it 'electric quantity'.
Charge has the dimension of "space" (as has also been derived by other people than Larson). An electron is also a (rotating) unit of space in RST. Dimensionally it all comes down to space/time which is equal to velocity.

[StevenO]

So am I correct in saying that RST is currently unable to predict two (or more) measurable properties of a material?No, sofar what has been calculated is:

Inter-atomic distance
http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/05.html
Magnetic properties of materials
http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/29.html
Radioactive reactions
http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/31.html
Compressibility
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/04.html
Heat relations
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/05.html
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/07.html
Thermal expansion
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/08.html
Electrical resistances
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/10.html
Thermoelectric properties
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/11.html

and some more if you are interested.

[StevenO]

So? Either way, they're both wrong. Newton's laws are very good approximations, but they are still not fully correct.
The relativistic 'corrections' also follow from RST through the effects of high speed motion. But in RST the gravitational force is always proportional to M1M2/r2

[Tensor]

The relativistic 'corrections' also follow from RST through the effects of high speed motion. But in RST the gravitational force is always proportional to M1M2/r2

From post 220, with Fortis' quote of Larson, with your answer. With my bold:


Larson][/b]
The gravitational theory derived from the postulates of the Reciprocal System is Newton’s gravitational law. The detailed development of this theory shows that the objections that have been lodged against Newton’s Law by modern investigators are based on erroneous conclusions, and that his gravitational equation is actually valid throughout the universe, precisely and with no exceptions.My apologies. Did'nt realize Larson stated that explicitly. But I was referring to the fact that Larson describes a mechanism for gravity, while Newton does'nt.

You can't have it both ways. Either Newton's Gravitational Laws are valid with no exceptions, as Larson states, or there are corrections.

As for those claimed relativistic corrections, in post 17 the equation listed as the corresponding formula from GR (equation 9) is nowhere near the equation used to determine the precession of Mercury's Orbit. I have no idea what it represents (although it looks somewhat similar to Kepler's third law.).

If you want to see the actual equation used for polar coordinates with a Schwartzchild metric, try here (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm)and scroll about halfway down. I defy you to find any equation on that website that even comes close to what Larson claims is the GR equation used to calculate the precession of Mercury's orbit.

I notice that Larson doesn't mention anything about what metric is used in the GR equations, nor does he discuss the power expansion of the GR equations, which leads me to believe he has about the same amount of knowledge of mainstream gravitational theories as he does of mainstream particle theories. While the Schwartchild Metric is good enough for Mercury's precession, you would need the Kerr or Kerr-Newman metric for the calculations of the binary pulsars.

Another thing about post 17, if Equation 8 or 10 are the ones used in RST to calculate the precession, they are both wrong, since they don't match the actual GR equations. Feel free to provide the actual calculations from RST to show RST can match the GR predictions.

[absolutely]

From post 220, with Fortis' quote of Larson, with your answer. With my bold:


You can't have it both ways. Either Newton's Gravitational Laws are valid with no exceptions, as Larson states, or there are corrections.

As for those claimed relativistic corrections, in post 17 the equation listed as the corresponding formula from GR (equation 9) is nowhere near the equation used to determine the precession of Mercury's Orbit. I have no idea what it represents (although it looks somewhat similar to Kepler's third law.).



Actually I wouldn't quibble with it. See Norbert Straumann, General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics equations 3.1.11 and 3.3.7 if you are interested.

[Fortis]

Thank you. Let's see what we have.

No, sofar what has been calculated is:

Inter-atomic distance
http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/05.html

This page provides values for some of the noble gases.


Magnetic properties of materials
http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/29.html

This covers a bunch of organic molecules (not noted for being related to noble gases.)


Radioactive reactions
http://library.rstheory.org/books/spu/31.html

There are no quantitative predictions here, and the only commonality with what has gone before is that it does mention helium, a noble gas. On the other hand, helium was explicitly excluded from the treatment described in your first link.


Compressibility
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/04.html

Looking at table 14, the key things are the "a, z, y" factors. I cannot find any formal linkage between these numbers and any of the other numbers previously assigned to atoms, etc.

I'll look at the others shortly.

[papageno]

Let's give an example of the sort of thing that I was talking about. Can RST simultaneously derive the bond length of an H2+ ion (i.e. partially ionised) and the ionisation energy required to remove the last electron?


I would like to elaborate on this, while waiting for StevenO to finally reply to my latest posts.

