Time (Miles Mathis)

[bperet]

It is appearent to me that Larson redefines so many terms that the uninitiated may easily stumble over the vocabulary.

You have to remember that Larson started work on the Reciprocal System in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. No calculators, no computers--just graph paper, a slide rule, and a typewriter that didn't even have a plus sign on it (Larson's original papers had "+" as a dash with a slash typed over it). To understand something, you need to think in the context of the author, and know something of him. Larson's terms are correct for the time they were written; we've changed the meaning over the last 80 years. 23-skidoo, atomic passion!

That is what I really appreciate about Mathis' history lessons. He interprets Newton and others in the context of 300 years ago, not modern context, in order to see the flaws in the reasoning.

Not sure to go with a reply from here, because there substantial logistic errors in your reasoning. For example:

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).

That IS it's dual. A center can be represented by a point, or intersecting planes. Without linear, then you cannot have the concept of orthogonal, nor the concept of a flat plane, which, being non-curved, is linear--a translated or rotated line.

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.

Since you flatly deny "linear," then this comment is illogical because you cannot have lines or planes, nor radii. Neither can you have spirals, since that requires both an angular and radial (linear) velocity. Everything in your Universe must therefore be going around in circles.

If you want to understand what we're talking about here, you need to assume either Larson's or the RS2 postulates, and see how the conclusions from THOSE postulates construct a world view.

Though I would like to know what the source of your theory is. I know I've read of these concepts before, the "first source and center" stuff, but no longer remember where I read it. Channeled? (I used to read a lot of that.)

[Coder]

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.

Do you realize that multidimensional systems do not have to be Euclidean geometric systems at all?

e.g. many objects in computer programming are multidimensional yet non-geometric objects.

Geometry is a set of assumptions and relations of multidimensional systems. The Projective->Affine->Metric->Euclidean hierarchy of geometries is only one of them.

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

Those are the duals. This reasoning makes sense only if the assumptions of 3D Euclidean geometry are followed.

For example, in 4D Euclidean geometry, a point can be defined as an intersection of only two planes and non-Euclidean interpretations of multidimensional systems might have different definitions of points...or none at all.

[Coder]

what if the universal transforms were fixed, and it is the observer that is being run through them, along with all his Euclidean assumptions?

That's plausible but this implies some kind of sequencing/ordering of the transforms, otherwise the observer could not experience these transforms sequentially but all simultanously.

It seems that a material observer does not experience all of the universal transforms simultanously, and there is some kind of sequentiality and locality to these experiences.

It's hard to conceive locality if the universal transforms do not have mutual relationships/arrangements (e.g. some kind of coordinates) or a sequential ordering.

[bperet]

It's hard to conceive locality if the universal transforms do not have mutual relationships/arrangements (e.g. some kind of coordinates) or a sequential ordering.

Sequencing and coordinates come from geometry, which is not part of the natural reference system. A transformation matrix requires ordering because it is all done in a diagrammatic system. In my attempts to model the RS over the years, I've asked myself these same questions. I don't have a viable solution--yet. But I have noticed that Larson's RS is "read only" from the scalar motions (inanimate)--it is a predestined system that does not allow for any "user input" (free will).

I've introduced a computer concept called an Architectural Pattern in the RS2 writeup on the main site, as an extension of the Model-View-Controller pattern, the MVCV where I've included a "controller-view" to account for "feedback" events, such as consciousness interacting with the system. I'm going to attempt to use that concept to include functional sequencing as a part of the projective system. That way, the order in which you apply transforms would be a natural consequence of the projection from natural to Euclidean reference systems.

[Gopi]

But I have noticed that Larson's RS is "read only" from the scalar motions (inanimate)--it is a predestined system that does not allow for any "user input" (free will).

Actually, he does leave a door wide open: probability considerations. Everything that does not link on from quantity to quantity, directly, are mentioned here, and elaborated in Beyond Space and Time.

That is an important concept, as free actions can occur when one course is chosen among many alternatives. It just happens to be a bit "behind the stage".

[Gopi]

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.

I would consider the above paragraph the gist of a LOT of work... very aptly put, Bruce. Finally got a handle on the cross ratio.

The visualization I use is that of shadows... in projective geometry, the shadow and the object casting the shadow are equivalent. If that has to be true, then the cross ratio has to be a constant.

[davelook]

I also have a pendulum clock in the living room and could not help but notice that the pendulum requires MASS to operate, with two, opposing motions to keep it functioning: the force of the wound spring, and the acceleration of gravity. Take away either--don't wind it, or put it in orbit--and it stops functioning.

Actually, it works in orbit just fine. Take any mass, paint a dot on it, and set it spinning along a balanced "mass-axis".

The painted dot will appear to make the same harmonic "swinging" motion as the pendulum as a whole.

The whole notion of rotation being absolute blows me away. A spaceship in intergalactic space might have a hard time determining it's own "absolute linear velocity" (which according to Einstein doesn't even exist), but can easily determine it's "absolute rotation" rate with respect to the universe. I think this has a deep connection to Plank's constant somehow.

And, just for fun...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHyTOcfF99o

[bperet]

Actually, it works in orbit just fine. Take any mass, paint a dot on it, and set it spinning along a balanced "mass-axis".

Let's put it to the Internet experts... survey says:

According to EK, a pendulum would not swing on an orbiting spacecraft.

Objects in space are in constant free fall towards earth. Since the whole pendulum is in free fall motion, the arm of the pendulum is going at the same speed as the rest of it, and it does not swing.

In orbit, you are in free-fall; constantly falling towards the center of the Earth. A pendulum in your orbiting spacecraft is no different than you, in that it is aslo constantly falling toward Earth. This means there is no tension in the string holding the pendulum bob, so the pendulum cannot swing back and forth.

if you were truly in outer space, not in orbit with all gravitational forces negligible, a pendulum would NOT swing.

I know if I take my clock off-balance, or lay it on the table, the pendulum stops. It is very picky about being perpendicular to the G-force.

The whole notion of rotation being absolute blows me away. A spaceship in intergalactic space might have a hard time determining it's own "absolute linear velocity" (which according to Einstein doesn't even exist), but can easily determine it's "absolute rotation" rate with respect to the universe.

But it would be easy to determine for a spaceship in intergalactic time. Of course you would not be able to determine the absolute rotation then!

I think this has a deep connection to Plank's constant somehow.

I guess the first thing I'd ask, is "Is Planck's constant, constant?" In the RS, most of the constants that do not reduce to unity AREN'T. (Such as the gravitational constant--only applicable locally.)

[Tony]

Motion must be sensible. Anything that is in stillness cannot be sensed by our bodies. Rhythmic balanced interchange is how nature expresses phenomena. Motion is initiated from an imbalance seeking balance and is perpetuated by a rhythmic or cyclic interchange that provides for this alternating imbalance. When balance is a achieved, motion stops; we no longer have motion.

What are the conditions of existence of motion?

[bperet]

What are the conditions of existence of motion?

I think Larson summed it up best by stating that motion is nothing more than abstract change. Einstein's change was something relative to something else, hence "relativity." Larson's change was a difference of speed, relative to unit speed, expressed as either space or time.

Sitting at a traffic light here on Earth, you appear motionless though you are still moving at 67,000 mph through space. That's the common thread between Einstein and Larson--things are always moving, and if you think you don't have motion, all that is saying is that you don't have any motion, relative to a reference that you have selected.

In the natural system that is based on scalar speed, motion always exists--it is unconditional. We only apply "conditions" once we have picked a reference to measure from, such as unit speed motion, the speed of light.