The orderlIness of Motion

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

The orderlIness of Motion

Post by SoverT » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:31 pm

Recently I had reason to dig into the mechanics and implementation of the IP addressing scheme used for the internet, and I noticed some elements that were curiously similar to Motion.

IPv4 addresses range from 0 - 2^32 (4 billion).

In the internet economy, ranges of addresses are sometimes blocked off and assigned to corporations. In order to more conveniently work with these numbers, they are broken up into octets, or bytes, allowing for operations on segments of 0-255 regardless of placeholder.

As it relates to Motion, I've never seen a convincing reason for why exactly a total magnitude should prefer to manifest in a specific order, other than to convenience a theorist. This includes Bruce's quite plausible analogy of a "pile of speed", where the topmost, fastest unit is the most likely to disconnect and fly off.

It occurred to me to wonder if it's possible to interact with or manipulate a specific magnitude range of an atom in a similar manner as one can slice out a masked 255 byte from the middle of an IP address and alter it.
Is "masking" a thing in the scalar realm?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: The orderlIness of Motion

Post by bperet » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:57 pm

SoverT wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:31 pm
As it relates to Motion, I've never seen a convincing reason for why exactly a total magnitude should prefer to manifest in a specific order, other than to convenience a theorist. This includes Bruce's quite plausible analogy of a "pile of speed", where the topmost, fastest unit is the most likely to disconnect and fly off.
Nature likes symmetry, so it prefers the smallest "change" possible in any configuration (after all, motion is nothing but "abstract change"). Larson discusses this in relation to atomic rotation. If you move a magnetic rotation upward from Helium, 2-1-0, you could technically do 3-1-0 as Neon... but it would "wobble" a heck of a lot more than 2-2-0 would, a perfect sphere. The most probable configuration is the one with the least eccentricity. Granted, eccentric structures CAN and DO occur, particularly in things like particle colliders.

As to "why" nature likes symmetry, the higher the eccentricity, the higher the probability of some kind of interaction to occur, removing the eccentricity. With enough clock time, things balance out.
SoverT wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:31 pm
It occurred to me to wonder if it's possible to interact with or manipulate a specific magnitude range of an atom in a similar manner as one can slice out a masked 255 byte from the middle of an IP address and alter it.
Is "masking" a thing in the scalar realm?
Yes, it is known as Alchemy. When you "mask out" and alter atomic rotations, the result is transmutation. And what is "masking"... it is a way to make one part of a composite/composition stand out from the remainder--in other words, creating eccentricity in the motion. If you have Neon in the 3-1-0 structure (A-B-C), then you now have masked out "A" and can manipulate it, since the "unmasked" version is 2-2-0.

Masking is accomplished by musical principles of harmony, symmetry, anharmony and discord between speeds.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply