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
bperet
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Distance is irrelevant

Post by bperet » Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:04 pm

Does your program use more memory to simulate 2 protons that are 1 mile apart, versus, 2 protons that are 1 inch apart (in the extension space) ?

In other words, does the "nothing between them" consume any resources in your simulation...
No. I only store locations in extension space. (1,0,0) and (1000,0,0) consume the same amount of memory, 3 integers.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

I only store locations in

Post by Horace » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:05 pm

I only store locations in extension space. (1,0,0) and (1000,0,0) consume the same amount of memory, 3 integers.
That's what I thought and that's why I wrote: the space that makes up 2 protons really exists, but the space that makes up separation between them does not exist and the distance in the extension space is an intangible vacuum, not a "thing," and objects have nothing between them.

Can we state the same thing about intervals of time? (temporal distances) ?

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

still no answer to my original question

Post by jpkira » Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:19 am

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?

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

These are good questions.

Post by Horace » Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:10 am

These are good questions. Ones that Bruce is better qualified to answer.

Anyway, electrons can move through atomic space but not through the extension space between atoms (unless they aquire RV). So there are fundamental differences between the atomic space and extension space.

I think that at the root of the problem lies the fact that it possible to sense the distance between atoms only by contact, e.g. when photons come in contact with an atom "arriving" from a certain angle or with a certain intensity. That's why when you close your eyes you lose 99% information about distances in extension space.

The same conclusions can be drawn about antimatter and the Cosmic sector, since it is the antimatter's motion that creates the 3D "extension time" on "their" side of the equation.

I do not know about the so called "equvalent space" because as far as I rememeber CONTACT is defined by superposition or adjacency in either aspect of motion - this is again a better subject for Bruce as I was always murky on that very important issue.

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

moving in 3d time

Post by jpkira » Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:49 am

One more time. how does something move in 3d time? what does that even mean?

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

3d time

Post by jpkira » Mon May 02, 2016 4:36 pm

Thanks for trying. Motion means change of positon in 3d space as I observer an object. In the cosmic realm I am not sure who is there to observe anything? 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?

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Your question consists of 4

Post by Horace » Tue May 03, 2016 3:39 pm

Your question consists of 4 parts:

how - by deviation from unit speed (1 unit of space per 1 unit of time) throgh directional cancellations of normal progression

something - that "something" must be a motion, too. In this case an antimatter because only antimatter creates a 3D temporal coordinate system for itself....and leaves the spatial aspect of motion at 0D.

move - motion is axiomatic in RS, on one unit level it always happens at c and it has two reciprocal aspects. It does not require an object to be moved. The change of position, that you are probably fixated upon when thinking of motion, can happen only over multiple units, after a coordinate system is created by directional looping one of the aspects (space or time).

3D time - an Euclidean coordinate reference system created by gravitating antimatter.

NOTE: You will not be able to absorb it if you don't get out of the "thing in an aquarium" paradigm. You are not swimming in a 3D aquarium, you are made of that aquarium. In RS it is the observer's motion that creates the coordinate system for itself. Obvously a 3D motion, such as double rotation, creates a 3D coordinate system for itself, while a 2D motion, such as single rotation, creates a 2D coordinate system for itself. If you were a 2D creature, you'd swear that the aquarium around you was 2D as well.

P.S.

Consider 1D and 0D (scalar) motions, too.

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Motion means change of

Post by Horace » Tue May 03, 2016 3:41 pm

Motion means change of position in 3D space as I observe an object
In RS motion is a much more generalized concept and it does not require objects for its definition and existence.

You should really think what is needed to evaluate a position in 3D extension space, e.g.: touch & sight (parallax, intensity, triangulation).

...and whether it is even possible to do that without collisions of any kind.

@Bruce

Would you agree that collisions are superpositions of motions ? e.g. when a photon collides with a proton...

User avatar
Horace
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

form our perspective looking

Post by Horace » Tue May 03, 2016 3:43 pm

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?
Yes, because the atoms of your retina are localized in space and in time they are spread out, therefore you cannot establish a fixed reference system in time and refer to it in order to form a temporal image when photons strike the atoms of your retina.

That does not mean that you cannot construct an optical or electronic experiment that will form a stationary temporal reference system on the basis of one particle. EPR entanglement comes to mind here....

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Combining motion

Post by bperet » Fri May 06, 2016 3:02 pm

Would you agree that collisions are superpositions of motions ? e.g. when a photon collides with a proton...
Good job with your explanations. Yes, I would agree. When the absolute location of a photon becomes coincident with the absolute location of a proton, then depending on the motions involved, it can either: aggregate (remain stuck in the time region of the proton--a charged neutrino does this to make hydrogen), compound (add motion to existing motion, like vibration on rotation to get rotational vibration) or combine (add to the magnitude of an aspect).
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply