3d time

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
User avatar
Horace
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Yes, I would agree. When the

Post by Horace » Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:57 pm

Yes, I would agree. When the absolute location of a photon becomes coincident with the absolute location of a proton, then depending on the motions involved, it can either: aggregate (remain stuck in the time region of the proton--a charged neutrino does this to make hydrogen), compound (add motion to existing motion, like vibration on rotation to get rotational vibration) or combine (add to the magnitude of an aspect).
What would the code be to detect such collisions in your simulation ?

IF .... THEN ?

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

C

Post by Horace » Fri Sep 02, 2016 8:36 pm

Bruce wrote at http://forum.rs2theory.org/comment/2185#comment-2185

After you calculate the expansion due to progression and the inward motion of the rotating systems involved, you check the distance between every pair of locations to see if it is zero. For example, if you have 2 locations that are 1 unit apart. Progression will double it to 2 units. If each rotating system at those locations has a net, inward motion of 1 unit, that is 2 units inward. 2 out + 2 in = 0 = concurrent.
@Bruce

"Distance" in what reference system?

Since these collisions/superpositions are the ones responsible for creating the material or cosmic reference systems, they cannot establish references for themselves yet - there seems to be a chicken vs. egg conundrum here.

In other words, in what reference system are these collisions (motion superpositions) evaluated?

That reference system should be universaly applicable to all motion collisions/superpositions (even cosmic motions) because at this stage it is not even astablished whether the observer's motion is material or cosmic. The orientation of the crossratio does not define a distance...

I was mulling this question for months before asking you so please take it seriously.

P.S.

Is it possible for two motions to be concurrent in one reference sytem but not in another?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Collisions

Post by bperet » Sat Sep 03, 2016 4:54 pm

In other words, in what reference system are these collisions (motion superpositions) evaluated?
All three... coordinate space, coordinate time and the scalar dimensions.
That reference system should be universaly applicable to all motion collisions/superpositions (even cosmic motions) because at this stage it is not even astablished whether the observer's motion is material or cosmic.
The way I was able to resolve it (in programming) was to treat the material and cosmic sectors as being 90-degrees out-of-phase with each other, and "zigzag" between scalar and coordinate motion. What I mean is that when you are doing a material comparison of coordinate locations, the temporal aspect of that motion is progressing/gravitating. Once you complete the material comparison, you progress/gravitate the spatial aspect and do a cosmic comparison of temporal, coordinate locations. (On the scalar side, coincidence occurs when there is zero speed between two motions--which is why a molecule stays together.)

It is actually quite an existential dilemma, because you require an observer to create a 3D coordinate system in both space and time in order for the system to "exist." Remove the observer from either the material or cosmic sector, and the entire Universe freezes in its tracks...
Is it possible for two motions to be concurrent in one reference sytem but not in another?
Yes.
Every dogma has its day...

Velazco
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:23 am

Re: Looks the same

Post by Velazco » Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:52 am

bperet wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:42 pm
3D time/clock space would look exactly the same from as cosmic perspective, as a material observer would see 3D space with clock time. The only difference is that your tape measure would be in natural units of time, rather than natural units of space.

As long as the observer and observed are in the same region, time-space, space-time, time region, space region, everything looks like the common geometry we are already familiar with.
Thanks, it makes sense when you put it like that bperet. You're a good teacher.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests