Gravity and Spin

[kevin.b]

Natecull,
Because of the complexity, I adopted K.I.S.S.
To keep it simple ( perhaps even be correct?)
I fixed all mass.
Then I simply transferred what I detect in 2d slices across the surface, and think that outwards.
Its the fixed geometry, and fluid flowing substance/s that I detect.

If you think out the fixed patterns, you get a stunning series of asymmetry points.
Flowing in all directions , but with a dominant overall direction is a fluid STUFF that is always been drawn towards each fixed point, but interefered by all other neighbouring points .
The points have a kind of strength value dependent upon the number of construction lines permeating them.
Thus the stronger points attract more stuff, each of the strong points spawn smaller points out from them geometrically, and those smaller points also spawn smaller points about themselves.
Does that sound familier?

Thus the flows are influenced in a certain dominant direction and are constantly variable due to the flows actually been more spiral and from alternate edges of spheres and circulations around each point, not in just centre to centre linear fashions.
Thats keeping it simple stupid, which is still mindblowing?

Then I envisage looking along the flows, and been given an illusion of movement of the mass, when it's actually the stuff moving.
Go with the flows?
kevin

[Mikado14]

Bulwark,

The best example of precession would be to take a 4" high speed right angle grinder and hold it in your right hand and turn it on. If you move it, you will feel a force attempting to counter the torque of your hand turning the grinder. Generally speaking, the torque applied is perpendicular to the rotation. Look towards the gryoscope or a top, they both resist any torque perpendicular to the axis of spin. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies, relating spin to orbit. An object that spins does so on its own axis, whereas something that orbits circles (rotates) about a center.

As to your question in regard to a spherical orbit, an orbit is circular or elipsoid, the only remote way you could apply the word spherical is to observe the orbit of an electron which would appear as if it were spherical.

I will repeat for your benefit again, "centrifrugal" is an apparent force that does not exist to use it only shows a misunderstanding of the forces involved.

I apologize for jumping in.

Mikado

[natecull]

Thanks, Mikado. What I was trying to say in a nutshell.

If I can be clearer about what I was thinking:

* Spin is a 1D or 2D (perhaps two-and-a-half-D) phenomenon - it exerts a 'force' (centrifugal, hence a pseudoforce of inertia resisting acceleration) outwards around an axis of of rotation, forming a plane (if we look at the end of the axis head-on) or a cylinder (if we look at it side-on). The spin is mediated by the attractional force to the centre (centripetal) which keeps the spinning object structurally intact. There are weird side effects like torque and precession, generating a force at right angles to both the spin and another rotation.

* Gravity however is a truly 3D phenomenon - it exerts an inwards force around a centre of mass in a sphere. The force appears to be mediated by space itself in some as-yet-unclear way. There appear to be no torque-like effects; the force is unchanged under rotation and seems the same from all directions. And of course it operates roughly in the reverse way to spin, pulling inwards rather than pushing outwards.

* Yet there remain strange reports from people like Otis Carr and John Keely and Eric Laithwaite and some of the more mystical folks like Walter Russell who assert, in various degrees of obfuscation, that spin and gravity are somehow very closely linked; and that somehow ordinary spin can generate shaped gravity-like fields, or conversely that ordinary gravity can somehow be blocked or redirected by spin.

* Since rotating a 3D object is linked to one of the dimensions it's embedded in (as the axis), and gravity does not appear at first look to exhibit this sort of axis-linking, is it conceivable that the '3D' force of gravity is a reflection of a higher-dimensional analogue of rotation?

* If we, for instance, rotated a 4D body around the 'time' axis rather than one of the space ones, what might we get? I'm not good at visualising hyperspheres so I'm guessing; maybe an object which constantly turned itself inside out, generating a constant inflow towards its centre?

A little bit of playing with http://www.hyperdimensia.com/ suggests that no, it's probably not nearly that simple, but hey, that's still a fun website. As is its parent http://www.gravitywaves.com/

[Bulwark]

Bulwark,

The best example of precession would be to take a 4" high speed right angle grinder and hold it in your right hand and turn it on. If you move it, you will feel a force attempting to counter the torque of your hand turning the grinder. Generally speaking, the torque applied is perpendicular to the rotation. Look towards the gryoscope or a top, they both resist any torque perpendicular to the axis of spin. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies, relating spin to orbit. An object that spins does so on its own axis, whereas something that orbits circles (rotates) about a center.

I do a bit of welding and I know exactly what your talking about. It always reminded me of playing with a gyroscope as a kid. Always thought of it as centrifical force but I suppose not now, lol. But they still call them centrifcal clutches, got me one on a mini bike and it even works even though it is misnamed.

As to your question in regard to a spherical orbit, an orbit is circular or elipsoid, the only remote way you could apply the word spherical is to observe the orbit of an electron which would appear as if it were spherical.

I so believe I either read somethng about that or saw a picture. The electron orbit is so fast that if we could see it, it would appear as if it were solid. I can visualize that.

I will repeat for your benefit again, "centrifrugal" is an apparent force that does not exist to use it only shows a misunderstanding of the forces involved.

Like I said, my mini bike works just fine - centripetal, centrical, centrifugal - like Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name. Chris's interpretation - A clutch by any other name works just as well.

I apologize for jumping in.

Not needed, Thanks!

Bulwark (Chris)

[Bulwark]

Thanks, Mikado. What I was trying to say in a nutshell.

If I can be clearer about what I was thinking:

* Spin is a 1D or 2D (perhaps two-and-a-half-D) phenomenon - it exerts a 'force' (centrifugal, hence a pseudoforce of inertia resisting acceleration) outwards around an axis of of rotation, forming a plane (if we look at the end of the axis head-on) or a cylinder (if we look at it side-on). The spin is mediated by the attractional force to the centre (centripetal) which keeps the spinning object structurally intact. There are weird side effects like torque and precession, generating a force at right angles to both the spin and another rotation.

* Gravity however is a truly 3D phenomenon - it exerts an inwards force around a centre of mass in a sphere. The force appears to be mediated by space itself in some as-yet-unclear way. There appear to be no torque-like effects; the force is unchanged under rotation and seems the same from all directions. And of course it operates roughly in the reverse way to spin, pulling inwards rather than pushing outwards.

* Yet there remain strange reports from people like Otis Carr and John Keely and Eric Laithwaite and some of the more mystical folks like Walter Russell who assert, in various degrees of obfuscation, that spin and gravity are somehow very closely linked; and that somehow ordinary spin can generate shaped gravity-like fields, or conversely that ordinary gravity can somehow be blocked or redirected by spin.

* Since rotating a 3D object is linked to one of the dimensions it's embedded in (as the axis), and gravity does not appear at first look to exhibit this sort of axis-linking, is it conceivable that the '3D' force of gravity is a reflection of a higher-dimensional analogue of rotation?

* If we, for instance, rotated a 4D body around the 'time' axis rather than one of the space ones, what might we get? I'm not good at visualising hyperspheres so I'm guessing; maybe an object which constantly turned itself inside out, generating a constant inflow towards its centre?

A little bit of playing with http://www.hyperdimensia.com/ suggests that no, it's probably not nearly that simple, but hey, that's still a fun website. As is its parent http://www.gravitywaves.com/

Wow, I got to admit that your persistant. However, if I may interject here. What is your reference frame? In all your examples, you talk about spin, orbits etc but are you observing or are you the one orbiting? I have been following these posts and I must say, you are confusing. How can you have a half of a dimension? If an object is orbiting the earth for instance, it is a 3D object, it can be measured in a 3 co-ordinate system of x, y, and Z. Now all of a sudden you are looking at a spinning cylinder. I'm lost. I feel as though we are talking about a tree that grows apples and oranges.

You raise some valid questions somewhere in there. I went to the one link you have posted and I see where you are headed but something is amiss. I think I am going to retreat on this one.

I remember reading somewhere that man feels the need to mathematically explain the universe without really understanding how it works. Like an old teacher I had used to say, "Just because you read the definition doesn't mean you understand it." I think of that often.

