Brilliant Excal, very fine exposition of the possible upcoming change in the fundamental background of physics, as force a function of motion, where space/time is a reciprocal function of motion. In your RST part III, you write: This can be understood, I think, in the sense that even when a reference frame is at rest, say at v=0, the motion continues to exist as "space moving" so that any material quantity at "rest" is in fact already in motion. This is supported by the first and second postulates:

"The first fundamental postulate posits the existence of motion, as the sole constituent of the universe; ...the second postulate, that posits 'motion expressed in space' presents a conundrum, similar to the one we see arising from the conflict of GR and QFT: how do we describe motion in space, when space is defined as an aspect of motion?"

One way out of this conundrum was to simply make space's "motion" (which must have some vectorial direction) as a directionless scalar. At least, this is how I understand it so far. Time as a reciprocal of motion can then be defined as dt = ds/v, which is the same as ds = v*dt; however what is unclear to me, is time now a fixed unit of measure, or can it be a variable as per SR? The choice of "time" units of measure may then affect how we see symmetries in physics, since using time as a unit of measure in space and scalar motion would change the symmetries, I should think.

This problem of symmetries derived from "time as a reciprocal of space/motion" may also have its equivalence in the "conservation law of energy". This is how I see it, and perhaps this could be understood as radiation electromagnetic energy conserved within parameters of its scalar motion of space. In effect, if the Energy Conservation Law is incomplete, meaning it is missing some component to make it whole and totally symmetrical, then there may be a reciprocal form of energy that is (perhaps) gravitational in nature, which is also part of the conserved total. This would mean total Energy is both as an electromagnetic wave and something in gravity (of which we are still ignorant) to give us the fully conserved value. We know both are responsible for motion, both act as a force, and yet in today's fundamental background of physics they are essentially divorced from each other. At present, this is the reason we had not reconciled the two to date. Yet, if Larson's system could show that motion resulting from gravitational force is related to scalar "motion" of moving space, then we should be one step closer towards a system where radiant energy and gravitational energy are two aspects of the same motion. Is this sensible, or am I simply saying it all wrong?

Thanks for bringing up Larson's alternative Reciprocal System of Physical Theory, Excal. I just hope I didn't botch it up (am assuming I did!) too much, trying to explain what I may not yet really understand. I'll read the math next... Still reading...

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer