Time (Miles Mathis)

[Lou]

Thanks, Bruce, for the tip.

I can't help but think that I've stirred up a hornet's nest with even the possibility of s/t being related to the golden mean ratio. This would mean delving into the complex mathematics of growth and decay. I know of no one who has explored the dynamics of the phi spiral in 3 d in both its aspects of birotation (clockwise and counterclockwise ) and spirals inward (contraction) and spirals outward (expansion).

I imagine ds/dt would be proportional to cubic powers of phi in volume expressions of spheroids, and naturally include Pi.

Since it is known that Phi = 7/5 * Pi/e

This makes the math supremely complex. You have all three transcendentals involved in a differential equation! My brain is overheating.

Pondering all of this philosophically, I think one thing is for sure. We seem to falling into an indeterminate morass. Maybe a really good computer program can give us a visual of this motion. I suspect that it will look like the little dirt devils I keep seeing in my mind. In that case I must conclude that nature at any level can only be as predictable as a tornado, a hurricane, or the formation of a galaxy. I'm overwhelmed and I have to get some sleep. I just realized the paragraph thing did not work. Maybe it's because I'm working from my i-Pad. I'll try my computer next time. My apologies.

Regards, Louis .

[Lou]

This reminds me of Stephen Wolfram's Theory of automata. How such a simple ratio of proportions of whole to parts can create such complex structure we find in the phenomenal world. Is anyone willing to explore this on 'Mathematica'? I'm personally computer iliterate.
Regards, Louis.

[Lou]

It is curious that Mathis has mounted such a full frontal attack on the Transcendental numbers Pi, e, and phi.

In several papers he goes on to attempt to prove that Pi is actually 4! Don't be fooled. In an unusually long presentation of several papers he also provides a diagram that shows a circle which he makes dynamic by having it represent an orbit. No problem there, but in creating the vectors, which should also be dynamic, he mixes his metaphors. The radius vector, properly called an acceleration, he equates with the tangent vector, which is an instantaneous velocity. In this way he graphically shows that the orbital distance traversed is equivalent in time to the tangent vector, but only if the radius vector is equal to the tangent vector. But they are NOT! One is acceleration and the other is velocity. He claims to have squared the circle kinematically. This is false. The answer for NASA's correction was not to make Pi equal to 4, but to use Pi plus 1 in their equation to account for getting the rocket into orbit. The correction factor was not 4 but Pi plus 1 ,or 4.14... A small difference numerically but an infinity conceptually! Thankfully, Pi is alive and well and in no danger of extinction. Is this a slight of hand, a parlor trick, or did he simply make a mistake? I hope it's the latter. The former would be a quite sinister.

He is equally cruel on Minkowski hyperbolic space and imaginary numbers. He is correct to claim that the use of imaginary time orthogonal to the 3 dimensions of space for Einstein's space-time was not the proper relationship between the two, but he throws the baby out with the bath water. He rants against hyperbolic space and trashes the concept of imaginary numbers. This is most definitely an attack Euler's number, e. In his famous equation, e^i*Pi + 1 = 0. He brilliantly relates zero, one, and infinity. An attack on 'i' is an attack on e. Two transcendentals down and one left to go.

Phi is more baffling to Mathis, it seems. In his paper in the Golden Mean Ratio he makes a rather elegant case for this ratio's significance in nature but ends scratching his head in a kind of philosophical repose. Perhaps if he had realized how Pi, e, and phi are related by the equation phi = 7/5 Pi/e he would not have been so kind to this third transcendental.

Let's be exceedingly careful in our assessment of Mathis' papers. For you consideration. Regards, Louis.

[bperet]

Maybe it's because I'm working from my i-Pad. I'll try my computer next time.

It does appear to be a browser-related issue. Normally, the comment editing form is a javascript what-you-see-is-what-you-get form, that supports formatting, indents, paragraphs, etc. If javascript does not work on your iPad then it would not be filling in the html tags for you. When posting from your iPad, try setting the "text format" to "Plain text" so it will translate line breaks into paragraphs.

Since it is known that Phi = 7/5 * Pi/e This makes the math supremely complex.

Personally, I believe that the basic principles of the universe are simple, which is why I like Larson's research. Mathis' Calculus is along the same lines--makes things simpiler, reducing complexity. Larson's statement, "Complexity is entertaining; simplicity is not" is very accurate. These days, religion cannot even hold a candle to the mysteries of science--and it shouldn't BE a mystery, as it is nothing more than an observation on how Nature behaves... and I think conventional science has lost that connection.

