Time (Miles Mathis)

[bperet]

He seems to be right about a lot of things but equally misguided about many others.

Unfortunate, but I have to agree with you. The further I get into his papers, the more I find him attacking other systems rather than developing his own. At least he does point out some long-standing errors in physics, which allows me to reevaluate those points in the context of RS2 (up to now I have been unaware of them, since I never studied the history of physics).

I do concur with his conclusions regarding the unity-delta Calculus and the nonexistence of the point (and plane)-- with applicability in the natural reference system. They are diagrammatic (coordinate) concepts that only have a place in extension space (or time). I have updated the material on the RS2 main site to reflect these differences.

In the natural reference system, all we have is motion (speed), so there logically cannot be any concept such as a point, radius, or length. Those are outside the concept of a universe of motion, in that reference system. All there can be is motion.

I concur that pi=4 does not make intuitive sense. 4 is what you get for a perimeter, if you circumscribe a square on a circle. It is intuitively obvious that an inscribed circle in a square would have a shorter circumference than the square's perimeter.

But on the other hand, Larson's RS defines a discrete universe, with a minimum quantity of 1 natural unit, and one cannot change direction within a unit. Therefore, if you create a circle with a radius of 1 natural unit, the smallest circle possible, it will have a circumference of 8 and a pi=4! This is because you cannot change direction within a unit, so the circumference is drawn as the perimeter of a 2x2 square, approximating a circle. The actual value of pi is approached as the radius approaches infinity. So I learned something new there about pi. Idea from Mathis, translated to Larson's universe.

I have not yet read his papers on gravity, the imaginary number or yin-yang. If one precludes yin, you cannot have an imaginary quantity that is a rotational operator. It looks like he is making the same error that conventional science and Larson do, by assuming a yang, observable and measurable universe ONLY. Larson got around a bit of it by simulating yin with the rotational base (unnecessary in RS2).

Regarding the phi ratio... I have been analyzing the spiral and helix, as motion concepts, which has turned up some interesting things. For one, velocity is a 1D concept and must be linear, as Mathis states. BUT, look at the definition of a circle: r² = x² + y². That indicates that the 2D concept of velocity, v², is a curve, not a line--most likely the "orbital velocity" Mathis is seeking. Since the helix is a linear velocity combined with an orbital velocity, you get v¹ x v² = v³, meaning these spiral functions are a 3D concept of velocity, which fits in with your concept of the phi ratio being a geometric expression of 3D motion.

That infers that 3D motion are spiral in nature, and the phrase "gravity spiraling down" may be quite literal. It also indicates that EM radiation, being a composite of 1D and 2D velocity, is also helical in its coordinate projection.

Still thinking on the concepts.

[Louis]

Hi Bruce. I feel that Mathis is in error as he claims that the point is non-existent. I would like to offer my definition of the 'point'.

A point is the 'source' of infinite directions and the 'destiny' of infinite directions. We can also say that it is the 'center' of infinite radii either pointing out from the center or pointing at the center.

Yes, the point or center exhibits no extensions in space but this does not preclude its 'existence'. It must 'exist' outside of space-time. This is the rub for the ardent materialist, but how else can you define a circle or a sphere which all would agree do exist.

Now, before we get to motion we must define 'position' or 'location'.

The only way to get to a location or position in space is to start from an 'origin' of reference. This must be a 'point' of reference and , therefore, this point must be from something 'not' in space. The point serves as this reference point and we can rightly refer to it as a center (point) of origin.

Position must therefore be defined as distance from this point-center. This is what we commonly refer to as radius. This radius is a SCALER for it has no particular direction, only magnitude. It follows that position or location must be seen as a radius of a certain magnitude, or, in other words, a spherical shell of radius 'r' and zero thickness.

Position can, therefore, be defined as a 'curve' of radius 'r'.

Motion would then be defined as a change in position over a change in time. Restated, motion is a change in 'curvature' over change in time. Since curvature is defined by the scaler 'r' , then we my consider motion to be dr/dt. Note that radius is a scaler because you can have infinite radii and you must not confuse this with distance or any vectoral idea.

Time, as I have intimated, can be seen as a 3 dim phi spiral. The phi spiral can 'dilate' as well as contract without reversing. Orthogonal (at 90 deg out of phase) time spiral can also exist proceeding counterclockwise (imaginary time) and not interfere with each other.

Space can be visualized as the 3 dim 'boxes' within the Golden Rectangle as space expands when time spiral out (dilates) and contracts as time spirals in. This is what atoms do; expand and contract in cyclic, rhythmic fashion.

The phi spiral exhibits a 'quantum jump' in radius at every 90 deg of its turn. This is the only way to provide for a 'continuous' dilation or contraction. This provides for quantum leaps in position 'shells' of electron motion. These instantaneous changes in position can only exist outside of space-time. They exist at tangent 'points' as the time spiral 'touches' the space box as illustrated in the diagrams of the spiral in the rectangle.

What I am saying is that space-time is indeed all motion, BUT, motion requires the existence of the ideal. I fully agree that points, length and radius are concepts, ideas, but you cannot get to motion without them. You cannot have creation without projection from the ideal. To think that you can is the fetal flaw in materialistic logic. Unity is the ideal. You creat out of that Unity by dividing it perfectly by the Golden Ratio, phi. This is the imbalance from balance that allows for motion. Motion is the seeking of Unity. Motion is imbalance seeking balance. Unity is Stillness.

Logic would have it that the only reference for motion is the Center, the Point. This must necessarily make all motion ABSOLUTE.

Light cannot serve as a reference, as Einstein would have it, because light moves finitely. Light moves and changes position over time. It changes curvature over time. And time itself dilates and contracts. What kind of reference can light be, then?

If point, radius, and length are concepts, then so is speed and velocity. But that is OK, concepts are useful. We use them to calculate (approximate). What is phenomenal is curvature, and in particular, change in curvature (acceleration). That is where motion is seen as real. Real as in space-time. From motion all else is made sensible. Mass, force, energy, chemism, electromagnetism etc.

The real philosophical twist comes into play when we attempt to model our motion with expressions such as velocity, speed, vector, length, distance. These are literally nonsense. They are concepts, and by definition, we cannot 'sense' them as we can force, acceleration or light. They can only be calculated.

Light cannot be a speed or velocity because we can sense it with our sense organs. It must be an acceleration.

So what do all of these equations we have mean. Einstein wanted light to be a constant to use it as a reference of the ideal, and it is not. He wanted us to accept relativity so as to allow an observer to choose his / her point of reference. Well this is not possible because a reference for motion that defines space-time must lie OUTSIDE of space-time, it must reside in the ideal of stillness; it must be the point, the center of motion. This relieves the observer from the impossible task of stepping out of phenomenal reality to measure motion. The observer cannot serve as a point, nor can light. They are both in motion (acceleration). This makes the Uncertainty Principle a hopelessly obvious. Yes, the Universe of motion is indeterminate because we can't measure it adequately from where we stand.

We must at some point in all this satisfy ourselves with the understanding of relationships. Relationships in space-time can be described as direct, inverse, and inverse squared. Let's not delude ourselves with thinking that we can come up with equations to describe anything in any precise manner. Mathis derides all the equations and renormalization 'fudges' and claims he has improved them. This is fine but it is not possible to make them correct to any great extent because he himself mixes the conceptual with the phenomenal. This can only bring about confusion, especially since he denies the 'existence'of the concepts himself.

Mathis denies the Reality of the Ideal but punishes the scientists that do the same. We must accept the Reality of the Ideal and be content not to unify what cannot be unified and still remain in motion. Motion exist because it is the struggle to achieve Unity. Unity is One; One is Changeless.

Mathis is wrong here because he has been trapped into a fundamental contradiction. Contradictions and logic do not mixed. I am somewhat surprised since he says one of his majors was Philosophy.

For your consideration.

Regards, Louis

[Coder]

Louis,

Your posts read like a poetry or gospel, not like science. They are full of assumptions, idealistic projections, speculation veiled as assertions and hasty conclusions. I disagree with most of what you have been writing. Why are you assigning a superior status to time and obsessing so much about the Phi and the golden ratio. Is this some kind of divine constant worship?

I feel that I can learn a lot from Bruce, Gopi, Nehru and Mathis but not from you, and I am tempted to skip reading your posts from now on because I did not come to this forum for noise and gospel.

