Re: Dimensions in the Reciprocal System
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:06 pm
Welcome back Doug! - You've been gone too long
Advanced research into the Reciprocal System of theory
http://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/
But that "direction" is not an intrinsic property of motiondbundy wrote:This is an interesting discussion, but to reach the correct solution, we
have to start from the correct premise. The set of all possible motion
ratios, defined as s/t or the inverse, t/s, like the set of rational
numbers, has only three properties: Dimension, "Direction" and Magnitude.
But not on one unit basis, where the only choices are inward or outward.dbundy wrote:There are only two "directions" possible, greater-than one
and lesser-than one.
Starting points are important (as long as they are not geometric points).dbundy wrote: That's the starting point. If we don't start there, nothing else matters.
So just to keep it simple, a point in the "motion" space (TU) with coordinates { -1/2, 1/8, 3/4 } to what would correspond in the material sector (MS) or observed Universe?dbundy wrote: Now, whether or not the above development defines functions to project
rationals into a R4 codomain or not, I cannot say, but I can say that no one has ever
confronted me with an argument of logical fallacy, regarding it.
You don't understand. The scalar motion produces a physical entity, which consists of a 3D combination of intrinsic scalar motions. Once this entity exists, a proton let's say, its coordinates in a stationary reference system would be expressed as normally done, in terms of x, y and z real numbers.PJ_Finnegan wrote:
So just to keep it simple, a point in the "motion" space (TU) with coordinates ( -1/2, 1/8, 3/4 } to what would correspond in the material sector (MS) or observed Universe?
Sure it is. It has to be. Think of the expansion/contraction represented by the 1 in the ratio as an expanding/contracting radius, while the reciprocal value increases continually. We can easily plot it on a two-dimensional graph, where the oscillating aspect traverses one unit repeatedly and the non-oscillating aspect increases linearly.Horace wrote:
But that "direction" is not an intrinsic property of motion
Again, referring to the rational number, s/t = 1/2, as representing the oscillating unit of scalar motion, where the numerator is 1, because of the oscillation, and the denominator is 2, because it doubles over each cycle, the concept of "direction" is intrinsic to the description of the motion. The magnitude of the space oscillation is 1 unit. First, in an outward (or increasing) "direction" and then in an inward (or decreasing) "direction," or vice-versa.Horace wrote:
But not on one unit basis, where the only choices are inward or outward.
Even then the choice of inward or outward is a feature of relation between at least two motions or two units of motion, since with one motion we cannot even define which aspect of the ratio is the numerator and which is the denominator.
In other words: the ratio is not oriented and the same unit of motion can "appear" inward to one observer and "outward" - to another.
That is why I objected to the notion that scalar motion's "direction" is its intrinsic property.
So specifying the 3 dimensions of motion only yields the nature (type) of a particle but not its coordinates in the MS?dbundy wrote:You don't understand. The scalar motion produces a physical entity, which consists of a 3D combination of intrinsic scalar motions. Once this entity exists, a proton let's say, its coordinates in a stationary reference system would be expressed as normally done, in terms of x, y and z real numbers.PJ_Finnegan wrote:
So just to keep it simple, a point in the "motion" space (TU) with coordinates ( -1/2, 1/8, 3/4 } to what would correspond in the material sector (MS) or observed Universe?
I really doesn't have to be. We are going to have fun discussing this.dbundy wrote:Sure it is. It has to be.Horace wrote::
But that "direction" is not an intrinsic property of motion
I am familiar with that line of reasoning and I counter that in order to have what you call expansion/contraction you need to have a reference from which to judge that change, otherwise you just cannot tell if something got bigger or smaller, because you have no history of previous sizes. Unless you are God, only a second unit of motion can constitute such reference and form the history of sizes.dbundy wrote: Think of the expansion/contraction represented by the 1 in the ratio as an expanding/contracting radius, while the reciprocal value increases continually.
And I counter this that I can "view" the "oscillating aspect" from a perspective of a second motion in such way, that this oscillation turns out to be unidirectional progressiondbundy wrote: We can easily plot it on a two-dimensional graph, where the oscillating aspect traverses one unit repeatedly and the non-oscillating aspect increases linearly.
That diagram is biased because its canvas is assumed to constitute a superior/preferred reference system. There is no such thing in RST.dbundy wrote: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/8 ... N0GU6Co%3D