Bulwark

Hi Longboard! At least it is above freezing up here. Suppose to hit the 50's today!

[natecull]

What is your reference frame? In all your examples, you talk about spin, orbits etc but are you observing or are you the one orbiting?

I'm not sure that it matters, but in these last examples, the reference frame is that of a non-rotating observer.

I have been following these posts and I must say, you are confusing.

How can you have a half of a dimension?

By imposing constraints on movement.

'2.5 D' is a term from computer graphics to describe an apparent '3D' model which does not have 'three degrees of freedom'. For example, in the Doom games, there is an apparent 3D view, but actually all action is taking place in a 2D map that has a floor and ceiling height; the player always looks straight ahead. The map has been 'extruded' (in computer graphics terms) from a 2D plane into a 3D solid; it sort of has a dimensionality midway between them. Neither quite a plane nor a cube. So, by analogy, something like rotation that takes place in a 3D world but imposes dimensional constraints on how motion works (effects like torque, etc) could be described as '2.5 D'. That probably wouldn't be the term a physicist would use, but a CGI programmer and a fractal geometrician would grasp the concept.

If an object is orbiting the earth for instance, it is a 3D object, it can be measured in a 3 co-ordinate system of x, y, and Z. Now all of a sudden you are looking at a spinning cylinder.

Yes. An axis is a line, right? If you trace the 'force field' of the centrifugal pseudoforce around that axis, looking only at points where the force is equal, you'll get a cylinder.

Hence why 'spinning space stations' using 'centrifugal gravity' are usually pictured as cylinders or toroids, not spheres.

[Mikado14]

What is your reference frame? In all your examples, you talk about spin, orbits etc but are you observing or are you the one orbiting?

I'm not sure that it matters, but in these last examples, the reference frame is that of a non-rotating observer.

It does matter, it matters very much but then here is your quote:

Look, this stuff is complicated, and if it's not clear, it's because I don't understand it myself.

If you understood what you were talking about you would have your answer to centrifugal force and your answer of a "non-rotating observer" proves it.

How can you have a half of a dimension?

By imposing constraints on movement.

'2.5 D' is a term from computer graphics to describe an apparent '3D' model which does not have 'three degrees of freedom'. For example, in the Doom games, there is an apparent 3D view, but actually all action is taking place in a 2D map that has a floor and ceiling height; the player always looks straight ahead. The map has been 'extruded' (in computer graphics terms) from a 2D plane into a 3D solid; it sort of has a dimensionality midway between them. Neither quite a plane nor a cube. So, by analogy, something like rotation that takes place in a 3D world but imposes dimensional constraints on how motion works (effects like torque, etc) could be described as '2.5 D'. That probably wouldn't be the term a physicist would use, but a CGI programmer and a fractal geometrician would grasp the concept.

My god, your talking a virtual world versus the real world. I actually thought you might come around but this is too much.

If an object is orbiting the earth for instance, it is a 3D object, it can be measured in a 3 co-ordinate system of x, y, and Z. Now all of a sudden you are looking at a spinning cylinder.

Yes. An axis is a line, right? If you trace the 'force field' of the centrifugal pseudoforce around that axis, looking only at points where the force is equal, you'll get a cylinder.

Hence why 'spinning space stations' using 'centrifugal gravity' are usually pictured as cylinders or toroids, not spheres.

Now you have an imaginary or virtual force creating a force field from the reference frame that is of a non-rotating observer.

At this point I am sure I am just some codgy old SOB who doesn't know his ass from shinola but what I do know is that the math works for if it didn't, you and I wouldn't be posting on here and the satellites in orbit would be flying off to chase after Voyager, the probe, not the fictional starship.

Mikado

PS: there is math for centrifugal force from the frame of reference of the observer being within the body orbiting. I was hoping that you would point that out to me but all my posts attempting to get you to do a little research for accuracy have failed.

[AM]

Mr. (Kevin) B., the following thoughts of yours still occupy my mind very much.

Hope it's OK to join in here? I cannot find a circle in nature. I do find very close to circles, but they are actually spirals.