Don't be surprised if you're ignored from now on.

PS.

It's "scalar" - not "scaler"

[Louis]

Im sorry Bruce, but I forgot to include a very important reply to your paragraph regarding pi. In that paragraph you stated that one "cannot change direction within a unit". First, the concept of 'unit ' really implies 'undivided'. It also means 'one'. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of unit can be spatial, so I do not understand what you mean by "change direction 'within' ". These are all spatial terms. My definition of unity is where all is one at the 'same time'. This idea can only exist outside of space-time. This is also a point!

This is the 'existence' where direction can and must change because it is the origin of all directions, as defined above. To change direction, to reflect, to change radius; to do all these 'instantaneous' things you must return to the 'source'. These changes are NOT events, they must exist outside of time. Change can only originate from an existence that does not change. The thing that changes (motion) must literally exit from space-time and reemerge, changed. It must disappear and reappear in an instant.

In Mathis' paper on The Calculus, he abhorred this position. He states that you cannot go to zero or infinity because nature does not do that. But this is wrong. Nature goes to zero space and zero time all the time. Whenever there is a tangent, nature must deal with infinity and zero, together. A tangent is defined as a 'point' on a curve. Every aspect of a circle is a tangent point! And there are infinite points on a circle as there are infinite radii. The very reality of a simple circle and what defines it, a point-center and infinite radii, proves Mathis to be completely and utterly wrong here. He refuses to accept that the "the curve and the graph must disappear". Well, yes, they do disappear!

Pi is not instinct or even on the endangered list. We must vigorously oppose this illogic. We must resist the temptation to be bedazzled by the sneaky arguments he may present because he cannot and will not depart from purely materialistic thinking. Look specifically for when he bashes the Ideal but then turns around and uses it in terms like tangent vector or tangent velocity. His papers are riddled with these inconsistencies. The Materialist denies zero and infinities on the grounds that it is mysticism but ends up denying himself when he engages in mixing the two. To invoke an ancient truism, when one mixes the knowledge of good and evil, confusion is inevitable, because one must deny the other.

This is why I think that the 'unit datum' troubled me. It's possible that I misunderstand how Larson has defined this term and that's why I stated this whole discussion by defining me terms. It is possible that we may be approaching the same thing from differring directions.

It may be disconcerting to face the possible truth of a space-time that flickers in and out of material existence at every instance, yet imagine the first time you learned as a child of the movie film appearing as a frame only to disappear and be replaced by another frame. And yet all you saw was a smooth motion. What a concept! Now we must imagine this existence being a consequence of these instants. Time IS a sequence of instances, as I had stated previously.

I think Plato was correct when he stated that the phenomenal world is but a shadowy projection of the Ideal. How would you explain this using Projective Geometry? Do you think it could tie in somewhere?

Regards, Louis.

[Louis]

I guess you can characterize my post that way. I take no offense nor do I mean to offend anyone. I apologize if anything I write comes across as offensive but I can assure you that I am sincere in what I write.

I ask no one to agree with me, only to consider the ideas I present. Of course, that is also optional and you are free to ignore what I present.

I assure everyone that I carry no agenda and I too have learned a lot from Bruce, Gopi, Nehru, and Mathis. Is this not the purpose of these forums? My thinking has benefitted from this forum and I appreciate the exchange.

I don't know what you mean when you ask me about how I elevate the status of time because I believe in its inseparable relationship to space. As for phi, well maybe your right, I do obsess about it too much.

I can be irritating to some, I'm told, and I don't blame them for ignoring me. However, I will never apologize for my Faith.

PS. I admit to be the worst of spellers.

Regards, Louis .

[bperet]

A point is the 'source' of infinite directions and the 'destiny' of infinite directions. We can also say that it is the 'center' of infinite radii either pointing out from the center or pointing at the center.

In 3 dimensions, a center point cannot exist without its dual, the plane at infinity. Nor can the artists point at infinity exist without the plane of his canvas. Points and planes are the limits of a projective system.

how else can you define a circle or a sphere which all would agree do exist.

With a manifold of lines or planes.

The point serves as this reference point and we can rightly refer to it as a center (point) of origin.