I think the the postulate of the unit datum is wrong. Obviously it came about from Einsteins postulate that light speed is constant.

Larson got the idea from the Periodic Table (he was a chemical engineer), when he realized that there were two, independent variables that defined the table (rows and columns) and they were reciprocally related--not additive opposites. The unit datum came from the multiplicative inverse, not Einstein.

Why should any motion have a special status?

Because it is the DATUM of measurement. That's like saying, "why should any point have the special status of an 'origin'?"

I fail to see how s/t = phi dues NOT show a preference of one over the other.

It is not a symmetric or harmonically stable relationship, as unity IS. phi^n != phi.

I've stirred up a hornet's nest with even the possibility of s/t being related to the golden mean ratio

If that is the case, show how you derive the value of phi as a natural consequence of the postulates. I spend a lot of time out in Nature, and I only see the phi ratio manifest in 2D geometric patterns--a projection of rotation composited with squares. Not an origin to anything. If I am missing something, show me how you logically deduce (or induce) the ratio from basic postulates as to the nature of the Universe, as Larson did with unity.

[Lou]

Thanks Bruce, here goes 'plain text' from my i -Pad.

I agree that the fundamental principles are simple and from that simplicity must arise the complex diversity that is nature. You have no argument from me there. My comment about 'complex math' stems from the indeterminacy of the simple inverse relationships where you have three trancendentals in an equation with no other variables. To carry out the equation you either have to approximate, or run into infinities. I was in error to imply previously that s/t = phi. I meant equal as in proportional. I merely wanted to show that space and time were related through phi and that would naturally imply that the other two transcendentals are at play. In order to perfectly construct the complex from the simple you had better make sure that the 'simple' and 'true' automata you programmed into your 'perfect' algorithm be operationally COMPLETE. That requires calculations to infinity. Nothing less will do! No human invented computer will ever do that.

I agree that nature can be understood, but it cannot be 'recreated', or predicted an any precise way, and that is where science goes awry. The hubris that tells us that the weather can be predicted with any precision and that any math could do anything more than be an approximation is what has us in this state of quandary.

What I wanted to say was that Larson came up with the correct insight of the inverse relation between space and time and the primacy of motion, but what he took straight from Einstein was the postulate that the speed of light was a constant. That originated with Einstein, and that was wrong. This allows a motion (light) to 'self create' itself as the reference frame for all other motion. This is the fallacy of self reference. Motion can only have something that is not in motion, as a reference. The center of motion is the only reference possible. All else is merely relative.

I AM saying that a point has a the special status of an origin! My point exactly, no pun intended. The very idea that Unity is symmetric is why it is Not motion. Motion springs from Unity but motion is not the Unity it springs from. Unity is still. You most definitely may state that s/t = Unity, but to get motion Unity MUST BE DIVIDED. Unity must be divided by the Golden Ratio. The 'Whole' divided iby this perfect ratio constructs the motion that is the universe.

You say that phi^n! = phi. YES! But don't stop there. G = phi^n! * c.

I must now refer you to www.danwinter.com on "Gravity is Recurrsive Light".

As a physician and former engineer (crazy I know), I have an endless list of examples that demonstrate phi in nature. Let me list a few. (ALL 3d structures)

From the human body:

DNA molecule
the ear shape
the cochlea
the heart and the flow of blood through the heart
the brain
the ratio of the long bones
the branching of the arteries

My senior thesis in biomedical engineering showed through Fourier Analysis that flow through the heart is a phi spiral and I went on to show how 'phi flow' minimizes turbulence, so as to prevent damage to the blood cellular components. The heart is a toroidal structure of phi proportions.

From nature: Examples of phi governed structures.

Tornados
Hurricaines
Water draining a toilet
Sun Flower rosettes
The nautilus
a ram horns
a pine cone
a Daisy
A spiral galaxy

I can go on.

I challenge anyone on the planet to mathematically model the basic motion of a tornado.

If anyone could do that, I would then bow at the feet of mathematics. For now, however, math remains a useful tool, but hardly worthy of reverence.