And it is because of spirals that I consider spin origonates. If you visualise a ball rolling into a spiral pathway, the spiral decreases in diameter constantly until it reaches a point where the spiral will traverse out in the opposite direction and the ball will be then rolling in the opposite direction. The ball as it nears the spiral end point must become smaller and more dense, and spin faster and faster, when it reaches the end point it will momenterilly stop and then begin to spin in the opposite direction going out in the reverse way leading to a point where it constantly slows to a stop, and then begins to roll back into the centre point again.

If you think of time this way, it is going faster and faster, always just passing inside of where it was last circulation and is somewhat at a denser state, which relates to a different harmonic frequency rate. If you push in front of the ball an ever decreasing area, but the same volume , then the pressure will raise as well? Well well I am back to wells. Thats because of the spiral pathways that lead to the point where the well is sited, the push up into the point where the well is sited pushes the water level up to the surface in relation to the push downward at that point, in other words the meeting point of the two spirals is closer to the surface at that point, hence gravity is different at that point, because gravity is a consequence of the relationship and position of spiral pathways. Everything spirals. Waffling

kevin

Please do two things for me. First read the the following interesting words of Mr. Walter Russell.

5.4 - Vortices are born of motion and matter is concentrated vortices.

"Motion is an appearance born of the axis of a conceptive cone in inertia. It assumes the appearance of an expanding cone and disappears through radiation in equatorial opposition.

The universal machine is a gyroscopic top.

When it is in little motion, its form is a cone, like a top gyrating unsteadily on an eccentric axis.

When it is in great motion, it loses the altitude and eccentricity of its axis and becomes a gyroscope revolving steadily in one plane.

The generative attractive principle is the principle of contracting cones.

All mass is generated and regenerated by a contractive pressure exerted in the direction of its gravitative center. Its minimum of generative pressure is exerted from its equatorial plane and its maximum pressure from its pole.

The radiative repellent principle is the principle of expanding cones.

All mass is radiated and diffused by an expansive pressure exerted in the direction of its surface. Its minimum of radiative pressure is exerted from its pole and its maximum from its equatorial plane. "(Russell, The Universal One, Book 2, Chapter 7)

Do not forget to take a close look at the vortex-diagrams! Now, after you have finished with this, please concentrate on:

http://www.projectcamelot.net/utron_sm.gif

http://www.projectcamelot.net/specs1_lg.gif

http://www.projectcamelot.net/specs2_lg.gif

WHAT DO YOU THINK? ARE YOU HAVING THE SAME HUNCH AS ME?

AM

[kevin.b]

Am,
Not having much in the way of hunchs at the moment, except that I hate the tetra tower placed in the village where I live, evil basterds.

Sorry about the rant, I can feel the tetra pulses, it is all over this globe, why?
I can see what you are putting together, and Walter Russell really impresses me, I think he recieved a huge chunk of information.
I have been reading the http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/ theorises on spin and the aether, that looks good also.
Kevin

[Apollonius]

