Vibratory physics: the Research of John Worrell Keely's
John Ernst Worrell Keely was a 19th century researcher whom developed a system now known as "vibratory physics". It is based on music theory, representing atomic structures as notes and chords in music. But what most people miss is that the "note" is a rational number... a ratio that is a subdivision of an octave (the ratio of 1:2). Larson's Reciprocal System is also based on ratios for its various atomic and subatomic structures, except Larson refers to them as "motions", not "notes", and "multi-dimensional motion" instead of "chords".
But therein lies and interesting "key" to applying Keely's ideas to the Reciprocal System in the area of the distributed scalar motions, which is what I did in the "Forces and Force Fields" topic in the main discussion forum. In connecting the two theories, it becomes apparent that Larson's theory is based on the "local" view of discrete, quantized objects, and Keely's on the "non-local" view of fields, waves and distributed motions.
There are many similarities and differences in the two systems. By taking a look at them, additional information may be obtained. For example, Larson has two scalar directions, inward and outward. But Keely has three "modes" of interaction in his vibratory system: sympathy, harmony and discordance. I used the sympathy and discord modes in new interpretation of dielectric and magnetic fields; sympathy produces outward motion and discord produces inward motion. The "harmonic" mode falls into play during the interaction of dielectric and magnetic fields, which is known in electronics as "resonance".
Dale Pond has a substantial amount of Keely's works on his site, http://www.svpvril.com/. Keely predates Larson by about 70 years, so when reading his material, one must keep in mind that it's a 19th century mindset and assumptions; not a whole lot of conventional physics was known then (which, IMHO, is a good thing, as his research did not try to force-fit into an existing framework).
I don't understand music theory well; it would be interesting to get an RS student, who is also a musician, to take a look at his theories and see what correlations can be drawn, particularly from his diagrams which detail the notes (motions) and chords (compound and interacting motions).
Gopi
Sun, 10/25/2009 - 10:01
Permalink
An important point with
An important point with respect to Gyroscopes that hit me was the fact that the gyroscope that was hung from the ceiling and was rotating, in Eric laithwaite's videos, was rotating with two radii, but it was transforming continuously from one radius to the other, and more importantly, there are only two radii physically possible, as the gyroscope can either point towards or away from gravity while precessing, but in no other direction. Then I saw what the locus of the center of the gyroscope was, as it executed that motion... it was a double spiral, vortex or Anu! The radius first decreases, as the gyroscope precesses upwards, then decreases as the gyroscope precesses downwards.
Here is an excerpt from a book by Laithwaite:
One further point about liquid vortices. Schwenk points out that a splinter of wood circling within a water vortex will always be oriented in the direction in which it first entered the vortex. In this it resembles the free gyroscope which will maintain its axis of spin in space to coordinates thaat can only be drawn with reference to the fixed stars that have not moved in the history of man.
It is interesting to note that it is this property of the gyroscope which facilitates its common use in navigation systems. It appears we are still "going by the stars"!
BE the change that you want to see in the world.