3d time

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

Motion/Movement

Post by JoeyV » Mon May 09, 2016 8:04 am

it would mena clock space is "not moving" but instead is constantly "aging"? and moving in time means i travel in past - present - and future but just "moving"? and how do i do that in 3 dimensions?
Movement in time would look like moving in the past, present, and future, from the perspective of the material sector. The difference is the reference point of the observing consciousness. If your consciousness is "in the Cosmic sector", movement will seem the very same as movement here in the material sector seems. The words space and time have so much associated with them that it might be hard to divorce from the idea that they are different or separate. Time "in there" is what we call space "out here". Reciprocally, space "in there" is what we call time "out here". Another thing worth pointing out for discussion with regards to motion... let's consider the photon and radiation of it. In the RS, photons do not have independent motion from the natural reference system. That means that the natural state of 'movement' is a steady progression/expansion outwards. This happens in both sectors so you get a situation where the expansions of each sector acts as contraction in the inverse sector. A photon is a birotation. Light does not move in the way that we perceive it to move. From our perspective within the conventional reference system of coordinate space, it does appear that light starts out at point A, let's say the sun, and flies away at the speed of light. This perception is a product of our sensory perception within only half of the physical universe, the material sector. The photon, itself, isn't moving, the position that it occupies does.
Objects have space between them. No theory can change that. Time is how we post changes and mark before and after. no theory can change that.
I'm going to reiterate what has been relayed already, but perhaps my presenting it again in different words might help. To do that, it seems necessary to tackle this statement bit by bit. You said that objects have space between them. I would suggest that objects have what we perceive and call space between them. The vacuum/distance between two points or objects is seen as a separation of units. That separation is a product of perception. Our physical sense perceptions, predominantly the sight sense, dictate to us where an object is in reference to where "I" am. "I" am here and "You" are there. I think the question you're asking is more of an esoteric one in nature. One of the most effective illusions that is used by consciousness to help consciousness learn/evolve, is the illusion of separation and identity. We are separate people, yes, but we are, together, aspects of the Motion, that is the totality of our universe. We are units of motion ourselves, and that's where the separation comes into play, when considering that we are each, discrete units of motion, in a reference frame of motion.

When you point out that time is how we mark change and before and after, I will have to defer you back to Bruce's comment about there being a difference between change in position in a given reference system and causality. You are right, in that time, as it is usually defined and used, is the reference of duration between events. In the RS, time is defined a little differently. It is one of the two aspects that constitute motion. Clock time is the standard that we are used to. It is the 1d rotational progression that we use to divide moments from and within other moments.
How does soemthign move in the Cosmic sector in 3d time? In fact how does anythign move in tiem vs. space? Is it because there is NOTHING of substance [matter? atoms?] to move? is the Cosmic sector really ubiquitous energy or waves?
It takes the incidence of a unit of time interacting with a unit of space in order for there to be motion. There are three types of motion that are imporant to understand a difference between: scalar motion, rotational motion and vectoral motion. Vectoral motion is what we're most familiar with in our conventional, coordinate space reference frame. It's tossing a ball and it leaving point A and arriving at point B. Rotational motion is the spin of the ball around the 3 axes, (x,y, z). Scalar motion has to do with scale and proportion. It is analogous to the pitcher's perception of the reduction of the size of the ball as it leaves the hand at point A and moves out/away, and the catcher's perception of the increase of the size of the ball as it approaches, or moves in/towards the catcher's mitt at point B. Out and In are two words that can effectively describe scalar motion.

You may also find it useful to imagine a scale model of something you're familiar with. For me, the idea of a model naval ship comes to mind. You can have a scale replica of something that is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the original object, but scaled down to a smaller proportion by a certain ratio. That scaling, that is... contraction of size (or inversely the expansion of size when thinking in the other direction) is scalar motion. It can be thought of as zooming in or zooming out. These motions are, effectively, the same in both sectors. Vectoral motion out here and vectoral motion in there are the same. Rotational motion is the same out here in the Material sector as rotational motion in there in the Cosmic sector. Scalar motion here and scalar motion there are the same thing where you have aspects of one sector interacting with aspects of the other, as given in the RS, the ratio of motion (t:s or t/s) that has as its two defining aspects, time (t) and space (s). I'm wondering if the difficulty is in trying to visualize how something 'here' moving (vectorially or rotationally), would look 'there'. or vice versa?
Motion means change of positon in 3d space as I observer an object.
Motion [in 3d space] means change of position in 3d space.
In the cosmic realm I am not sure who is there to observe anything?
To answer that question, you'll have to dig into some mythology. There are lots of references about entities from the 'Other Realm' that might satisfy your mind with regards to this question. I suggest the set of papers that were written by Daniel over at http://conscioushugs.com/daniel-papers. The papers are listed chronologically from the bottom of the page to the top, oldest to newest, respectively.
form our perspective looking into 3d time I believe - if I understand correctly - I can't! All I see is what the effect of the 3d time motion bleeds into our 3d space?
This asserction is partially correct. We cannot look into the Cosmic sector with our physical senses. We CAN however, look into the Cosmic sector with our temporal senses.

jpkira
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

3d time movement

Post by jpkira » Tue May 17, 2016 1:47 pm

everyone here agrees with everyone here but no has yet to expalin what it means to move in tiem in THREE DIMENSIONS!