I just happened to remember my password and logged in first since 2005. Well I have been predicting quakes since about 1983 by application of principles apparently detected according to the papers supplied by William L. Moore an acquaintance of Thomas Townsend Brown in his Gravitator laboratory. I have also seen the work of Sandy Kidd in producing an antigravity device that utilizes gyroscopes probably taking advantage of forbidden angle principles, and spin spin works in relation to atomic mass complements now in a quake of course the Earth is rotating. Other planets are rotating. Not due to special minerals as studied by Brown in error but due to the Solar Wind all planets have polarity out to Jupiter and beyond there generate their own power independently. The Solar System is alive with criss crossing antigravity paths. So why just one part of the Earth quaking when we cross through a vortex of null antigravity as revealed by Brown? Why not the whole planet disintegrating? The spin spin antigravity acts as a distributor. Venus to Jupiter being each an ionic planet with sulphuric acid in the atmosphere the effect resonates more in ionic media such as seawater. Mercury and Mars are basaltic. Now the effect is into dry land such as in India. At parallel Mars can "push" the interactions by adding extra force to the exact same plane of rotation as for instance Mercury so instead of killing a few people like in a normal Venus/Mercury it kills a lot of people like in the 2004 December Tsunami. What happened in May 2008 is another example of the Mars push. If we consider that gravity augments transversely this gives us a clue to build tractor beams and so forth, the beam can be set to pull specific substances. Pudkletnov has set out in that direction and the Japanese are on the way to building the first tractor beams. You can get more on spin spin at Rexresearch.com and if you want my quake forecasts; caution real people real deaths. Bowel problems vomiting heart problems. Can you cope with the knowledge? Suppose you are one of us reptilian hybrid types and a few humans more or less..all data right? Good then as quakes kill people they get reported makes data sorting easy. However I have worked out the quakes up to January 2009 and have data for quakes up to 2012. It opens my bowels up knowing when the people will be dead on time. Consulates do nothing. People are skeptical until afterwards but on that basis I have had publication. Actually knowledge appears to be sexually stimulating and people on my publication site marry.
That takes you to www.groups.yahoo.com/group/interstellarrescue anyway I seem to be writing a long letter, why not look at the work of Naudin on improving the design of the electrokinetic apparatus as well as chasing up the Sandy Kidd design?

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Apollonius,

I thought that I recognized your name! Welcome back. All that good welcome wagon stuff that I suppose I have become known for here on the forum! How nice that you took the effort to find your password and log in again.

So what do you think so far? Have you been able to read the book Paul has put out yet? What do you think? I thought it might be interesting to hear your impression since you have been here actually since 2005!

You mention earthquake predicitions and that is sort of fascinating to me because I don't believe that Paul has mentioned Townsend Browns interest in that. So when did you run accross that information? Do you remember? If you can I would really like to hear more about the connection between William Moore and Townsend Brown ( in your understanding) and what you have called the " Gravitator Lab?"

I have to admit that you have lost me there on some of your discussion regarding Mars and the other planets but I have had my head pretty much buried in this story and haven't had time to go mentally in the directions that you have mentioned. And forgive me... when reptillians are mentioned ... I would just as soon stay clear <g>

And " Sandy Kidd" is new to me. Thanks for your links. I will do some studying. Welcome Back! Elizabeth

[FM No Static At All]

This seems appropriate for this particular subject and thread.

LETTER FROM HAROLD ASPDEN
Regarding Antigravity and Prof. Eric Laithwaite

I read your E-Mail message dated December 2 inviting news having bearing on antigravity. Hence this message which I am copying to Hal Fox and James Cox.

I have seen in this morning's U.K. newspaper: THE TIMES (Thursday, December 4, 1997, page 25) the obituary of Professor Eric Laithwaite, who died on November 27, aged 76.

Having followed his research with interest and visited him a while ago to discuss his findings and witness his demonstration of the loss of weight of a 50 lb. flywheel that he lifted effortlessly I thought I should draw your attention to some comments that were included in his obituary.

The obituary reminds us that, as a recipient of many crank letters when he was Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Imperial college in London, there was: One which caught his eye: in it an amateur inventor described a wheeled device which apparently contravened Newton's Third Law of Motion - it moved without any power to the wheels or any thrust. Intrigued, Laithwaite invited the inventor, Alex Jones, to Imperial College. The device Jones brought was a simple gyroscope and it moved forward on Laithwaite's bench with ease. "Alex showed me something I could not explain, so I just had to investigate it. It was sheer curiosity ...."

The obituary goes on to explain then how Laithwaite's efforts to show the weight loss of the gyroscopic devices he built were met with 'utter hostility'. He retired from Imperial College in 1981 pretty much in disgrace. But he never lost his fascination for gyroscopes. "None of my critics could ever explain to me how a 50 lb spinning wheel loses weight," he said. He teamed up with Bill Dawson, a fellow electrical engineer and businessman and spent the last years of his life experimenting with a variety of complex gyroscopic rigs, finally proving to his satisfaction that they could produce "mass transfer" - a brand of new thrustless propulsion system. In 1993 he applied for a patent on a gyroscopic space-drive. In September 1996, however, two NASA scientists arrived at his Sussex University laboratory, and his life went full circle. They were looking for a new way of getting spacecraft into earth orbit, and headed straight for the world expert. "I showed them all the magic of magnetic levitation," said Laithwaite happily, "and they gave me a contract." He was working on Maglifter when he collapsed.