That is Mathis' "point." It is an arbitrary location we use as the datum of measurement.

It follows that position or location must be seen as a radius of a certain magnitude, or, in other words, a spherical shell of radius 'r' and zero thickness.

That only follows in 2 or 3D space. The concept of a radius does not exist in linear systems. To assume it as a general statement, it would also have to work in 1D, which it does not.

What you are describing is conventional, Euclidean geometry--origin and plane at infinity, when r=inf. Note that the Euclidean geometric strata is the LAST of the projective series--it is the most distorted, geometric shadow, compared to the motion casting it.

It seems you are evaluating the projective system, bottom-up, without considering the assumptions that produce structures like points and planes from the invariants. Larson has this difficulty as well, which is why students of the RS confuse speed and displacement. Your comments are valid for the latter, but not the former.

A "scalar speed" is just Larson's name for a cross-ratio, as it is the only projective invariant in the RS. Same situation with RS2. Larson jumps from the projective cross-ratio right to the Euclidean projection, without considered how he got there. That is why in the RS, light is "still" and everything else is moving--in extension space, Mathis' "diagrammatic" system. In RS2, I've introduced the two, intermediate stages: the affine projection (sector motion) and the metric (non-absolute scaling), so you can see how the natural reference system projects into the material and cosmic sectors, and how that breaks down into the concept of structure and fields, and finally, the Euclidean projection where it is all combined in the observable and measurable realm.

I have updated the main site with my most recent information (that I've completed). I recommend you peruse through it, particularly the sections on Reference Systemsand Datums.

Every system (theory, realm, whatever) has a set of rules (laws) that go with it. Laws in one system cannot be applied to a system where they do not exist. For example, geometry does not apply to the natural reference system, which is based on scalar speed. But they share the CONCEPT of a reference to make a measurement from. In the Euclidean system, that is the point. In the natural, scalar system, that is unit speed--the progression of the natural reference system that Larson refers to as the "speed of light."

If I were to ask you, "How many fish are swimming in the desert sand?" You'd say, "None. Fish swim in water, not sand." So if I ask, "How many points are in the natural reference system?" you should say, "None. Points exist in geometry not in speeds."

In the natural reference system, measurement is made by how much one speed differs from the speed of progression--no concept of distance is involved. When a car passes you on the highway, you can say that "that car is going 10 mph faster than I am." That is a speed displacement--a speed measured from an arbitrary reference, in this case, a velocity reference (not a point, plane or line). That is how Larson defines his atomic structure--how much the rotational speed of the atom differs from the speed of progression--one of Mathis' "deltas." Since the speed of progression is 1.0, it's pretty easy to do in your head.

(Let me note that the speed of progression and the speed of light may NOT be the same value. Progression is ALWAYS unit speed, 1s/1t. The photon is a different speed, but the speed is symmetric in space and time because it is a simple, harmonic motion, so 2s/2t still looks like 1.0. But that is dependent upon linear polarization. Photons can also have circular polarization, in which case, that 2/2 ratio will not be the case... it would be imbalanced, the degree of imbalance depending upon the frequency and orientation, so a circularly polarized photon will not be moving at the speed of light, despite it IS light. Circularly polarized photons are known to exhibit torque.)

[bperet]

First, the concept of 'unit ' really implies 'undivided'. It also means 'one'.

Larson's concept of the "unit" was like links in a chain, as compared to a continuum (a rope). Direction could only change at the point where the links came together, not half-way through a link. See his discussion on the photon, where he can only justify a "direction reversal" at the unit boundary (which has been argued that it makes the photon a square wave, not a sine).

I think Plato was correct when he stated that the phenomenal world is but a shadowy projection of the Ideal. How would you explain this using Projective Geometry? Do you think it could tie in somewhere?

See prior comment.

Plato's Ideal = projective stratum = scalar dimensions.

Phenomenal world = Euclidean stratum = extension/coordinate space.

[Coder]

A "scalar speed" is just Larson's name for a cross-ratio, as it is the only projective invariant in the RS

So how do you explain the ratio of two ratios as scalar speed, if normaly speed is one ratio of two deltas?

Assuming that you explain its origin - is the cross-ratio the transform that we discussed in the Computer Models forum or is it the input to those transforms?

