Wow!

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
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Wow!

Post by Horace »

I wonder how this relates to RS geometry? 3+1...

Any takers?

http://youtu.be/GFLkou8NvJo?t=0m38s
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Wau

Post by bperet »

Shouldn't that be Wau! ?

I noticed that there is a lot of mathematical "scamming" in the video, like hiding "1" as e2 i π. Multiplying stuff by 1 doesn't do much. I'm not sure there is anything to it, other than the basic recursion you find with the growth measure in the time or space regions.
Every dogma has its day...
rossum
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am

Wau, Digamma or Stigma

Post by rossum »

The video about Wau number - 1, as I understand it, was created as a response to videos about mysterious properties of the golden ratio, Pi etc...
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Here is another link for

Post by Horace »

Here is another link for posterity.

This time it is not aboout Wau but about something that reads like a drunk RST or Ra stuff.

http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/159/16 ... ectro.html
There is no such thing as "absolute length" in this universe
Meaning of Space and Time

Let us return again to our empty universe which contains no substance, and therefore no frame of reference, except for a single uniform particle of substance. But as we have just seen, the particle must itself be composed of an infinitely divisible variety of sub-particles.

We could have chosen a single particle at any of an infinite number of sub-levels to be our single particle. To avoid the issue of the arbitrary size of the particle we select, let us conceive of it as having zero radius.

Although it does not, this conception will allow us to introduce one scale of distance at a time.As remarked earlier, motion and orientation have no meaning for a single particle in an empty universe. Now introduce a second infinitesimal particle. This gives meaning to orientation, since angles can be measured from the line joining the two particles.

It also provides a single measurement of length, the distance between the particles.

It does not, as before, provide a scale for the empty universe, since the distance cannot be measured in units of particle diameters, which are still being assumed to have no dimensions.

Therefore there is no way yet to determine whether our particles are separated by a microscopic or a macroscopic distance. There is as yet still no meaning to motion in this two particle universe. The two particles cannot change direction, since all directions have meaning only relative to the particle-to-particle direction.

And the two particles cannot change distance, since all distances have meaning only relative to the particle-to-particle distance.In a very real sense, this universe without the possibility of motion or change has no time. Time can have no meaning if there cannot be events or change to mark its progress.

Put differently, if there were such a thing as an absolute time which existed somehow in addition to our two particles, the lapse of a microsecond or a million years would be just the same and utterly indistinguishable. But the existence of something with substance, such as an absolute time scale, violates the assumptions of our construction, that nothing exists except our two infinitesimal particles in an empty universe. Remember, we refer to "substance" rather than "matter" to cover ANYTHING which exists.

An absolute scale of time, just as for a structure or framework in space, would have substance in this broad definition.

Perhaps you have thought about one possible event or change which might occur in our two-particle universe up to this point.

We might imagine that the two particles coincide, which is a distinguishable condition from non-coincidence. It might be fair to say that the first coincidence of the two particles marks the beginning of time; and that the interval between any two coincidences marks an interval of time. This interval still has arbitrary and indeterminate length.

We cannot tell if the interval to the next coincidence is longer or shorter than the last (that implies an absolute scale of time to measure against).

We can merely mark the progression of time by counting coincidences.

This brings us to an important point of our mental construction.

In an empty universe consisting of two elementary units of substance, the ordinary properties of the universe (time, space, matter) do not exist outside of the particles and between events of coincidence. It can therefore be said in a logically meaningful way that space and time which are empty of particles and events DO NOT EXIST! This eliminates a logical fallacy we have been skirting around up to now about whether the empty space and time surrounding our particles exist.

In our construction they do not.

Therefore our use of "substance" to mean "anything which exists" is logically correct, since a true void would not exist (in either space or time), in the operationally-defined meaning of the word "exist" as used here.Of course, for actual particles with finite dimensions,events of coincidence do not occur.

Instead we have what may be operationally described as "collisions", in the sense already discussed.

Two particles interact "collisionally" when their sub-particles at all levels approach the infinite density limitation and are forced to retreat.

Notice, however, that if we were to imagine an infinitesimal volume of space IN OUR REAL UNIVERSE within which there were only two uncomposed infinitesimal particles and nothing else (including forces), then all that we have concluded about distance and time not existing between events of coincidence would still be true. No time or time interval would exist until an event occurred, with the only possible events being collisions with other elementary particles of substance.Therefore, on the most microscopic levels, time must proceed"instantly" from one collision event to the next.

Reflection on this construction, which implies the non-existence of space and time between events in a region, begins to provide some insight into why the universe seems to behave as if space and time were relative, not absolute. We have reasoned to the conclusion that they must be. To emphasize the point that true vacuum implies non-existence, we are asserting that every point in the perceptible universe is at every moment of time filled with contiguous substance at some infinitesimal level.

If substance could be imagined to become absent anywhere at any time, time there would cease and the perceptible universe would collapse until the"vacuum" was filled.

Put another way, a particle reaching one edge of a "vacuum" would skip instantaneously to the opposite edge, just as if the "vacuum" had zero dimensions, because there is no substance to mark the passage of time inside of the"vacuum", and no absolute time without substance.
Post Reply