In mainstream physics one can characterize the electric properties of a metal at a certain temperature by giving two numbers: the electron density and the mobility.
Mainstream theories yield formulas to derive from these two numbers physical quantities of interest. For example, if we have the electron density and mobility of copper at a certain temperature, we can calculate the resistivity, the thermal conductivity, the thermopower (coefficient for the Seebeck effect).
We can make a table listing these quantities for a series of metals.

Now, in the case of RST, I have not seen such a table. For example, if copper is characterized by the three numbers 1-2-3, I have not seen a table listing the derived physical properties such as resistivity and thermal conductivity.
RST always seem to derive a single physical quantity from a set of number characterizing a material.

[StevenO]

Looking at table 14, the key things are the "a, z, y" factors. I cannot find any formal linkage between these numbers and any of the other numbers previously assigned to atoms, etc.

These numbers are related to the statistics concerning the orientation of atoms wrt. to eachother, depending on the rotational numbers that describe the atom.

Larson explains these numbers here:

As this equation brings out, the internal pressure, P0, is the key factor in the compression of solids. Inasmuch as this pressure is a result of the progression of the natural reference system which, in the time region, is carrying the atoms inward in opposition to their rotational forces (gravitation), the inward force acts only on two dimensions (an area), and the magnitude of the pressure therefore depends on the orientation of the atom with respect to the line of the progression. As indicated in connection with the derivation of the inter-regional ratio, there are 156.44 possible positions of a displacement unit in the time region, of which a fraction az represents the area subjected to pressure, a and z being the effective displacements in the active dimensions. The letter symbols a, b, and c, are used as indicated in Chapter 10, Volume I. The displacement z is either the electric displacement c or the second magnetic displacement b, depending on the orientation of the atom.



The 3 number set that descibes an atom is given here:

Geometrical considerations indicate that two photons can rotate around the same central point without interference if the rotational speeds are the same, thus forming a double unit. The nature of this combination can be illustrated by two cardboard disks interpenetrated along a common diameter C. The diameter A perpendicular to C in disk a represents one linear oscillation, and the disk a is the figure generated by a one-dimensional rotation of this oscillation around an axis B perpendicular to both A and C. Rotation of a second linear oscillation, represented by the diameter B. around axis A generates the disk b. It is then evident that disk a may be given a second rotation around axis A, and disk b may be given a second rotation around axis B without interference at any point, as long as the rotational speeds are equal.
<...>
To facilitate a description of these objects we will utilize a notation in the form a-b-c, where c is the speed displacement of the one-dimensional reverse rotation, and a and b are the displacements in the two dimensions of the basic two-dimensional rotation. Later in the development we will find that the one-dimensional rotation is connected with electrical phenomena, and the two-dimensional rotation is similarly connected with magnetic phenomena. In dealing with the atomic and particle rotations it will be convenient to use the terms “electric” and “magnetic” instead of “one-dimensional” and “two-dimensional” respectively, except in those cases where it is desired to lay special emphasis on the number of dimensions involved. It should be understood, however, that designation of these rotations as electric and magnetic does not indicate the presence of any electric or magnetic forces in the structures now being described. This terminology has been adopted because it not only serves our present purposes, but also sets the stage for the introduction of electric and magnetic phenomena in a later phase of the development.


I think this also answers Papageno's question on these numbers.

[Fortis]

No, sofar what has been calculated is:
.
.
.
Electrical resistances
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/10.html
.
.
.
and some more if you are interested.
This covers the critical temperature at which the element becomes superconductiing.
Let's look at the predictions, Larson's claimed observations and actual observed:



Element Larson Pred (K) Larson Obs (K) Actual Obs (K)
Li 56 56 20 K @48GPa (Not sup. cond. @ amb. pres)
Na 24 30 Not superconducting
Mg 48 45 Not superconducting
Al 56 57-60 1.2
K 16 17 Not superconducting
Sc 40 33 0.05
Ti 56 54 0.40
V 48 45 5.4
Cr 56 69 Not superconducting
Fe 63 74 Not superconducting


I have just gone through the first ten in Larson's list. These are not cherry-picked to find the worst examples. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what these numbers are supposed to be, but I am more than un-impressed. What are Larson's "observed" values? They appear to have no relation to reality.

[StevenO]

Larson has not developed electron capture/ionization theories for his atom model. Only recently RST adopts have realized that electron capture is likely in Larson's atom model. However, the quantum states are still given by the atom (which mainstream would identify with the nucleus) itself.
I have to update this with Larson's own description why no electron capture is needed in atoms: uncharged electrons are continuously captured and emitted by material similar to photons.

As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally different concept of the nature of electrical resistance. The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment. It was brought out in Volume I that there are physical processes in operation which produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in many cases. absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are limited. It follows that there is always a large excess of free electrons in the material sector of the universe, most of which are uncharged. In this uncharged state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, and the relation of space to space is not motion. In open space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently in the same location with respect to the natural reference system, in the manner of a photon. In the context of the stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by the progression of the natural reference system. All material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation. Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, whereby electrons are returned to the environment. The electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level.

[StevenO]

This covers the critical temperature at which the element becomes superconductiing.
<snip>
I have just gone through the first ten in Larson's list. These are not cherry-picked to find the worst examples. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what these numbers are supposed to be, but I am more than un-impressed. What are Larson's "observed" values? They appear to have no relation to reality.
Larson is referring to a theoretical value here: the point where the resistance vs. temperature graph would cross the zero line. He is not talking about superconductivity. That is a phenomenom not discussed by Larson, but later discussed by other RST researchers, as here: Superconductivity, A Time Region Phenomenom (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/Superconductivity.html)

[StevenO]

I had a hard time cherry picking the Larson chapters on astronomical phenomena related to high speed motions. I decided to link to the chapters directly.

Most important thing to understand is that all the effects are related to motions above lightspeed.


The application of the Reciprocal System of theory to this problem merely accomplishes something that was long overdue in any event: a reevaluation and reconstruction of the entire theory of extremely dense aggregates in the light of the increased amount of information that is now available. This theoretical development shows that the extremely high density results, in all cases, from the same cause: component speeds exceeding the speed of light, unit speed in the universe of motion. All of the stars with extremely high density, regardless of whether we observe them as white dwarfs, novae, pulsars, x-ray emitters, or unidentified sources of radio emission, are identically the same kind of objects, differing only in their speeds and in the current stage of their radioactivity. Quasars are objects of the same nature, in which the extremely fast-moving components are stars rather than atoms and particles.

So, best is to start first with some intro on limits and high-speed motion effects:

Limits (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/14.html)
The Intermediate Regions (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/15.html)

Then read about the Type II supernova's. These are caused by stars reaching an ionization limit due to an irreversible absorption of neutrino's over their lifetime. They die of 'old age'. As such it can happen to any type of star.

Type II Supernova's (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/16.html)

Pulsars are one of the remainders of type II supernova's, like white dwarves are one of the remainders of type 1A supernova's.
Pulsars (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/17.html)

Some more information on peculiar radiative processes, eg. line spectra instead of continuous spectra and the other way around. Sources of X-ray radiation.
Radiative Processes (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/18.html)
X-ray Emission (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/19.html)

[Nereid]

I had a hard time cherry picking the Larson chapters on astronomical phenomena related to high speed motions. I decided to link to the chapters directly.

Most important thing to understand is that all the effects are related to motions above lightspeed.



So, best is to start first with some intro on limits and high-speed motion effects:

Limits (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/14.html)
The Intermediate Regions (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/15.html)

Then read about the Type II supernova's. These are caused by stars reaching an ionization limit due to an irreversible absorption of neutrino's over their lifetime. They die of 'old age'. As such it can happen to any type of star.

Type II Supernova's (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/16.html)

Pulsars are one of the remainders of type II supernova's, like white dwarves are one of the remainders of type 1A supernova's.
Pulsars (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/17.html)

Some more information on peculiar radiative processes, eg. line spectra instead of continuous spectra and the other way around. Sources of X-ray radiation.
Radiative Processes (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/18.html)
X-ray Emission (http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/19.html)
I skimmed some of this material, and will take a more detailed look later.

However, I found nothing - yes, nothing at all! - on what - quantitatively - the SEDs and spectra of quasars should be, according to Larson (as derived from his ATM ideas). Nor did I find anything on what - quantitatively - the variability by time should be (in any particular waveband, or line variability, or ...). Nor did I find ... (you get the idea).

For avoidance of doubt, all of this, or some of it, may well be there (but I didn't find it, in my quick skim).

Can you help please, SteveO? Where - specifically - are quantitative predictions presented? And by predictions I mean that which is potentially observable, by astronomical instruments in use today (whether here on Earth or in space).