No one here has yet explained WHY there has to be a Cosmic sector where 3d time exists and space is NOT three dimensional. Is this just a conjecture or postulate that happens to fit? If so then can and likely is others.

but thanks for trying!

silvio.caggia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:58 pm

I am a complete newbie to

Post by silvio.caggia » Tue May 17, 2016 2:59 pm

I am a complete newbie to RS2theory, but I try a guess:
You don't move in cosmic sector.
You move is space/time. But in cosmic sector you have time/space, also known as energy...
So in cosmic space you don't "move" but... "energize"?

Now you can club me...

janto
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:55 pm

3d time movement

Post by janto » Tue May 17, 2016 3:45 pm

expalin what it means to move in tiem in THREE DIMENSIONS!
Moving through the past, present, and future (time) rather than moving your physical position in XYZ (space).

Have you read all of Daniel's papers? If not, start with this link. He explains many of the general concepts, and how time/space relate to living a life on earth.

http://reciprocalsystem.org/papers/daniel-phoenix-iii

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Read the manual

Post by bperet » Tue May 17, 2016 4:42 pm

No one here has yet explained WHY there has to be a Cosmic sector where 3d time exists and space is NOT three dimensional. Is this just a conjecture or postulate that happens to fit? If so then can and likely is others.
Here's a crazy idea... try reading some of Larson's books, where he describes these things in detail. No point in regurgitating what is already written and published.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Collision detection

Post by bperet » Tue May 17, 2016 4:51 pm

What would the code to detect such collisions in your simulation ?
After you calculate the expansion due to progression and the inward motion of the rotating systems involved, you check the distance between every pair of locations to see if it is zero. For example, if you have 2 locations that are 1 unit apart. Progression will double it to 2 units. If each rotating system at those locations has a net, inward motion of 1 unit, that is 2 units inward. 2 out + 2 in = 0 = concurrent.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

You move is space/time. But

Post by bperet » Tue May 17, 2016 5:00 pm

You move is space/time. But in cosmic sector you have time/space, also known as energy...

So in cosmic space you don't "move" but... "energize"?

Now you can club me...
OK, I'll send for Captain Caveman... you're close, but remember that time is a name that means "the reciprocal of space." So if you move (dx/t, dy/t, dz/t) in space, then you move as the reciprocal in time: (s/dx, s/dy, s/dz), where "s" is clock space.

But we always set the denominator to unity, as you always see "miles per hour", never stuff like "miles per 48 minutes." So rather than having 3 different values for "s", the ratio is inverted to (dx/s, dy/s, dz/s) and "s" can be uniformly set to 1. But then, our deltas have units of "time" and the ratio is t/s, that of energy, which cannot be expressed in linear space. So it is expressed in what Larson calls "equivalent space," a "yin" form of space that looks like the 19th century concept of aether--something invisible pushing stuff in space around, that we term as a force field.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Moving through the past,

Post by bperet » Tue May 17, 2016 5:14 pm

Moving through the past, present, and future (time) rather than moving your physical position in XYZ (space).
The clock is 1-dimensional, where past, present and future are just the beginning, middle and end of one line. (Doesn't have to be a straight line.)

"Dimensions" is just a word we use to describe how many numbers it takes to describe an object. A line is 1-dimensional, because it only takes a single length to define it. Areas are 2D because it needs two numbers, a width and length. Volumes are 3D, because it is an area (2D) with a height, so 3 numbers needed.

Dimensions can have any units associated with them, space, meters, centons, seconds, time, etc. All "3D time" means is that it takes 3 numbers to define a structure, with "time" as units. We are used to 1D "clock time," with a starting point of zero, negative for the past and positive for the future. That is why "the arrow of time" is a line.

But what if "time" were a balloon, instead of an arrow? When you inflate the balloon, that "balloon of time" now needs 3 numbers to describe its size, width, depth and height--not just length, as in the arrow. That makes it 3-dimensional. Now you could look at the shadow of the balloon on the ground, and see only 2 dimensions for the same object--width and length, because the shadow is a projection (differentiation), so something got lost in the translation.

Clock time appears 1-dimensional because it is a projection of a net motion. In space, you only move 1-dimensionally, in that no matter where you start (x,y,z) and where you end (x,y,z), you only need 1 number, the distance you moved, to describe it. Clock time is works the same way--the 3 numbers of stuff moving in time leaves a 1-dimensional "trail" that we call a clock.

To understand 3D time, you have to stop looking at the trail, and see what was walking around, leaving the trail behind. Those are the "rotating systems."
Every dogma has its day...

janto
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:55 pm

Clarification

Post by janto » Tue May 17, 2016 5:26 pm

I'm glad you've clarified jkpira's query!

jpkira
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

3d time

Post by jpkira » Thu May 19, 2016 10:32 am

Thanks to all who have tried but those 3 units describing time make no sense. What would you call them - time_sub_x time_sub_y and timesubz? What would any of these mean in relation to reality any sector or the Cosmic sector?

And none of the replies describing actually "moving" in 3d time. Seems it would have to be everywhere in space in the Cosmic sector leaves no where to move in it and that just makes no sense.

The more I think about it the more I see this Cosmic sector as indescribable and therefore untenable and just a way to fill holes. It has to mean something to OUR picture of reality and I think RS is just stretching what they call the "obvious".

Post Reply