I have demonstrated that the Golden Ratio IS the ratio. The only perfect way to divide the Whole.
It unifies the continuous and the discrete. It demonstrates how at a POINT of tangency, instantaneous (in no time) events are possible. It explains quantum JUMPS in election shells of motion, and photon emissions, absorb and reflection as INSTANTANEOUS, not 'nearly' instantaneous, as Mathis contends. Nearly does not cut it when a universe is at stake.

[Lou]

It came to me in the middle of the night. The reason I could not see motion in Larson's theory.

Bruce had explained to me that Larson SEPARATES 2 d rotation from 1 d translation, making 2 components out of the motion. You cannot do this! Ti
me and space are INSEPARABLE. Electrcity and magnetism are INSEPARABLE. Larson's model does not allow for expansion/contraction. ALL must be UNIFIED. The theory has no breathing. It lacks PRANA. The relationship I have proposed in phi spiraling resolves the problems and unifies everthing and thus allows for breathing motion (Prana).

I urge you to consider this closely. I did not see this before and I should have. Larson's 'corkscrew' has two components. It should only have one unified motion. Phi provides it!

Regards, Louis.

[Steve Urich]

I agree with you Louis, this Mathis cat is brilliant. Here is just a small sample of his observations, taken directly from his web site:

“that solution looks like a fudge”

“fudged from top to bottom”

“a big fudge”

“a blatant fudge”

“a clear fudge”

Code: Select all

“a double and triple fudge”

Code: Select all

“a flagrant fudge”

Code: Select all

“a further fudge”

Code: Select all

“a highly successful fudge”

Code: Select all

“a horrible fudge”

“a magnificent fudge”

Code: Select all

“a major fudge”

“a massive fudge”

“a mathematical fudge”

“a new fudge”

“a non-mechanical fudge”

Code: Select all

“a purposeful fudge”

Code: Select all

“a triple-decker fudge”

Code: Select all

“a virtual fudge”

Code: Select all

“embarrassing fudges”

Code: Select all

“the biggest cheats and fudges”

Code: Select all

“have to be fudged”

Code: Select all

“they had to be fudged”

Code: Select all

“is a fudge”

Code: Select all

“was just a fudge”

Code: Select all

“to fudge later”

Code: Select all

“fudged and false”

Code: Select all

“fudged as well”

Code: Select all

“both illegal and a fudge”

Code: Select all

“that manipulation was a fudge”

Code: Select all

“full of fudges”

Code: Select all

“must be fudged”

Code: Select all

“this is just one more fudge”

Code: Select all

“fudged corrections”

Code: Select all

“forced to fudge”

Code: Select all

“talk about a fudge”

Code: Select all

“to fudge over”

Code: Select all

“all the fudges”

Code: Select all

“the barycenter fudge”

Code: Select all

“the spring tide fudge”

Code: Select all

“the standard model fudge”

Code: Select all

“repeating a fudge”

Code: Select all

“to be fudged”

Code: Select all

“based on a fudge”

Code: Select all

“pushes and fudges”

Code: Select all

“an excuse to fudge”

Code: Select all

“correct their fudge”

Code: Select all

“fudge the math”

Code: Select all

“the moon’s orbit is fudged”

Code: Select all

“the whole thing is a fudge”

Code: Select all

“room to fudge”

Code: Select all

“forced to fudge”

Code: Select all

“fudged data”

Code: Select all

“that is a fudge”

Code: Select all

“there is even more fudge”

Code: Select all

“big fudged equations”

Code: Select all

“fudge any equation”

Code: Select all

“fudge your math”

Code: Select all

“another fudge”

Code: Select all

“remove all the fudge”

“you fudge your fudge”

Code: Select all

“refudging the old fudges”

Code: Select all

“just one more fudge”

Yeah, this Mathis cat is a real genius!

[bperet]

Hi Steve,

Larson makes similar comments through his work, though does not use "fudge." If you compare Larson to conventional science, particularly in the area of Astronomy where it is the most obvious, the two systems are backwards from one another.

In astronomy, the Reciprocal System starts with dust, globular clusters, irregular galaxies, merging to form spirals, spirals growing into sphericals, and sphericals exploding to become Quasar/radio galaxy pairs. This is opposite to the conventional, astronomical explanation of galactic evolution. In order to compensate for the system running backwards, a lot of "fudge factors" had to be introduced to explain things, like "dark matter."

