Sun wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:35 am

But dimension is meaningless when applies to unit motion, because 1

^{1}=1

^{2}=1

^{3}=2

^{0}. However, it does not mean that unit motion is 1D.

Unit motion (the progression of the natural reference system) is equivalent to

*nothing* (as unit speed is the datum of measurement), so no matter how many dimensions you apply to nothing, you still end up with nothing, so correct--for unit speed, the number of dimensions is meaningless.

But manifestation occurs with non-unit motion, namely Larson's "direction reversal." It is a confusing concept and Larson does not do well in explaining it clearly. It works like this:

- In a scalar system, there are only TWO options for a change in magnitude: bigger (outward) or smaller (inward).
- Since motion beyond unit speed is not possible, that limits the options for the progression (moving at unit speed) to "smaller" (inward).
- Motion only occurs in discrete units, which means the smallest possible change is 1 unit.
- To make 1/1 smaller, one must shrink an aspect by 1 unit of speed, -1/1 or 1/-1.
- This is the concept of the "direction reversal."

As an example, change the speed of the progression by 1 unit of speed, in the spatial aspect of an s/t ratio:

The resulting change of speed for the numerator (space) is +1 -1 +1 = +1 unit.

The resulting change of speed for the denominator (time) is +1 +1 +1 = +3 units.

This results in a net speed of 1/3 (1 unit of space per 3 units of time)--but if you notice, we never exceeded a value of +1. What this says is that "for every unit of space the system progresses, three units of time progress." This combination has a

*displacement* of 2. The displacement is used in dimensional analysis--not the speed--so now you have: 2

^{1} = 2, 2

^{2} = 4, 2

^{3} = 8... dimension has meaning.

Sun wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:35 am

A universe with only unit motion still be a RS universe, why unit motion can not be pan-dimensional?

Unit motion (nothing) is pan-dimensional; non-unit motion (something) is not.

Sun wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:35 am

Motions are built up from 1D to 3D in RS, from atoms to life unit, but why not backward. The difference is when the deviation from an unit octonion occurred, it may have a remnant or counterpart, where one is broken into two. Motions would come in pairs, reciprocally related, positron/bioenergy for example?

It is a matter of perspective (the sector where the observer stands, and the sector that contains what they are looking at). A "material" observer (us) sees space as empty, in which we put things to fill it up. A "cosmic" observer would see time as empty, in which they fill it up. BUT... when a material observer looks at a cosmic structure, the system is inverted (yanked inside-out), so 3D time

*appears* to be a solid, where bubbles (atoms) are formed to make structures.

Under conventional observation we see space building up from 1D to nD and time breaking down from nD to 1D.

The causality of motion was never addressed by Larson--he just assumes it happens, since we have a universe with stuff in it. Without "first cause," it is not possible to determine if motion does come in pairs or not. Logically, one would think it would bifurcate, as that is a principle of Nature (break a stick in half, and you get two pieces--no way to break it and just end up with ONE piece). Based on Nature, it is likely that things come in reciprocally-related pairs, but the derivation of that is beyond the RS postulates.

Every dogma has its day...