## Visualization of birotation

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Visualization of birotation

SoverT wrote:Such that, in the coiled spring analogy, the spirals would appear to be unevenly spaced?
Yes, but there would also be a pattern to the spacing that repeated.
Every dogma has its day...

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Visualization of birotation

bperet wrote: ...you can create a displacement from any reference speed.
Yes, that's obvious, but I was not asking about a relation between two motions like a/b ÷ c/d.
bperet wrote:
Horace wrote:What's wrong with misunderstanding a unit of motion as one chunk of space in association with one chunk of time ?
Because you then have a "Universe of Matter" (conventional science) not a "Universe of Motion" (Reciprocal System).
I don't understand how that could be written about my definition of an unoriented unit of motion (s/t), since it does not include any statements, that endow these chunks of space and time with inherent locations and/or directions (like LST does)..
bperet wrote:
Horace wrote:Doesn't unit speed constitute motion already? (even if it does not form particles...)
In my understanding, no, because "unit speed" is the natural datum--the reference of how we measure motion. It is the "nothing" from which we measure...
Yes, the unit speed is the "natural datum" , the natural condition of rest in the unverse, but this doesn't mean that it does not exist.
Indeed deviation from unit speed is not possible in one unit, but it is possible when accounted over more than one unit. So by that token, one unit of motion is not motion but more than one unit is ?! Alas, that breaks logic!
bperet wrote: Also, every displacement creates two units of motion, 1/n and n/1... 1/1 does not do that.
Yes, every deviation from unit speed exhibits that duality when viewed from the unit speed vantage. But I still fail to see why one undeviated motion is not motion.
bperet wrote: In order for unit speed to be a "motion," you have to switch from the natural reference system to a coordinate one with a zero datum--
Actually, a relation between any two non-identical motions will exhibit this effect.
bperet wrote: To summarize unit speed:
• In the unity-based, natural reference system, it is the datum of reference and therefore "not motion."
• In the zero-based, coordinate reference system, it is a motion moving at unit speed.
...but both of these points attempt a relation between two motions. I was not asking about such relation.
bperet wrote: This does not occur with particles and atoms, but does with molecules (harmonic interaction).
Why such a difference?

JoeyV
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:52 pm
Contact:

### Re: Visualization of birotation

Re: Horace

I will only be repeating what Bruce has said, but sometimes seeing a thing in different words can be helpful.

The solution to this requires a change in frame of reference. From the '0' datum of perspective held by an individual in either sector (the point of awareness.. "You are here"),.. unit speed is perceived as the " speed of motion" at which light appears to move. This doesn't necessarily mean that light is actually "moving" at this perceived speed. It is the observation of one's own displacement from Unity that gives it, unit speed, the appearance of motion.

Consider Einstein's train imagery. If you're moving at the same speed of a train, it won't appear to be moving.

Herein, I believe is the issue at hand, where the natural datum is the reference of "no motion" AT unit speed. The perception of light "moving" at unit speed is an artifact of conscious perception from within a given coordinate reference system.

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Visualization of birotation

@JoeyV

All of the examples and reasoning in your post involve relations between at least two motions, but I was not asking about such relations.
JoeyV wrote: The solution to this requires a change in frame of reference. From the '0' datum of perspective held by an individual in either sector (the point of awareness.. "You are here"),...
The "point of awareness" or stationary frame of reference that you've mentioned is also created by a second motion.so it is besides the scope of my question.

I realize that one unit of motion (a ratio of space and time) cannot have a definite location and direction in isolation, but to me it does not mean that is not a motion ...even if a crossratio is.
JoeyV wrote: ...unit speed is perceived as the " speed of motion" at which light appears to move. This doesn't necessarily mean that light is actually "moving" at this perceived speed. It is the observation of one's own displacement from Unity that gives it, unit speed, the appearance of motion.
I understand that quite well, but this is still a relation between two motions - the motion of the observer on the motion of the photon. I also understand very well, that the motion of the observer can be arbitrarily attributed to the motion of the observee.
JoeyV wrote: Consider Einstein's train imagery. If you're moving at the same speed of a train, it won't appear to be moving.
That too, is a relation between two motions.