[Fortis]

Larson is referring to a theoretical value here: the point where the resistance vs. temperature graph would cross the zero line. He is not talking about superconductivity. That is a phenomenom not discussed by Larson, but later discussed by other RST researchers, as here: Superconductivity, A Time Region Phenomenom (http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/Superconductivity.html)
O.K. Let's take silver, Ag, as an example.

Looking up the values (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/rstiv.html) for it's resistivity and temperature coefficient, we find the following:
at 20°C
resistivity = 1.59x10-8 Ohm.m
temp coeff = 0.0061 K-1

If we are not talking about a temperature when the resistance really is equal to zero (or my original comments about the superconductiong critical point still stands), you must be talking about what happens if you extrapolate back the curve of resistivity assuming a linear fit at RTP. To do this we need to know the gradient at 20°C. We can determine this from the definition of the temperature coefficient, i.e.

dR/R = alpha.dT

or, rearranging,

dR/dT = alpha.R

Plugging in the values from above,

dR/dT = 0.0061x1.59x10-8 = 9.70x10-11 Ohm.m.K-1

If we are fitting a straight line, R = a.T + b, at this point that means that

a = 9.70x10-11 Ohm.m.K-1

at 293.15 K (i.e. 20°C), R = 1.59x10-8 Ohm.m, so rearranging for b, we find that

b = 1.59x10-8 - 9.70x10-11 x 293.15 = -1.25x10-8 Ohm.m

So now we know the values for a and b, we can determine the temperature value for which R=0.

T(R=0) = -b/a = 129 K

Notice how this doesn't equal Larson's claimed observation of 28-35 K, or his theoretical prediction of 32 K.

Another approach would be to solve the differential equation for resistivity properly, but then resistivity would never equal zero, so that can't be correct.

Hmmmm. Can you show us how Larson obtained his "observed" values for the zero resistance temperature?

[StevenO]

I skimmed some of this material, and will take a more detailed look later.

However, I found nothing - yes, nothing at all! - on what - quantitatively - the SEDs and spectra of quasars should be, according to Larson (as derived from his ATM ideas). Nor did I find anything on what - quantitatively - the variability by time should be (in any particular waveband, or line variability, or ...). Nor did I find ... (you get the idea).

For avoidance of doubt, all of this, or some of it, may well be there (but I didn't find it, in my quick skim).

Can you help please, SteveO? Where - specifically - are quantitative predictions presented? And by predictions I mean that which is potentially observable, by astronomical instruments in use today (whether here on Earth or in space).
One prediction that could be verified is about anomalous line or continuous spectra. In his chapter about the Intermediate Velocity Regions Larson describes:


The same situation prevails in the intermediate region, if it is viewed in terms of inverse speeds and temperatures. When expressed in terms of the speeds and temperatures of the low speed region, the relations in the intermediate region are inverse. The radiation at speeds just above unity comes from atoms that are still in the gaseous state, and are moving freely in time. This radiation, like that in the corresponding range on the lower side of the unit level, has a line spectrum. As the speed increases still further, the intensity of the radiation decreases, just as it does at speeds farther from unity in the low speed region. At a critical level of inverse temperature and pressure the atom drops into the space region, the region inside unit time; that is, the aggregate of these atoms condenses into the inverse solid state. The optical radiation from this region, likes that from the time region where ordinary solids are located, has a continuous spectrum.


So intermediate speed(>c in one dimension) material has an inverted line spectrum and ultra high speed(>c in two dimensions) material a continuous spectrum. A prediction that comes back in his review of the Crab Nebula supernova remnant. First:


This nebula consists of two physically distinct components, “one is an amorphous distribution of gas… and the other is a chaotic network of filaments.” In the center of the nebula there is a dwarf star of the Type II class, the nature and characteristics of which will be discussed in the next chapter. The presence of a star of this type definitely identifies the nebula as a product of a Type II supernova large enough to produce maximum speeds in the ultra high range.

then:

There is also a problem in connection with the so-called “amorphous” component of the nebula. It must consist in part of the low speed products of the supernova explosion, but the properties of this component do not resemble those of a hot gas and dust mixture. In fact, even though it is identified as a “gas,” its spectrum is continuous, like that of a solid. This seeming anomaly gives us the clue that points the way to an explanation of the observations. An explosion that is powerful enough to give some of its products speeds in the ultra high range also accelerates other portions of its products to speeds just below the ultra high level; that is, the upper part of the intermediate range. These intermediate products are moving in time only, and have no capability of independent motion in space, but most of them are entrained in the moving components. Those that mix with the low speed matter are carried along until the particles individually drop out of the stream. This settling out process begins immediately after ejection. The outward motion of the products of the Crab supernova has therefore left the volume of the nebula filled with scattered particles of intermediate speed matter concentrated toward the center, rather than toward the periphery, as in the shell structures that are typical of supernova remnants in general.