The obituary published in THE TIMES is quite lengthy. Its opening paragraph adds a little more detail to the latter project: At the age of 76, at a time when many emeritus professors have long since hung up their gowns, Eric Laithwaite was happily working, like a schoolboy with a Meccano set, on the biggest project of his life - a huge working model of a futuristic rocket launcher. America's National Aeronautics and Space Administration had commissioned him to develop a concept worthy of Ian Fleming's Dr. No - a five-mile long track to be tunneled up the inside of a 10,000 ft. mountain, hurtling a space capsule through the summit into Earth orbit. The power was not to come from conventional rockets but from the love of Laithwaite's lift- linear motors.

Readers of this message who are interested in anomalous levitation phenomena will feel added sadness to hear that this great pioneer, Eric Laithwaite, has passed away. No doubt NASA will pursue that project regardless of this loss. For my part as a remote observer, I am reminded of my own brief meetings with Alex Jones and with Eric Laithwaite and am more than curious about that comment about "mass transfer". I recall that Laithwaite told me of research funding received from Prince Charles and used to build a machine involving gyroscopic devices set in two adjacent compartments. These were to be screened from one another in a physical sense, but arranged to allow the transfer through the physical screen of something associated with the spin of one gyroscopic device that could be detected by its effect on the other device. Here, my mind was on the possibility of the aether developing its own spin and being shed as a kind of 'thunderball' which could be moved through the wall separating those two compartments. If that machine, when eventually built and tested, did in fact exhibit such a phenomenon, then one can but be curious and wish to know more. As to that loss of weight by the 50 lb flywheel I also recall the time when Professor Salter of Edinburgh University, an expert of gyroscopes, was offered funding by British Aerospace to stage demonstrations testing devices that purport to lose weight, but the event, though planned, was cancelled. Laithwaite, I heard, had refused to go to Scotland to prove something that could be demonstrated so easily in his own university base in the South of England. All one needed to see was Laithwaite standing on a large weighing machine and doing his flywheel lift while one read the weight recorded. It was only years later that a television documentary on Laithwaite's gyroscopic activity, which included participation by the Alex Jones, was screened here in U.K. and it did include that weighing machine demonstration which proved the weight loss.

Such interest as I have in these matters is merged with my own pursuits that I am recording on my own Web pages on Internet at http://www.energyscience.co.uk and so I regret that I cannot add more to this note about Professor Laithwaite. Perhaps others will already have notified you of his death, but being here in U.K. it seemed appropriate for me to send you this message.

Harold Aspden
From: NEN, Vol. 5, No. 9, Jan. 1998, pp. 13-14. New Energy News (NEN) copyright 1998 by Fusion Information Center, Inc.
COPYING NOT ALLOWED without written permission.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

So sue me for giving you guys a plug!

[Rose]

Thank you, Fred. That was all new information for me!

I hope your hip is feeling better, but if the pain is chronic, "better" is a relative term. I have known people with joint problems who have had good effects from taking Velvet Dear Antler. It hasn't been universally effective, but if you haven't tried it, you may want to do so. I would say that if it's going to help, you will know within the first ten days or so.

rose

[FM No Static At All]

Thank you, Fred. That was all new information for me!

I hope your hip is feeling better, but if the pain is chronic, "better" is a relative term. I have known people with joint problems who have had good effects from taking Velvet Dear Antler. It hasn't been universally effective, but if you haven't tried it, you may want to do so. I would say that if it's going to help, you will know within the first ten days or so.

rose

First, That you for the good energy towards my ailing hip. I have had my left one replaced back in 1997 at Jefferson Hospital in Philly, and Now my right one is acting up. I was working full-time back then so I had medical coverage for the surgery. I don't know yet how I am going to handle the next one, but maybe I'll have an answer by late fall. Perhaps that is when a bunch of us will hook up in Philly for a TTB Convention.

And now (drum roll please) In Search of... The Higgs Bosun A Video Rap from CERN.
Rappin' about CERN's Large Hadron Collider!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3iryBLZCOQ
The sound should be slightly better on this version - we've tried to get round YouTube's new extreme audio dynamic range compression by layering a 20kHz sine wave over the top of the soundtrack.

Images came from:
particlephysics.ac.uk, space.com, the Institute of Physics, NASA, Symmetry, and Marvel

The talented dancers doubled as camera people, with some work by Neil Dixon. Stock footage is CERN's.

Will Barras is responsible for the killa beats:
http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~s9527813/

The rapper has a day job (we agree this is a good thing) as a science writer.
http://www.katemcalpine.com

Today is 08/08/08 The Opening of the China Summer Olympiad

[natecull]

Re the initial subject which launched this thread, been reading through Dewey B Larson and liking what I'm finding quite a bit. He's all about motion creating space, and rotation creating gravity (as an attractive scalar motion directed against the normal expansive spacetime flow). Whether it allows for any electrogravitic coupling at room temperature energy levels I don't know, but there's a raw simplicity about Reciprocal System Theory which really grabs me. It's like string theory but cut down to basics: everything is spacetime vibrations, which build into particles and atoms. Again that weird sense of deja vu - I know I've come across some of this material before. There are echoes of Russell, but the nice thing about Larson is that he's very precise and his theory apparently makes predictions of things like the periodic table and inter-atomic spacing from first principles. So it can be either right or wrong.

(Cf Russell's periodic table: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8989/russtbl.gif http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/wa ... table.html Not an exact match by any means, but there are certain recurring features in both Russell and Larson: reciprocality, elements expressed as a spiral/wheel, a single entity producing everything from photon/quantum to atom. )

Case in point: RST predicts 117 elements: http://www.lrcphysics.com/wheel , so according to it Lazar's 'element 115' does exist, even if Lazar's treatment of it might well be fiction. I believe classical physics predicts 115 as very short-lived. Not sure what RST predicts for its stability.

Also RST appears to predict four entities in the 'hydrogen band', three of which are 'subatomic'. This *might* have some correlation with Mills of Blacklight Power and his 'hydrinos'. Would love to compare Mills' Classical Quantum Mechanics with RST.

Another thing that tingles at me is the idea of 'charge-less electrons'. I've seen it before, heck if I know where. Now this theory may or may not be correct, it's certainly bold and at variance with the assumptions if not the predictions of a lot of physics, but I'm wondering if it has any application to electrostatics vs electrical circuits, and whether any of this cross-references with Brown's intuitive approach to electrostatics.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/nlst/nlst11.htm

The simplest rotating space unit is one that is formed by direct addition of one-dimensional rotational space displacement to the basic vibrating unit. As indicated on Chart B. the compound unit of motion thus derived in the theoretical RS universe is identified as an electron. It is not the kind of an electron that is observed as an individual particle in space, however, as the latter is electrically charged, whereas the theoretical particle, in its normal state, is uncharged.

...

However, the general acceptance of this theory that current electricity is simply static electricity in motion has been based on the discovery of points of similarity between the two phenomena, not on any plausible explanation of the observed points of difference. The behavior of static charges in motion is not the same as that of an electric current, and the behavior of a conductor raised to a high electric potential from a source of current is not the same as that of an object with a large static charge. For example, the inductive effects of a potential from a current source are very minor compared to those that would be experienced from an equivalent static charge. Then, again, the static charges repel each other and are therefore located on the surface of the charged object, whereas the direct relation of the conductivity of a conductor to its cross-sectional area indicates that no such effect is present in current electricity. This latter point is, in itself, strong evidence that the particles, which constitute the current, are not charged.

May be a red herring. Leaving it here as a flag. I'm looking for 'new math' to explain the hard way what intuitive experimentalists seem to have found for themselves. Larson's RST might be it, or at least part of it.