Time Region: Bubble of Time or Window into the Cosmic Sector? (Problem)

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.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Time Region: Bubble of Time or Window into the Cosmic Sector? (Problem)

Post by bperet » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:19 pm

I was working on my scalar motion model, updating it to include time and the cosmic sector and ran across another problem regarding the nature of "coordinate time" in the time region. Namely, is structure (3D coordinates) in the time region:
  1. Independent, like a microcosmic bubble of time, where all the temporal coordinates are just local to that micro-universe?
  2. Dependent upon locations and structures that exist within the 3D time of the cosmic sector, where unit space is a lens or window into the cosmic sector?
Larson tends to use the former (#1), treating the time region as sheet of graph paper to place rotations and orientations (the time region has geometry) to create atomic structure. He does allow other motions to enter and exit the time region. Spatial displacements (like the electron) just pass through as a conductor; temporal displacements get stuck and add to the existing motions like a chemical combination. But I have found no indication in Larson's works of any connection between the 3D time of the time region and the 3D time of the cosmic sector. (Rainer Huck indicated that Larson had to admit the existence of the cosmic sector, but did not like to think about it much, preferring to stay in the conventional reference system.)

While trying to design the structures for computer code, one cannot help but notice the similarities between the coordinate time of the time region and the coordinate time of the cosmic sector--they both work the same way. No sense in creating two copies of computer functions that do precisely the same thing, so I started factoring out the commonalities, which gave rise to this question.

When you DO factor out the pieces, you find a yin-yang interpretation of the two aspects of motion:
  • Yang: 1D, extension space or time
  • Yin: 2D, equivalent space or time
I am using 1D to represent space, because all spatial relationships are 1-dimensional--push or pull (similar to the Electric Universe theory), which can be assigned to an arbitrary 3D coordinate system. No matter how you move, dX, dY, dZ--it can still be reduced to a single, 1D vector. Equivalent space is 2D because you are dealing with planes instead of lines, more like an impeller creating a vortex.

For the conventional perspective of the material sector, we have "locations" in extension space (coordinates), where each location can contain outward motion in the time region (displacements manifest as photons, particles or atoms) that is expressed through equivalent space (rotationally inward motion in space). This results in spatial aggregates and physical structure. The cosmic sector is the inverse: extension time locations holding equivalent time structures--antimatter.

With this interpretation, what the program code comes down to is a choice: create an independent, micro-universe for each and every photon, particle and atom (which contains an infinite amount of time), or just place those temporal displacements at a unique, absolute location in the cosmic sector--one universe with distributed motion.

If the time region IS a "window" into the cosmic sector, then some interesting consequences arise:
  1. Spatial structure (the net displacements between atoms) may actually be the internal structure of a cosmic atom, since that window works both ways--the space region in the cosmic sector would be a window into the material sector. This may be the basis of Sacred Geometry, because by arranging things geometrically in space, you are actually altering atomic structure in time, resulting in nonlocal (energetic) consequences.
  2. Atoms would not be isolated from the rest of the universe and would be effected INTERNALLY by phenomena such as the microwave background radiation, neutrino background flux, gamma ray bursts and the like. The atomic structure would never be static; it would always be changing due to these influences. This may explain the intra-atomic energy (free energy) found by the 19th and early 20th century researchers like John W. Keely, Gustave LeBon, T. Henry Moray, Nikola Tesla and others. It would literally be "solar power" from INSIDE the atom.
  3. Material and cosmic atoms are not independent of each other, they are linked in a scalar fashion "each inside the other." That would indicate that the external spatial rotation (the C dimension, spinning the time region) would actually be the influence of the inverse structure, extension time, not an independent motion (unless there wasn't anything else around).
Though I have not found a way to represent this relation graphically, computer logic has no problem "abstracting" it into a useable structure that can be projected into the conventional reference systems. The only difference is the resulting behavior and consequences: a universe made up of micro-Universes at the atomic level is very mechanistic (like Larson preferred)--you don't have concepts like "free energy" or "Sacred Geometry" to worry about.

But, when you structure the Universe in a manner analogous to the situation Doctor Who (Jon Pertwee) encountered in "The Time Monster," landing his TARDIS inside the Master's TARDIS--to discover the Master's TARDIS also landed inside of his--you only need a single Universe with two aspects, existing as a scalar inversion... or should I say a "Reciprocal System."

I know the multiverse theory is quite popular--people love their parallel realities. But my tendency is towards #2, one universe with two aspects, each inside each other. As to why, well I've seen the effects of Sacred Geometry and Feng Shui on my own life and power coming out of "nowhere." This situation could readily explain those phenomenon, whereas the multiverse of mini-Universes could not, because all connection would be purely localized and mechanical.

I'd like to get some opinions, pro or con, before I delve further into the coding. Thanks.
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Time Region: Bubble of Time or Window into the Cosmic Sector? (Problem)

Post by blaine » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:30 pm

Hi Bruce,

I found this post because I was searching for any threads on sacred geometry.

So from my understanding I thought the cosmic sector is the metaphysical idea of antimatter structures operating in 3D time with 1D space analogous to our 3D space plus 1D time perception. Coordinate time would then be the analogous coordinate space - a mathematical tool to use our reference frame and create models for predicting time evolution of systems "embedded" within the coordinate system. So in that sense, wouldn't the 3D time of the time region be the same 3D time of the cosmic sector? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the cosmic sector is.

Also, I like the idea of the two universal aspects paradoxically containing each other - I think this could be related to the "charge parity time" symmetry that has been observed. It actually came up recently when I was thinking about using horn tori to model physical interactions - since everything would be modelled as horn tori intersecting at the central point, the logical way to deal with distances between objects would be to scale the radius of the "other" object by the number of spacial units as measured in our coordinate space. This allows for the inverse square law for interactions. However, I realized that this must also mean that there would be no difference in also modelling it as the inverse - a reduction in the radius by the inverse factor. So in that sense any object far away in this system could be equivalently viewed as either a large object outside or a small object inside.

Anyway, the reason I was searching for threads on sacred geometry was because I was thinking about possible angles of orientation of spacetime units relative to other units. I figure the discreet unit postulate must also imply some sort of discreet angle. Then I realized that the only grid that would allow for connection to any other point in the grid via one unit would be a grid of equilateral triangles - hence the flower of life pattern. Im not quite sure the connection between sacred geometry and the universe within a universe idea, have you had thoughts on this since your post?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Time Region: Bubble of Time or Window into the Cosmic Sector? (Problem)

Post by bperet » Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:50 pm

My conclusion was that the difference between the time region and coordinate time is:

Time region: yin (angular)
Coordinate time: yang (linear)

Rotations are only coupled to the reference frame at ONE, physical location--regardless of the complexity of the structure (example: an atom appears as a point, but is an extensive system of rotations). Coordinate time structures have a temporal volume, because they connect-a-dot between locations.

Re: Sacred geometry; you might want to watch the videos that Gopi did on the subject, on reciprocalsystem.org
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply