Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

dbundy
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by dbundy » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm

Horace wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:34 am
...but not your time !
The radius and circumference changes over the time of the observer, not of the observee. The observee cannot observe itself at a unit level.
Well, it's hard to see what you're driving at. It's not as if any observation could be made, of course. However, we can conceive of a changing radius of space (time), as the reciprocal, time (space), increases. I don't understand the time distinction being made here.
Horace wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:20 am
dbundy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:22 am
"However, this is not true with expansion/contraction motion, since the change is internal, self-referent."

That is were you go wrong - a self-reference does not exist in RST at one unit level. One unit of motion cannot observe itself - it needs another unit to do the observing.
Observation is only possible between two or more units and the temporal direction of the observer affects the perception of the spatial direction of the observee, too (and vice versa).
This means that e.g. spatial "expansion" can appear as "contraction" when viewed from a perspective of a second unit of motion in which the temporal aspect is opposite.
You've completely lost me here. What I'm saying is that, unlike the famous thought experiment of Newton's, where the water rising/falling in the rotating bucket is clear, but that it can't be legitimately ascribed to the motion of rotation, unless said rotation is relative to absolute space (or the fixed stars as Mach argued), the expansion/contraction needs no such external reference. An observer (if such a one were possible) would easily detect the motion directly. There is no need for a concept such as absolute space or fixed stars to define it. It is simply a change in size. :|

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by Horace » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:03 pm

dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
Well, it's hard to see what you're driving at. It's not as if any observation could be made, of course.
I am driving at a very important issue.
At least you seem to realize that no observation can be made of one unit of motion (UoM) by itself. That means, we are getting somewhere with this.
The immediate corollary of this realization is that all observations within the RST universe require another unit of motion to act as an observer.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
I don't understand the time distinction being made here.
The distinction is between ΔT1 and ΔT2.
The former is the time experienced by the observee and the latter is the the time experienced by the observer... or if you prefer: "observee's temporal reference" and "observer's temporal reference", respectively.

Since the observer is observing the observee, the observer perceives the motion of the observee in its own temporal reference (the observer's reference). I like to call it the "egotistical reference".

If the time aspect of the observer had the opposite sign, the motion of the observee would appear opposite to the observer, too.
In god's math notation: +ΔS1 | +ΔT1 observed by +ΔS2 | +ΔT2 ⇔ -ΔS1 | -ΔT1 observed by -ΔS2 | -ΔT2.
...the same isomorphicity in god's shorthand notation would be: +|+ obs.by +|+ ⇔ -|- obs.by -|-

...below are more cases of isomorphisms in god's shorthand notation:
+|+ obs.by +|+ ⇔ -|- obs.by -|- ⇔ -|+ obs.by -|+ ⇔ +|- obs.by +|- :(non-reversing)
+|+ obs.by -|+ ⇔ -|- obs.by +|- ⇔ -|+ obs.by +|+ ⇔ +|- obs.by -|- :(reversing)

there are two times more cases in which the roles of the observer and observee are reversed.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
However, we can conceive of a changing radius of space (time), as the reciprocal, time (space), increases.
You just wrote of a changing magnitude of observee's space (such as radius) as the reciprocal aspect of observee's motion increases, but that would mean that one UoM can observe itself in isolation. This is in contradiction to your own words several paragraphs above: "It's not as if any observation could be made, of course".

