'Time' by Robert F Schuyler

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
Jameela
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 am
Location: Lancashire, England
Contact:

'Time' by Robert F Schuyler

Post by Jameela »

I have been reading my second-hand copy of “Time” by Robert F Schuyler (as recommended by Joseph Hyde).
It is most interesting, similar in many ways to Larson, but quite different in other respects. I do think his ideas are inspired, but he writes from the perspective of 3D Time fitting into orthodox physics. He describes 3D time as our normal time which is 90 degrees to all 3 spatial directions, plus rotating ‘time planes’ at 90 degrees to that, or i^2 from the spatial. He explains positive charge as being time planes in the near past, and negative charge as being time planes in the near future!
Anyway, I just noticed that Amazon is now selling a few new discount copies at $2.99 plus postage! ...An interesting alternative take on the same 3D Time!

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Robert-F-Sch ... 1434991156
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Similar to RS2

Post by bperet »

That is quite in line with RS2 theory, where 3D time is 90-degrees out of phase with 3D space, and the cosmic sector is the basis of the aether... a solid excavated by rotating, temporal planes.
Every dogma has its day...
Jameela
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:35 am
Location: Lancashire, England
Contact:

Subtle differences

Post by Jameela »

He says "normal time" is 90 degrees out of phase to the 3 spatial dimensions, and the rotating "time planes" are an additional 90 degrees to "normal time", so that makes 180 degree phase shift between spatial dimensions and the rotating time planes: that is (i^2) or (-1) phase difference. He also says this results in a helical or cycloidal path for any atomic particle, the trace path of which, time wise, can also be expressed as a volume!
It is a heavy book, much the same as Larson's, my comments are only a very brief review.
Post Reply