[Louis]

Thanks Bruce, for your detailed reply. I am going to take your advice and read the sections on Reference Systems and Datums. It is appearent to me that Larson redefines so many terms that the uninitiated may easily stumble over the vocabulary.

Let me, however, address some of your comments so as to clarify further my vocabulary.

I only refer to 3 dimensions. I flatly deny any linear systems. I go directly from the non-dimensional to 3 d without intervening 1 or 2 dim systems. Right or wrong, that is my postulate.

When you state that a center point cannot exist without its dual, I say that it exists 'independently', and can be represented by the intersection of 3 orthogonal infinite planes (3-d). In other words, Points exist, planes exist only in 3-d andvare orthogonally related. Note also that an infinite number of orthogonal planes can intersect at a single point.

When I stated a definition for the circle or sphere as a point with radius, you answered " with a manifold of lines and planes. I simply would replace the word manifold withe the phrase, an infinity of lines and planes and would qualify the lines as radiating from a point and the planes must be all orthogonal to each other.

As for the point being an arbitrary location, I would contend that the point has no location in space, arbitrary or otherwise. Every point is associated and is the geographic center of infinity but has no location in space. The point is non-spatial and non-temporal. That is why the point can serve as the only reference to any motion.

When you made a remark about my definition of position you said that it only follows in "2 or 3D space. This is correct since I only acknowledge 3 D space and my postulate denies linear systems.

I don't believe I am describing conventional Euclidean geometry because I intentionally deny linear systems. The universe I postulate is curved. I describe the motion in such a universe as a constant change in curvature.

I deny that points are produced or created at all. I contend that the point is 'primal', having no antecedent cause. Having many times stated that I believe points are the 'source', it follows that they exist independently.

I consider light the primal motion and therefore it cannot be used as a reference. Light proceeds from its source and returns to the source. Motion is what is 'happening' between points.

All points are associated because they are are the same. They are one, unity. That which is outside of space-time is by definition, Unity. An infinite number of points are but one point, since they all exist in no space location, all at the same time. Time is what keeps everthing from happening all at once.

"How many points are in the natural reference system?", I would say 1, and infinite. Since the point is the geographic center of infinity by virtue of its exclusion from space, both 1 and infinity are correct answers.

I would then have to define my reference system as the Absolute Reference. It is not a reference that is dependent on any other; it is primal. This is a very important provision in a universe where no linear system exists, only change in curvature; motion.

I thought long and hard about your statement regarding Larson's concept of "unit" as like links in a chain. I can agree with this analogy with some qualification. That being that the links are akin to spherical shells 'touching' or 'linked' at tangent 'points'. These points do not belong in space-time , so they do not belong to either system, which are in 3 D progressing space. Yet they exist as the interface that connects them. Direction changes; reflections, collisions, refractions, emissions, absorptions, etc., exist at these tangent points.

Plato's Ideal is dimensionless, scalar or otherwise, so I don't know what exactly you are referring to in that statement.

Your last statement I would restate as :

Phenomenal world = 3D progressing space and 3D spiraling time Projected from the Point, Unity.

Regards, Louis.

[bperet]

So how do you explain the ratio of two ratios as scalar speed, if normaly speed is one ratio of two deltas?

If you were to measure a length, you need 2 points--one that you select as the zero datum, and the one you measure to, in order to obtain the length.

The cross-ratio is the multiplicative version of that. One ratio is the unit speed datum, what you measure from, and the other ratio is what you are measuring to, as a change in speed. Because it is a "reciprocal system," everything is done as ratios (divide instead of subtract for the delta--think percentages rather than difference). The cross ratio is how much one ratio changes from another, which is the measurement of scalar speed compared to the unit progression.

Pretty simple, isn't it? Took me years to figure that out, because it is not easy to think in terms of motion, rather than length. (Mathis' papers helped me a lot with that concept.)

is the cross-ratio the transform that we discussed in the Computer Models forum or is it the input to those transforms?

Rather than answer, let me ask you this: what if the Universe was ONLY transforms? And the "points" are points of consciousness? In other words, what if the universal transforms were fixed, and it is the observer that is being run through them, along with all his Euclidean assumptions?