Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

[sstivender]

Alright, so when you say "only ONE scalar dimension produces the 3D coordinates system", there are still two other scalar dimensions with their associated units of time that I should not think of in our conventional frame of reference. In this case,it would be the s₁/t₁ in my earlier post that is responsible for the the 3D spatial coordinate system and the one unit of time. It follows then that what I called s₁ shows up in a 3D space and can take on any direction.

When you talk about two-dimensional motion, I then think that what I called s₂/t₂ is brought into consideration. The s₂ can therefore be the second dimension in space. But how should we think about the second unit of time t₂ in the case of two-dimensional motion?

[bperet]

When you talk about two-dimensional motion, I then think that what I called s₂/t₂ is brought into consideration. The s₂ can therefore be the second dimension in space.

Space is a single dimension of motion, acting within a 3-dimensional coordinate system. There is no 2D motion in space--try it. Try walking ahead and to the right at the same time, without any deformation. Not even Mr. Fantastic can do that. Rotation is not 2D, either--it is just a single angle--you can still connect the start and end locations with a straight line.

That is why the 2nd and 3rd scalar dimensions can only modify the dimension that is coincident with the coordinate system--our 3D coordinate system cannot express anything other than 1-dimensional motion, as a line, a twist, or a combination of both (take a step forward and twist so you are facing in the other direction when the step is done).

What the 2nd and 3rd dimensions modify is that line or twist--it makes it move forward faster or slower, or even backwards, or twists it faster, slower, or in the opposite direction. As a consequence of that, our prediction of spatial motion gets distorted--you think you are taking a step ahead, but end up off to the side, standing on your head because of these "unseen influences" of the 2nd and 3rd scalar dimensions. (That's called "quantum mechanics.")

But how should we think about the second unit of time t₂ in the case of two-dimensional motion?

It is just modifying the motion that is coincident with the 3D temporal coordinate system, the cosmic sector, in exactly the same way as s₂ is doing with 3D coordinate space. But it is not as apparent, because motion in time is expressed through equivalent space as force fields--so the fields start to act differently--like poles may start attracting, for example (comagnetism).

Tesla discovered this in his early researches into the electric arc. Using a coil with a spark gap interrupter, by changing the frequency of the interrupter he discovered the natural resonant point of the coil, where the spark was maximized. But he did not stop there--he kept on looking and found two more frequencies where the electric spark acted differently--in the 2nd resonant point, a "brush" was formed (Tesla's name), where the electric discharge was going straight up--not attracting nor repelling. The 3rd resonant point pushed the brushes to the side, so opposite charges were repelling each other. (If you notice, this correlates exactly to the behavior of 1-x, 2-x and 3-x speed ranges.)

Just a "fun fact to know and tell," the 3rd resonant point is what he called "radiant energy." It's a shame that all Tesla coils built these days use the 1st resonant point, and miss all the fun.

[sstivender]

I think I'm getting closer to understanding: with emphasis on the word think. It's starting to look like we will only see one motion in our 3-D coordinate space that we live in. The Scalar motions, each one of three existing independently, are somehow "projected" into our 3-D coordinate space. But there will only be one projection since we only perceive one reality. Perhaps the word "projected" is not quite the best since we are not watching a movie. We are experiencing the Scalar motions directly. I prefer to think of it as how the Scalar motions "manifest" in our 3-D coordinate space. But to keep the language consistent, I will refer to it as a projection as you have.

I take it that what is typically referred to as a 2-D motion is a bit of a fallacy. Since the three dimensions of scalar motions cannot take on a zero value, all motion is 3-D. That is, all three Scalar dimensions will always project into our 3-D coordinate space. What we talk about as a 2-D motion is two Scalar dimensions with a space:time ration other than unity while the third dimension of Scalar motion is unity.?

I must take exception to not being able to move in 2 dimensions of our coordinate space at the same time. We may not be able to see it (like the Invisible Woman) but to produce an interference pattern, a photon must pass through both slits of a double slit apparatus at the same time. Something that a point particle cannot do if it is thought of as ....well... a point. Photons have an uncertainty of lateral displacement that can become rather large after traveling great distances. Is this not akin to 2-D motion?

Anyway, I am thankful for your responses and look forward to continuing this thread.

[jpkira]

I think a fresh start in explaining RS leaving out the word dimension because of the way we use it day to day would be nice. I have no idea what would be a better word but there has to be one that makes it clearer.

[MWells]

Yes 3-dimensional RS scalar-motion is nothing like our familiar length x width x height container understanding. You gotta throw that out right away. It's a purely abstract, mathematical construct with absolutely no direct topological association to our experience. Confusingly, nevertheless, it is defined as having a 3-dimensional euclidean geometry in its own conceptual domain. But each of these dimensions of motion are of both space and time - not just space or not just time. And they only have properties of position, magnitude (speed), and one of 2 directions. It is only the net effect of 3D scalar motion that takes part in our empirical world. While we can calculate all three of these dimensions, effectively, we can measure only one.

IMHO, the biggest problem with understanding the Reciprocal System stemmed from Larson's insistence that all one needed to know was a deductive chain of logical reasoning. However, he himself spent many years in an inductive phase of theoretical development which was obviously rich in insight. That insight would have been very helpful to skeptics and students had it been included in some formalized presentation. For better or worse, people naturally want to make inferences based on experience and if they can't do that from a presentation, then there'd better be something really compelling to back it up. That compelling aspect generally means something like new solutions to existing problems and/or old problems solved in a simplified manner.

[sstivender]

Perhaps S/T Ratios or Scalar Ratios. A definitive accounting method than shows how to project each and all into our observable reality would be a big help too.

[Horace]

Remember, dimensions are how many numbers (or variables) we need to describe something

IMO it is very important to emphasize that these numbers must be independent in order to qualify as dimensions.

In other words, if one variable can be expressed in terms of another variable, that means that they are no longer independent and do not qualify as two independent dimensions.

Dimensions are independent by definition.

[Horace]

they are independent dimensions of motion--one cannot influence the other, but the shadows cast by them into a coordinate system DO affect what the resulting shadow looks like. Larson projects a single dimension into a 3D system, and the shadows from the other two dimensions then modify that initial projection, making the shadow behave differently--no effect on the dimensions casting the shadows. (This is what Nehru's paper on the Interregional Ratio is talking about.)

We need a POVray like program to graphically illustrate creation of these "shadows" so much !!!

It would be worth 1000³ words !

[Horace]

Yes 3-dimensional RS scalar-motion is nothing like our familiar length x width x height container understanding. You gotta throw that out right away. It's a purely abstract, mathematical construct with absolutely no direct topological association to our experience. Confusingly, nevertheless, it is defined as having a 3-dimensional euclidean geometry in its own conceptual domain.

Yes, but it should be possible to create a graphic analogy of the 3-dimensional RS scalar-motion for display. It would be a mere crutch, it migh have to use pseudocolors to accomplish that feat, but it should interact in a consistent manner to form the familiar "shadows" that Bruce was writing about.

[bperet]

Yes, but it should be possible to create a graphic analogy of the 3-dimensional RS scalar-motion for display.

Our physical senses cannot perceive scalar dimensions of motion directly, because there is no geometry to them. That is why Nature had to do it through projection into a coordinate system, with a causal ordering (cause-and-effect, aka the "clock").

It would be like trying to describe what yellow light "tastes like," or "what color is sweet?"

Though a dual representation of the shadows cast into coordinate space concurrent with those cast in coordinate time might let consciousness make the correlation, but it would be like looking at one of those hypersphere rotations.