As we saw in our examination of the theoretical aspects of the upper range speeds in the preceding chapter, particles moving with speeds in the upper portion of the intermediate speed range radiate in the same manner as those in the lower portion of the range below unity; that is, with a continuous spectrum. The physical state of this material is the temporal equivalent of the solid state: a condition in which the atoms occupy fixed positions in three-dimensional time, and the emission is modified in the same manner as in the solid state. Here we have another concept that is totally foreign to conventional physical thought. For that reason it will undoubtedly be difficult for many persons to accept. But it is clearly the kind of a result that necessarily follows from the general reciprocal relation between space and time. The two speed ranges with continuum emission are symmetrically related with respect to the natural datum level: unit speed. Furthermore, the intermediate range continuum radiation is not limited to supernova remnants. We will meet the same kind of radiation from matter in the same temperature range later, under different circumstances.

The theoretical presentation in Chapter 15 also explains why the filaments, which are in a still higher speed range, have a line spectrum. As brought out there, motion in a second scalar dimension is incapable of representation in the conventional spatial reference system, but the elimination of the gravitational effect by this motion does cause an observable change of position in that system. This indirect result applies to the thermal motion as well as to the unidirectional translational motion previously considered, but in both cases the magnitude of the observed motion is subject to the limitations on the gravitational speed in one dimension; that is, it is confined to the range below unity. Thus, even though the speeds of the particles in the filaments are in the ultra high range, the observable thermal effect is in the low speed range, and the radiation that is produced has a line spectrum like that of an ordinary hot gas.

About missing a detailed quantative prediction Larson states:

It has not been possible to extend the present investigation to an analysis of the spectra of astronomical objects because of the amount of time that would be required for such an undertaking. Some aspects of these spectra that are of special significance in connection with the subjects under discussion will, however, be noted briefly as we proceed. In the case of the Crab Nebula much stress has been laid by the astronomers on two points: (1) that the radiation is non-thermal, and (2) that it is polarized. It will therefore be appropriate to point out that, according to our theoretical findings: (1) all radiation from objects with upper range speeds, except that generated by indirect processes such as the one explained in the preceding paragraph, is non-thermal, and (2) all such radiation is polarized as emitted. Where a lower polarization is observed, this is due to depolarizing effects during travel of the radiation. A three-dimensional distribution of radiation is impossible in a two-dimensional region

[StevenO]

Hmmmm. Can you show us how Larson obtained his "observed" values for the zero resistance temperature?

I think it is listed in the chapter as coming from:

18. Meaden, G. T., Electrical Resistance of Metals, Plenum Press, New York, 1965, p. 1.
19. Ibid., p. 22.
20. The resistance values are from Meaden, op. cit., supplemented by values from other compilations and original sources.

Wikipedia has the temperature coefficient of Silver listed as 0.0038 instead of 0.0061. Quick calculation would put the zero point at around 30K then instead of 129K.

[Fortis]

I think it is listed in the chapter as coming from:
Do you see my problem, though?

[StevenO]

We are not expecting any development in any area, because RST proponents behave more like a religious cult than a scientific research enterprise (see Satz's demotion of three members of ISUS because they dared proposing their own ideas, instead of accepting blindly Larson's gospel).

Studies?

Throwing stones from a glass house...

How can we discuss it with you, if you are limited to copy and paste, and to saying "you clearly have not read ..."?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get out of this discussion. For sure, the RST proponents are a very small collection of amateurs with all that comes with that. But I'm happy that at least some people are looking into the theory. For me the theory is an embodiment of my personal conclusion that space and time cannot be separated. Whether it is a good ToE, no single person is able to judge that, I think.

[papageno]

I think this also answers Papageno's question on these numbers.

No, hand-waving does not answer my question.
I want to see a table of physical properties for materials, where one single set of RST numbers is attributed to one material, and the properties are derived through a set of formulas from those numbers.

Now, posts #209 and #215 are still waiting.

[Fortis]

For me the theory is an embodiment of my personal conclusion that space and time cannot be separated.
This is exactly what you would find in the Special Theory of Relativity, and the General Theory of Relativity.