How can absolute, or relative locations exist?

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
SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

How can absolute, or relative locations exist?

Post by SoverT »

Long time lurker here, with a list of accumulated questions.

Something I've been puzzling over is the concept of absolute locations in space.

Consider two atoms, A and B composed of the exact same motions, observed to be in two different locations. If the fundamental motion of which everything is comprised is purely scalar, how can locations be "stored"? There is no concept of a location in motion. As an observer, if A and B are identical, how are they not observed to actually be each other, or to be in the precise same location, due to being the same ratios?
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Absolute locations

Post by bperet »

Consider two atoms, A and B composed of the exact same motions, observed to be in two different locations. If the fundamental motion of which everything is comprised is purely scalar, how can locations be "stored"? There is no concept of a location in motion. As an observer, if A and B are identical, how are they not observed to actually be each other, or to be in the precise same location, due to being the same ratios?
Larson's concept of "absolute location" only exists for the progression of the natural reference system. Picture a 3D grid that looks somewhat like a Rubik's cube. The absolute location would be the corners of those adjacent cubes. Now expand the size of the cubes, and they will all move apart from one another--progression. The concept is really only applicable to photons, as they sit on those intersections and are carried outward by the progression.

The 3D coordinate locations we use conventionally is totally dependent upon the observer and what is being observed (see discussions on computer models regarding this).

Atoms gravitate (oppose the progression), which means they are constantly changing their "absolute locations" on that framework. That is why they stay separated. It is analogous to walking backwards on an escalator or moving sidewalk. The escalator is the progression, and by walking the wrong way you are not being carried by it. Each step would be an absolute location. If you stand still, like the photon, you get carried along.
Every dogma has its day...
SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

Ah, I had forgetten to

Post by SoverT »

Ah, I had forgetten to consider the implicit arising of locations from the 3 dimensions as outlined in the 1st postulate itself. It's easy to lose track of all the variables when playing with isolated thought experiments.

I think that also answers another question I had, wondering if new locations were created as the progression expanded, in a conventional grid, more "space" for locations would exist in the ever increasing interstices. The thought was partly brought about from considering the unit size of space being ~45nm. But if everything is simply relative thanks to scalarness, that smallest unit could be more accurately labeled as "the smallest size".
Post Reply