Time (Miles Mathis)

[davelook]

Motion/change is merely relative (with the exception of light) ---> Special Relativity

Acceleration/rate of change is absolute, including rotation (Sagnac effect) ---> General Relativity

[Tony]

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.

Also,

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.

If motion is unconditional as ‘abstract change’ then it is not subject to any external conditions of existence and has no ‘concrete’ conditions of existence, if it did then it would not be unconditional. Motion thus exists in and of itself.

In the case of abstract change the concept must remain at the level of abstract thought because no other determinations are possible because motion is nothing more than abstract change -in and of itself.

Leaving the question of a 'concrete' referent wrt motion aside, and if on the other hand, motion has internal conditions of existence i.e. in the form of energy or substance or whatever, then that is another matter –excuse the pun! Not necessarily the physical energy, matter or substance with its ‘oscillatory’ expression in and out of our 3-space.

Some things cannot yet be measured even if we pick a reference to measure from in 3-space.

[bperet]

If motion is unconditional as ‘abstract change’ then it is not subject to any external conditions of existence and has no ‘concrete’ conditions of existence, if it did then it would not be unconditional. Motion thus exists in and of itself.

Exactly. When Larson first realized this he did not know what to call it, because what he saw was just "numbers" in reciprocal relation, quantities without being a quantity OF something. Like other researchers that have come to similar conclusions, it all seems to start with some kind of abstract concept of quantity, related through change.

Leaving the question of a 'concrete' referent wrt motion aside,

Once you have something changing with respect to something else (the projective cross-ratio, for example), then you can measurements of that change. That is where something more "concrete" comes in, as you now have a

and if on the other hand, motion has internal conditions of existence i.e. in the form of energy or substance or whatever, then that is another matter –excuse the pun! Not necessarily the physical energy, matter or substance with its ‘oscillatory’ expression in and out of our 3-space.

But does matter really matter? What Larson defines as rotation, translation and vibration are just different tools used to measure change, just as I use a ruler to measure length and a protractor to measure angle, and a clock to measure periodicity. We do not see the actual motions, only the dials on the instruments we have invented to measure change.

Some things cannot yet be measured even if we pick a reference to measure from in 3-space.

That's why Larson picked a reference in 3-space/time -- unit motion.

[Tony]

The construction of the concept: abstract change itself implies the movement/motion of something i.e. the movement of an energy-substance (mental substance or subtle ‘matter’ if you like) of the thought process itself. To pretend otherwise even the thought process that generated the thought object of abstract change could not exist in the mind domain.

Abstractions like ‘abstract change’ are assumed to be ‘empty’ to us on the physical plane of existence but in the mind domain (time domain) abstractions have substance. If such abstracta lack causal powers or spatial location, how do we know about them? If we know about them then they must have some degree of effectivity and substance.

One would suggest that this presupposes that motion and substance coexist, and they are fundamentally one and manifesting in many differentiated forms ad infinitum and at internested levels of reality e.g. physical, aetheric, astral, mental, spiritual.

But does matter really matter? What Larson defines as rotation, translation and vibration are just different tools used to measure change, just as I use a ruler to measure length and a protractor to measure angle, and a clock to measure periodicity. We do not see the actual motions, only the dials on the instruments we have invented to measure change.

Matter matters in the sense that abstractions do have substance in the mind domain they are not ‘empty’ otherwise Larson couldn’t have constructed his thought objects and worked out the connections that obtain between them.

Rotation, translation and vibration all imply movement or change and are thus distinct specific modes of motion. However, in essence they are fundamentally one which implies that they are all just so many different aspects of the same thing: motion. Here we have an internal relation between an essence (motion) and the phenomenal forms of its appearance as expressed on the dials of the various scientific instruments that we use as a means of measuring its differential aspects (rotation, translation, vibration).

Once you have something changing with respect to something else (the projective cross-ratio, for example), then you can measurements of that change. That is where something more "concrete" comes in..

Usually ‘something more concrete comes in’ when we are dealing mainly with changes that are relative to physical objects and phenomena and are trying to establish connections between them based on an external mechanical form of causality.

If motion is substance (in the form of ‘abstract change’) it has no existence independently of matter however you define that matter, whether mental, astral, aethereal or gross physical stuff. Motion as substance is a cause immanent in its effects which manifest in a potentially infinite number of different ways from within to without.

[Horace]

Bruce,

Did you ever write to Miles Mathis?

Has he ever replied to you?

Was he open minded about 3D time and reciprocity?

[bperet]

Did you ever write to Miles Mathis?

Yes, I did, but it was regarding some problems I found with some of his math. He replied that he was very busy these days, and forwarded my questions on to one of his students to deal with.

I do believe Gopi wrote to him a number of times, discussing a number of subjects, but I don't recall where that left off.

(Most of the people we have contacted regarding the Reciprocal System reply that they just do not have the time to look at another theory.)

[Gopi]

Hey guys,

Yes, I did contact Mathis. He is comfortable as long as we stay outside the unit space, or as long as we do not ask about his system of "stacked spins", at which point he fends it off. Unfortunately, as with many researchers, the more he found that his theory worked well, the more he is getting convinced that his is the only way. What was that Dumbledore said about brilliant men making huger mistakes?

Reciprocity is inherent in his approach, because he has replaced what he calls the "charge field made of photons" for what we call "outward scalar motion". So the charge field, is scalar, and the photons relate to the speed of unity. It is the same thing. Correspondingly, his analysis of polarization, for example, is non existant, and even in RS there is much work to be done there.

Feel free to contact him from your side, I think I have made him impatient.

[Horace]

I just read some of Miles' math papers.

What the hell is a "charge field"? How did he arrive at this contruct?

Thanks for the warning to avoid these subjects with him, as not to annoy him.

I would not want to discuss "stacked spins" or "charge fields" with him if he is so defensive about them.

However, I would like to discuss multidimensional time with him and the "illusions" that happen below one unit of space.

[Gopi]

I think he arrived at the idea by looking at the nature of revolutions of planets, and seeing that the gravitational constant in fact hid a physical process, what we call "scalar motion" and what he calls charge field. The charge aspect of it, is not a radiation as you might guess it to be, but rather the ever present expansion at unit speed, only that he attaches something with mass to it, like a little ball with a really tiny radius, and hence makes it a "field of photons, causing motion by bombardment". Once you do the translation in your mind, the concept is actually pretty accurate.

We must be aware of explaining multi-dimensional time as a theoretical concept, and try to do it more as something drawn from experience. I am still fleshing out the way to do that. Because, being an artist by background, his mode of analysis is very visual and experience based, and communication requires us to be able to point those things out.

You can try the dimensional analysis approach, he suspends his imagination at those points (also making some mistakes in the process) but the fact of getting everything expressed as s and t will be a good point for talking about t, t² and t³, IMHO.

Cheerio.

[Horace]

Do you understand why Miles Mathis arrived at the dimensions of mass as a quotient of s³ and t² ?

He recognizes that mass is motion but his exponents are wrong. See:
http://milesmathis.com/third.html

Also, his Mathismatics seem to be soooooooooo confused about dimensions of the electric charge.

Just see here:
http://milesmathis.com/charge.html
http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html
http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html

It we could point out the wrong turn he took and convince him to adjust his time exponents by 1, then he would be a great contributor to RST even if he does not see the illusions that happen below the unit boundary, yet.

This guy can really think independently.