The same is true in physics--a lot of stuff is backwards. For example, they consider the electron to be material, and the positron to be the "antimatter" part, when it is actually the other way around--the electron is the cosmic particle, and the positron the material. They also confuse neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, and do not recognize the concept of an uncharged particle, so things like mass measurements are typcially an average of charged and uncharged conditions.

Like Larson, Mathis isn't perfect. But both authors have made excellent reevaluations of accepted beliefs, pointing out the problem areas. That's what we are working to resolve here.

Lou: I've been doing a simulation study on your phi concept and getting some interesting results, which I'll post as a separate message when I get the time (got some beautiful spring weather here, so catching up on outside tasks).

If a system can be designed to eliminate fudge factors (universal constants), then I think we're getting a lot closer to what is actually going on.

[Louis]

When I first read Larson a few months ago I was most fascinated by his concept of expanding space carrying the light particles. This along with Mathis and his 'charge field' and reinterpretation of the M-M double slit experiment got me to thinking more about Phi. If space and time are seen as an outwardly expanding phi spiral and the cubes of the spiral representing space expanding as the time arrow spirals out (dilates) we have some more interesting conclusions to draw. Expanding cubes are 4 dimensional as time is 3 dimensional in this model. The growth of the expanding cubes must be related to the natural log (e). This is valid since the nat log also governs growth and decay. Light must also be governed by e! Space expands to the nat log and so does light. Light then can be viewed as a particles traveling with space expansion and creating ripples in the charge field.

Phi spirals can create a toroidal geometry demanded by the postulates of projective geometry. Minkowski hyperbolic space can be created by inverse functions. As I had mentioned before, rotate about its symmetric axis the inverse function 1/X ( a rectangular hyperbola) and you have a hyperboloid that bounds 4 dim space (X^2 Y^2). Bring the radius of curvature from infinity to finity and you have a torus. Above and below this donut you have hourglass shaped imaginary space.

This could very well be the COUNTERSPACE you are looking for geometrically.

See examples of this in space above and below galactic centers where gamma emissions are seen ejecting. Look at some hydrogen 'hourglass ' 'orbitals' . This I believe is the space reservoirs of counter space.

Hurricaines also exhibit expansion and contraction as seen from satellites and are known to 'breathe' with tremendous volumes of air rising from their eyes and dropping as well. These are those very dangerous shearing winds pilots dread and therefore avoid going far upwards while in the eye of the storm. Hurricaines breath through these 'blow holes' into counterspace not part of the winds of circulation.

A word of caution about The Calculus. I see it as just another way of counting. In the end it can just approximate nature. Mathis had placed it on too high a pedestal and he therefore was more susceptible to disappointment when he found its shortcomings and and made improvements, which I commend him for. In the end, it remains an arcane tool since the age of computers. Engineer continue to study calculus in school but never use it. The Empire State Building was built using a slide rule. In my undergrad days we routinely employed numerical methods and used computers to calculate. I challenge a NASA engineer to even remember basic differential equations. But, you must keep the math professors employed, right.

Remember that the source of universe reality is the Infinite. Therefore, we must search for our universal constants with this in mind. We may continue to be confounded as we attempt to define what is indefinite. Phi, Pi, and e are undefined yet they very well may be the governing constants of all existence.

I'm curious as to what you come up with in your simulation study of Phi. I can't offer much help there since my computer skills are nonexistent. But, I can see it in my head.

Regards, Louis.

[Louis]

Hi Bruce, I feel that I must share with you my thoughts on how Mathis is mistreating the calculus. His premis regarding the 'point' is all wrong. Then he goes on from there. I am corresponding with him on this 'point' and have challenged his assertions regarding gravity and the radius and the connections he makes between the two. I agree with him on these relationships but ask the obvious question, where do radii have their source? The answer is obviously 'The Point'! You cannot assert the reality of one and deny the reality of other. So I urge all to be careful and look for the contradictions here. These initial assertions have profound ramifications to the rest of his arguments.

In one place he states that the radius is a velocity vector, in another he states it is gravity. It can't be both. Where he states that it represents a velocity vector is in his assertion that Pi is not 3.14... but actually 4! I have argued this error previously.

Read on and you will also see his attack on imaginary numbers, and the concept of Yin Yang, just to name a few. He seems to be right about a lot of things but equally misguided about many others.

Reader beware!