In my understanding "motion" is not only a crossratio or some LST difference between train speeds.
I fathom motion as an unoriented ratio of space magnitude to time magnitude. Regardless whether that magnitude is 1D, 2D or 3D.
These magnitudes are the "chunks", that I referred to when I wrote, that I conceptualize a unit of motion as one chunk of space in association with one chunk of time.

Since the above does not include any statements, that endow these chunks of space and time with any inherent locations and/or directions, I fail to see what is wrong with my definition of one unit of motion as such.

1) Do you think that one unit of motion exists or not? If "yes" then how would you define it?
2) Do you think that motion can exist as one unit or as a series of units of motion, or both?
3) If you think that motion can consist of a series of units, then do you think that these units are disjoint or linked by the mandatory spatial and temporal continuity requirement? (...that one begins where the other has ended)

P.S.
IMO the first chapters of Bruce's book/tutorial will have to account for readers that think like I do.

JoeyV
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:52 pm
Contact:

### Re: Visualization of birotation

Horace wrote:I fathom motion as an unoriented ratio of space magnitude to time magnitude.
Why unoriented?
These magnitudes are the "chunks", that I referred to when I wrote, that I conceptualize a unit of motion as one chunk of space in association with one chunk of time.
This reads to me to be an implication of the idea that there can be a unit of space divorced from a unit of time. Its my understanding that they can't be divorced in this way. Saying you have a 'something' of space and a 'something' of time looks like the content/container viewpoint where your chunks are the content and motion is the container. A unit of space can only be discussed as being the reciprocal aspect to time as the constituent aspects of motion. I see motion as being a relationship between those two aspect . Where the equation of motion = a ratio (relationship) between space and time, you cannot have any one of these three things (motion, space, or time) without the other two. To attempt to discuss any of these without giving attention to the other two aspects is conceptual fallacy.
1) Do you think that one unit of motion exists or not? If "yes" then how would you define it?
Yes. Given the postulation of discrete units of motion we can look at any scale and see a singular unit of motion. A star, planet, person, cell, atom... all singular discrete units of motion. I think what you might be looking for is a singular constituent building block a motion-thing that is antithetical to a universe of motion.
2) Do you think that motion can exist as one unit or as a series of units of motion, or both?
Where motion is a relationship between the reciprocal aspects of space and time, yes to both.
3) If you think that motion can consist of a series of units, then do you think that these units are disjoint or linked by the mandatory spatial and temporal continuity requirement? (...that one begins where the other has ended)
I think that they can be disjoint, but there's also a third option that was left out. Consider atomic and molecular bonding. The gravitational limits of two separate units of motion interpenetrate into the spheres of each other creating a series of sorts, but its not a situation where one begins where the other one ends.

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Visualization of birotation

JoeyV wrote:
Horace wrote:I fathom motion as an unoriented ratio of space magnitude to time magnitude.
Why unoriented?
Because a simple ratio does not have a defined direction, when it is not related to a second ratio that assumes the role of a datum.
It is merely a change in magnitude of space over a magnitude of time (or vice versa). In math notation: Δs/Δt.
Note that e.g. the direction of space expansion (or contraction) in such simple ratio is not defined because the direction of time is not defined.either and the direction of time affects the direction of space (like in a movie played backwards). Because of this, expanding space over expanding time is isomorphic to contracting space over contracting time....but not to expanding space over contracting time. Examples of these isomorphisms are is shown on these diagrams.
JoeyV wrote:
Horace wrote:These magnitudes are the "chunks", that I referred to when I wrote, that I conceptualize a unit of motion as one chunk of space in association with one chunk of time.
This reads to me to be an implication of the idea that there can be a unit of space divorced from a unit of time.
How could you read it like that after I used the phrase "in association with" ?
Horace wrote: Its my understanding that they can't be divorced in this way.
It is my understanding also.
That is why I wrote that a a unit of motion is a chunk of space is in association with a chunk of space...as in a simple ratio Δs/Δt.
JoeyV wrote: Saying you have a 'something' of space and a 'something' of time looks like the content/container viewpoint where your chunks are the content and motion is the container.
Yes, it would be if I meant that, buy I was referring only to a change of space relative to the change of time Δs/Δt.

In that notation, Δs (or Δt) does not have an inherent direction, and it does not have an inherent location either (because it is not a part of some container), but that change does have a magnitude that is intimately related to the magnitude of time change, which in LST units would mean, that space MUST expand (or contract) by 45nm during 152as.
The direction or location of this expansion (or contraction) is not defined for one unit of motion - these remaining properties become defined only through the relation of this unit with a second unit. Nonetheless the ratio of deltas/changes does not require that relation for its definition
JoeyV wrote: A unit of space can only be discussed as being the reciprocal aspect to time as the constituent aspects of motion. I see motion as being a relationship between those two aspect .
So do I and I never consider them in separation.
JoeyV wrote: Where the equation of motion = a ratio (relationship) between space and time, you cannot have any one of these three things (motion, space, or time) without the other two. To attempt to discuss any of these without giving attention to the other two aspects is conceptual fallacy.
And I wholeheartedly agree that that would be a conceptual fallacy and I am totally committed against it.

Note, that I did not imply even once, that chunks of space (or time) are small parts of some larger fixed containers. In fact I was adamant that they are not, by emphasizing, that they do not have an inherent direction nor location in such "containers" (except for the continuity between units of a series).
This should become even more evident after I denoted them as the ratio of deltas Δs/Δt. As such these deltas represent a ratio of changes. However because it is a ratio, it means that the size of one chunk is relative to the size of the reciprocal chunk and an individual aspect of motion does not stand on its own.

.

JoeyV
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:52 pm
Contact:

### Re: Visualization of birotation

Horace wrote:How could you read it like that after I used the phrase "in association with" ?
Oversight on my part. I believe I see your point and I'm in no position to resolve it since my understanding is more conceptual than others who have hammered out the details to a much more significant degree than has my mind. Carry on.

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Visualization of birotation

JoeyV wrote: I believe I see your point and I'm in no position to resolve it since my understanding is more conceptual than others who have hammered out the details to a much more significant degree than has my mind. Carry on.
I don't think there is much to resolve as I think that Bruce's conclusions are an extension of mine. I just start lower in the abstraction level (with individual ratios) and he likes to start higher in the abstraction (with related ratios or crossratios). He also develops it much furher beyond the basics than I do, but I think that I am more rigorous with the basics.

If you understand my point you could help me to develop a better phraseology or notation, that would be clear to the average Joe and you and Bruce as well. Maybe even to such degree that he'd incorporate it the first chapters of his upcoming book/tutorial.

bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Visualization of birotation

Horace wrote:If you understand my point you could help me to develop a better phraseology or notation, that would be clear to the average Joe and you and Bruce as well. Maybe even to such degree that he'd incorporate it the first chapters of his upcoming book/tutorial.
If I can comprehend what you are saying, I will include it. From what I see reading the conversation, there seems to be a terminology problem here, that stems from this concept:
Horace wrote:That is why I wrote that a a unit of motion is a chunk of space is in association with a chunk of time...as in a simple ratio Δs/Δt.
That is not what Larson's "unit of motion" is. I'm going to avoid the term in the book, altogether, because it implies you have "chunks" of something like Jan Sammer's kineton (a unit of motion). This is probably one of the biggest difficulties with understanding the RS--that "unit of motion" concept creates a bad connection in the 'ole brain, hooking it to the conventional understanding that space is a "thing" (a chunk). The reciprocal relation then extends that premise to "time," which is also chunked to make it a "thing" as well--the whole concept of space and time being simply aspects of motion--analogous to the numerator and denominator being the aspects of ratio--gets lost.

One can also think of it this way: if you had "chunks" of space and time and put them in inverse relation, they would cancel each other out like a matter-antimatter explosion, because each moves inversely (multiplicative opposite) to the other. They would not form "motion." This is demonstrated by gamma-ray bursts--cosmic matter (chunks of time) dropping below light speed and entering the material sector (chunks of space)... kablam! It would do exactly the same thing with single "units," only not as spectacular.

Larson's "units of motion" is actually a 1-dimensional speed range. He flipped to the term, "speed range" when working in 3D, the 1-x (low), 2-x (intermediate) and 3-x (ultra-high) notation. Also understand that the speed ranges are zones that are delimited by the progression (outward, +1) and gravitation (inward, -1) at the far end of 3-x.

This became obvious when using complex quantities to express speeds:

Two "units of motion" = complex quantity: 1, i, i2=-1. The two "zone" being speed (1 to i) and energy (i to -1), or in speed range terms, 1-x (low) and 3-x (ultra high).

Three "speed ranges" = quaternion: 1, i, i.j, i.j.k=-1. Low speed (1 to i), intermediate (i to i.j) and ultra-high (i.j to -1).

Larson thought they were two, different concepts because 1D speed ranges stay within one plane of rotation, whereas 3D speed ranges use three planes of rotation--so they behave radically different. Once you realize it, golly, 1D speeds = 1 plane, 3D speeds = 3 planes--it makes sense. (Read Hamilton's writing on the bridge to understand why there isn't a 2D range of speeds.)

So what we end up with is that:

Ratio = s/t, where s and t are absolute, scalar magnitudes that express the concept of speed. Not a "unit of motion."

Displacement = Δs/Δt, the shear that occurs between different, interacting speeds. This is also the cross-ratio and what you are calling a "unit of motion," where your "chunk" is actually the resulting stress or strain (actually a pressure, not a volume). And if you "do the math" you find that "shear motion" where m-pressure (t/s4) is put in a cross-ratio with c-pressure (t4/s), produces mass:

Space and time are conceptually analogous to numerator and denominator. If you see the numerator (space) on top, then you have speed. However, if you turn the paper upside-down and the denominator (time) is on top, then you have energy. That is what Larson kept trying to explain--space and time are simply aspects of motion--nothing else. Just labels to figure out how two magnitudes relate to each other.
Every dogma has its day...

oreneorg
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:58 pm

### Re: Visualization of birotation

Nehru's concept of birotation, expressing the Euler equation:
.....
It seems to imply the interrelationship between two dimensions in counter space with one in material space
Would this relate to the number Fi?
v^2=1-v
Post by bperet » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:14 pm
Yes, the Fibonacci series is what you get when 3D space and 3D time interact, as discrete units of motion. It also applies to our solar system, showing up as harmonic ratios of planetary orbits.
Post by bperet » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:22 pm
This is from a private email between Gopi and myself:
I was working on how speed in the space region would relate to speed in the time region, trying to see what positron flow through the space region would look like, and came up with something interesting...
From the material sector...
The space region is electric, 1-dimensional speed, v1.
The time region is magnetic, 2-dimensional "orbital velocity", v2
Since we measure in the 1-x range, as "x", we do not account for the unit speed boundary between them, so we would see that unit speed IN ADDITION to whatever electric velocity was on the other side (why cosmic is faster than light). This gives the relationship:
v2 (TR) = 1 (unit speed) + v1 (SR)
Unless I did the math wrong, v is a constant ratio:
v = +1.618... or -0.618...
Which appears to be the Phi, the Golden Ratio. This tells me that in life, where you have substantial TR/SR ratios, the point of rotational stability would not be at unity--but at the Golden Ratio, simply because of the way our senses work in the Material sector (x -> 1, rather than 1 -> x).
Attachments Nehru birotation.docx