Yin-Yang

bperet's picture
Submitted by bperet on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 22:33

Yin-Yang: the Gender of Motion

In the Reciprocal System, motion is composed of two aspects: space and time, which are inseparable—you cannot have space without time, nor time without space. Larson calls the ratio of the two, “motion.”1

The inseparable pairing of opposites is not an unfamiliar concept. Eastern philosophies have long accepted the idea of the yin-yang, a pairing of the feminine and masculine principles. That which is yin is feminine, curved, rotational, smooth or cold. That which is yang is masculine, straight, linear, rough or hot. These philosophies accept that opposites can only exist in relation to each other. The uniform motions discussed next have similar characteristics, so one can draw a correspondence between yin-yang and uniform motion: linear motion is yang; rotational motion is yin.

However, the yin-yang concept differs in one, important aspect from Larson's space-time: the aspects have gender… yin and yang are “opposites” in the truest sense, embodying the concepts of additive inverses, multiplicative inverses and conjugates. Larson's Reciprocal System was limited to linear motion (the yang aspect). It was Prof. K.V.K. Nehru's work on birotation2 that represented the yin aspect of the Reciprocal System.3

Larson's and Nehru's research merge into RS2, as the best of both worlds. This includes the gender distinction by defining a reciprocal relation that Larson never considered: the geometric reciprocal of the linear, Euclidean geometry being polar, Euclidean geometry. Motion, in RS2, has aspects of yin and yang that can manifest as either space or time, depending on the observer perspective. What is meant by this, is that the observer often determines what is yin and what is yang in the field of observation, just as one would determine what is “right” and what is “left” depending on where you are standing.4

In the case of our everyday existence, we see the coordinate system of space as yang, extending linearly outwards from us towards infinity. Time, as used in the context of the Reciprocal System (not clock time) is yin, but typically only observable at the atomic level, once we cross the unit boundary out of space and into the time region of atomic rotation. From our conventional reference, space is yang and time is yin.

However, if you were born in the Cosmic sector, the sector of the Universe where time is 3-dimensional with “clock space,” you would argue that point, saying that time is yang and space is yin, based on the way they behave. Time would have the linear, coordinate system extending around the Cosmic observer, while atoms would have a “space region” of rotational, atomic systems.

To avoid this confusion with the terms “space” and “time,” RS2 uses the term “yang” to represent the linear, translational aspects of motion and “yin” to represent the polar, rotational aspects of motion, because that correlation is consistent in all frames of observation.

1 Larson originally called it “space-time,” rather than “motion,” but that became ambiguous when he started referring to space-time, time-space, space region, time region and other permutations of space and time. He selected the generic term “motion” to represent this reciprocal pairing of space and time that should not be confused with “something moving”—it's just the label he used to represent a ratio of space to time.

2 See:
K.V.K. Nehru, “On the Nature of Rotation and Birotation,” Reciprocity XX, № 1 (Spring, 1991);
K.V.K. Nehru, “Birotation and the Doubts of Thomas,” Reciprocity XXI, № 1 (Spring, 1992);
K.V.K. Nehru, “The Photon as Birotation,” Reciprocity XXV, № 3 (Winter, 1996).

3 Nehru's “birotation” concept was never formally accepted by Larson, as it represented the yin/angular aspect of motion, which has no place in Larson's totally linear system. Yin was just as foreign to Larson as the concept of a Universe of Motion was to conventional scientists. Yet Nehru's birotation model was able to correct all the problems with Larson's photon model, still staying within the confines of a universe defined by motion.

4 During the ISUS Conference of 1996, Larry Denslow gave a presentation that included how motion is “observed” in multiple frames of reference… in a room full of people looking at a spinning object, no two may agree on the exact direction the object is spinning, but ALL will agree as to how fast it turns.