If you really meant it, than it should be obvious to you, that when an observation cannot be made, then no properties nor relationships nor conclusions can be drawn from this impossible non-observation. This includes all statements to the effect of a spatial or temporal aspect expanding or contracting in absolute terms (on 1 UoM basis in isolation).
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
You've completely lost me here. What I'm saying is that, unlike the famous thought experiment of Newton's, where the water rising/falling in the rotating bucket is clear, but that it can't be legitimately ascribed to the motion of rotation, unless said rotation is relative to absolute space (or the fixed stars as Mach argued),
Because I am not discussing rotations of material objects such as water and buckets. Such objects are relations between myriad of units of motion and they collectively possess properties which the basic UoM does not, such as Euclidean geometry, vectorial motions and inertia.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
the expansion/contraction needs no such external reference. An observer (if such a one were possible) would easily detect the motion directly.
No, the observer (a single UoM in isolation) could not detect anything by itself, because at this stage of development, neither the Euclidean geometry nor the inertia nor vectorial motions exist yet. Without inertia, rotation cannot be detected in absence of an external reference.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
It is simply a change in size.
There is no such thing as "simple" change in size. I grant you that the RST fundamental postulates precisely define the magnitude of this change, but they deliberately leave the sign of this change as an ambiguity .
This ambiguity leads to 16 isomorphisms when considering 2 UoMs from god's view, out of which 8 are reversing and 8 are non-reversing (progressing) from RST's view.
It is this ambiguity which makes the nonuniformity of the RST universe possible.

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by Horace » Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:31 am

@Doug

Did you disengage ?

dbundy
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by dbundy » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:59 am

Horace wrote:@Doug

Did you disengage ?
Yes. Unfortunately, I'm dealing with some personal issues that are too distracting to permit me to engage in something as esoteric as this discussion. I just can't get up the energy to decipher the language being used, let alone the logic.

I just want to say that, just as numbers can be thought of as "existing," though we know they do not, so too other things can be thought of as "existing," though they don't, actually. And, when two such things "exist," one greater than the other, then we may know for sure that another, greater than those two, must also exist.

So it is with magnitudes, when two magnitudes exist in our minds (like numbers), one greater than the other, then another magnitude greater than the both of them also exists. You can't pick two unique magnitudes that are not greater or lesser than one another, just as you cannot pick two unique numbers, that don't differ. If it were otherwise, the selected magnitudes (numbers) would be one and the same magnitude (number).

So, no matter what magnitude (number) we select, there will always be a greater magnitude (number) that we could pick, ad infinitum. Think of time. Is there a final moment of time, a magnitude of time that is the limit of all time? Of course not, and if there is no limit to the magnitude of time that passes, then there is no limit to the magnitude of its reciprocal aspect of space either.

Therefore we conclude that, at least in our minds, no other reference is necessary to conceive of unit (s/t=1/1) motion, other than this mental notion of the eternal progression of magnitudes (numbers). This is the fundamental basis of Larson's system of theory.

User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by ckiit » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:26 am

dbundy wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:59 am
Horace wrote:@Doug

Did you disengage ?
Yes. Unfortunately, I'm dealing with some personal issues that are too distracting to permit me to engage in something as esoteric as this discussion. I just can't get up the energy to decipher the language being used, let alone the logic.

I just want to say that, just as numbers can be thought of as "existing," though we know they do not, so too other things can be thought of as "existing," though they don't, actually. And, when two such things "exist," one greater than the other, then we may know for sure that another, greater than those two, must also exist.

So it is with magnitudes, when two magnitudes exist in our minds (like numbers), one greater than the other, then another magnitude greater than the both of them also exists. You can't pick two unique magnitudes that are not greater or lesser than one another, just as you cannot pick two unique numbers, that don't differ. If it were otherwise, the selected magnitudes (numbers) would be one and the same magnitude (number).

So, no matter what magnitude (number) we select, there will always be a greater magnitude (number) that we could pick, ad infinitum. Think of time. Is there a final moment of time, a magnitude of time that is the limit of all time? Of course not, and if there is no limit to the magnitude of time that passes, then there is no limit to the magnitude of its reciprocal aspect of space either.

Therefore we conclude that, at least in our minds, no other reference is necessary to conceive of unit (s/t=1/1) motion, other than this mental notion of the eternal progression of magnitudes (numbers). This is the fundamental basis of Larson's system of theory.
To pick up on this line of thought and introduce a new way of looking at this problem.

Take r2=1, which implies r=±1.
Take c2=1, which implies c=±1.
This serves as motions moving +to/-from c
which is either/both: a velocity, (or speed)
and an orientation.
This circle serves as a natural UoM.

Take γ as any displaced body.
Since γ ≠ 1, as γ → ±c:
γ → +c is a unifying motion/orientation, whereas
γ→ -c is a displacing one,
therefor by designating +c as "to light",
-c is orientation "from light" viz. the absence of.

Image

Therefor, the "natural progression" is a magnitude of one (+1)
whose inverse (-1) is any/all gravitation(s) of particular impedance(s)
related to their own displacement in relation to the progression.
This is the same metaphysical notion of light and darkness,
the latter merely being the absence of the former, thus not
an independent phenomena, but rather merely lacking presence of light.

This local orientation is certainly testable for sentient beings such as humans:
each being is as their own locally displaced circle r2=? displaced from c=1.
By orienting towards +c, instead of away from (being -c) this can be done internally.
The capacity to do this would require the UoM having cognizance
of its own relational orientation concerning √c,
(ie. either +c or -c with respect to spacial displacement(s) over time s/t)
it would locally possess means of internal orientation. This requires only one dimension
despite two dimensions being required to "observe" the same orientation from an outside perspective.

user737
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: Near Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by user737 » Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:12 pm

ckiit wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:26 am
Take r2=1, which implies r=±1.
Take c2=1, which implies c=±1.
This serves as motions moving +to/-from c
which is either/both: a velocity, (or speed)
and an orientation.
No geometry = no orientation due no intrinsic direction (observer assumption required)
Scalar is magnitude only and inherently lacks direction which differentiates from a vector (scalar + direction).

Let us not forget ±i also are roots of 1. These are "imaginary" or more properly, rotational in nature unlike our spacial understanding of linear connect-a-dot coordinate (extension) space.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by ckiit » Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:33 am

user737 wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:12 pm
No geometry = no orientation due no intrinsic direction (observer assumption required)
Scalar is magnitude only and inherently lacks direction which differentiates from a vector (scalar + direction).

Let us not forget ±i also are roots of 1. These are "imaginary" or more properly, rotational in nature unlike our spacial understanding of linear connect-a-dot coordinate (extension) space.
I am suggesting that the scalar condition of 'no intrinsic direction' does not necessarily imply no orientation:
scalar magnitudes are themselves not geometric to-begin, but can act linear and/or angular.
Their magnitude is nevertheless concerning a natural datum c=1 which mandates, at minimum, a to/from simultaneous "bi"-orientation
which is the relative counter-part to the "bi"-directional rotation found by prof. Nehru et. al and elaborated as a Quaternion by Bruce.
This complementary "bi" nature reflects in the scalar "in/out" concerning c:
to c as +c, or not to c as -c, for example. To be, not to be etc. These are transcendental arguments, not geometric/directional ones bound to s/t outside the all-inclusive reference c=1,
thus is not "geometric" as this kind of space-invariant orientation precedes projective geometry entirely, thus no observer assumption required.

It would take an assumption/belief to believe -c is +c and/or vice versa, thus orientation to/from c is a matter of unity vs. displaced belief as the imaginary i.

Therefor, in v=s/t, if v were a human being, their own s/t configuration is a product of both real, universal s/t
and imaginary, local si/ti as acted upon, thus distortion/displacement is local.

Therefor all that is needed is the local/universal operators (+)/(-) (I personally refer to these as alpha/omega),
the imaginary number i to capture impetus based on imaginary belief rather than acknowledged reality,
and a universal datum c=1 which the natural progression and/or gravitation concerns naturally,
thus "orientation" to/from requires not any such geometry whatsoever,
but only internal use of the same universal operators (+)/(-) which are intrinsic to the universe, thus
as are any/all bodies/beings thereof: causation and cessation. Therefor, all that is displaced
has a local causation/cessation concerning c, thus a local orientation(s) to/from c,
thus can either be utilized and/or ignored, the gravity of the circumstances of either being local.

Image
Image
Here, √A is implied to be +A and/or -A, denoted as "variable-A" *A
capturing and reflecting the local/universal alpha/omega operators
and the resulting intrinsic orientation of ±A concerning ±c (motion as s/t itself).

Post Reply