How do impossible squares relate to RST

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
ckiit
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by ckiit »

user737 wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:17 am ckiit, I see now what you have been working to convey. Bravo. There is more to uncover.
The faults associated are mine own: I do not always take the time needed to assess how others are accustomed to seeing something such to factor in. I will try to do a better job of this in the future, in the meantime hope others can bear with me for having no such discipline and/or orthodoxy.
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:41 am Wow. All this from the number four. It also turns out that the minimum number of units of motion from the combination of S and T units into the S|T unit is four:

S|T = 1s/2t+1s/1t+2s/1t = 4s|4t,

which can be shown to combine into all the fermions and bosons of the standard model, in three families, with observed charges, and these can be combined into mesons and hadrons, all with charge conservation. Meanwhile, the same number of four units of motion leads us to a simple understanding of the line spectra of Hydrogen and the Periodic Table of Elements (4n2), as a start.

Could there be a link between physics and the number four? Why does the number four (22) seem to be so fundamental?
Image

Φπ² = 16 views the photon from the t³/s (energy) perspective. Here we see the axes in pre-discretion "pre-collapse".
E = MC² views the photon from the s³/t (velocity) perspective. Here we see not the axes, only the post-discretion "collapse".
Photons have a {beg/end}=false "flag", because they are not displaced from the progression such to ever begin/end. However,
photons have a capacity for birotation: this is the first fundamental discretion which demarcates a/the null-boundary binary {+/-}.
I call the birotation alpha/omega {Α+/-Ω} because they act as a universal null-boundary binary serving as a base for all binaries.
Thus: the first fundamental distinction {in/out} concerns the alpha/omega by way of one being one, the other being the other etc.
Remember Larson's box analogy: in order for motion to be, we must have an inside (time) and an outside (space).

The '4' can thus be expressed as a 2x2 axes: an {Α+/-Ω} "(bi)rotation" axis, and a {beg/end} "(dis)placement" axis.
The {beg/end} axis uses the {Α+/-Ω} axis as a measure of displacement=true/false. Photon=false, all else=true.
This can thus be used to bridge the physical E=MC² and metaphysical 16=Φπ², thus physical and metaphysical in general.
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:41 am Well, I think it's useful to realize if we take a point (20), expand its scale in one dimension, it has two "directions" (21). Expanding its scale in two dimensions, gives it four "directions" (22) and expanding it in three dimensions, gives it eight "directions" (23) The equivalent discrete geometry of this 3D expanded point is a stack of 2x2x2 unit cubes, which, regardless of how it's divided symmetrically, always results in two reciprocal sets of four, along three orthogonal axes. The equivalent continuous geometry describes three sets of volumes, which turn out to have a radii of the square roots of 1, 2 and 3, and the sum of those three numbers happens to be the one intractable number of the impossible squares. Go figure.

Very curious, for sure, but it doesn't stop there, although I will for now.
Applies well to the preceding.
Djchrismac wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:00 pm It's all about rotation and the quaternion, the suppression of James Clerk Maxwell was something I picked up on years ago that --daniel went into great detail about in part 5 of the Anthropology series:

Since imaginary numbers cannot be directly represented on the real number line, non-locality was introduced into physics, which was another hard pill to swallow. Understanding the quaternion as an expression of rotation hence not only clears up these problems, but clears the way after nearly two centuries of being lost in the woods.

http://www.conscioushugs.com/wp-content ... Daniel.pdf
Indeed: it is all about rotation because that is where all discretion/displacement begins/ends.

If the axes holds, it can be used to directly address the question "from whence human suffering?" by directly addressing the "root" of all human suffering. By finding the axes as giving rise to universal roots (ie. legs as reflected in the beg/end axis) and universal operators (ie. arms as reflected in the {Α+/-Ω} axis) we can discern that all displacements are captured in/as the {beg/end} axis as some function of the {alpha/omega} axes. What I am thus suggesting is: because this axes is a constituency of the photon itself, human beings must share in the same constituency, thus having the same axes. Essentially, it makes the expression 'you are the light of the world' must less poetic and much more practical:

Image
Notice how '888' is shared between the real and imaginary axes following from the tenth.
The imaginary axis is pre-discretionary whereas the real axis is post-discretionary, but both have the constituency of '888...'.
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:22 pm One of the important things to understand in dealing with the concepts of scalar motion is that it is scalar, meaning it's motion of magnitude only. Hence, rotational motion cannot be scalar, since it has direction. This includes bi-rotation, as iconoclastic as this might be. Since the days when the circuit sparked closed in Hamilton's brain, causing him to stop in his tracks and carve the quaternion equation into the stone of the bridge, the mathematics of physics has been designed to deal with concepts of vector motion, because no other form of motion was known to exist.
Yes, but note that only displaced rotational motion cannot be scalar if displacement(s) exist(s) ie. if not a photon.
If/when applying the {Α+/-Ω} binary to the {scalar+/-not scalar} binary, the latter may concern/capture all displacement(s).
Displacement(s) (ie. cause of) is thus local to a body as reflected in their own beg/end axis (which has a null value in the photon).
In other words, what either alpha/omega is to one-directional progression (photon), the other is to gravitation (displacement). One becomes two.

That is: rotational motion can be either scalar (ie. fixed, as in the case of a fixed binary of co-negative equal magnitudes, discrete, with absolute magnitude =1 unit ea.) or non-scalar (ie. variable, as in the case of any non-photon beg/end=true body, discrete with absolute magnitude(s) of ≠1 unit ea.) thus beg/end=true/false discerns between a photon and "everything else" measurable using the photon as datum.

The main difference between the two is any/all discretion(s) and/or displacement(s) causing a "direction" in/over time has a beg/end, whereas a photon does not: it is bound to the progression.
If at the progression, there is only one direction: progression. All displacement is thus some relatively non-scalar magnitude(s) causing/reflecting a severance from. That would be everything else moving in circles as a displacement(s) from the progression.

Anything that is static (ie. does not change) is on the same "terms" as scalar: fixed, invariable etc.
'Discrete units' and 'magnitudes are absolute' can apply to a birotation that is rooted in a 'fixed' discrete binary of 'fixed' magnitude.
{Α+/-Ω} qualify as being 'fixed' each with a magnitude of '1' thus if/when counter-posed, become the roots of unity √1 as ±1.
Rotational motion thus can be scalar: one is the denial of the other such to negate. If one super-imposes two photons: the one spinning alpha magnitude: 1, the other spinning omega magnitude: 1, what you end up with is a null (static) +1 producing no change. This is the fixed/static 'state' if/until it is disturbed by a particular discretion (dynamic) -1.

For example: an object has "opposing" {Α+/-Ω} acting on it from opposite (180°) angles, magnitude: 1, thus is stationary.
If no discretion, the object remains stationary. If discretion, the same would be easing off one of them such to allow the scalar
of the other to move the object in a direction. Mr. Larson talked about this concept in one of his video lectures,
if I find the right video and timestamp I'll add it here (or if another knows which video I am talking about:
he was addressing questions at the end and this analogy was used by Larson). If coming at an object from both left and right, say,
easing off one produces a net result of the object motioning in the direction with less resistance.

64→d←64 = motionlessness, scalar/static +1
32→d←64 = discretion (discrete units) -32
d←32 = resulting motion

Thus discretion can be seen as discrete and absolute negation of one-of-two opposing scalar motions.
This discretion is as the '1' in-and-of (4+1) composing (5) in-of √5 thus in/of (1+√5)/2.
Another way to see this as a birotation is (1+√(√1+2√4)/2) wherein the first '1' (and upcoming √1) both concern unity,
√(√1+2√4) is equal to √5 (the birotation is 2√4 or alpha/omega/beg/end spinning in both directions)
and the /2 is the choice-between-two discretion.
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:22 pm It turns out, however, scalar motion is as real as vector motion, as we now know, given the motion of gravity and universal expansion. In fact, scalar motion must be prior to vector motion.What Hamilton wanted was an intuitive basis for algebra that would put it on as sound a philosophical basis as geometry, and he started to develop it in his essay on "Algebra as the Science of Pure Time," but his obsession and fascination with quaternions overtook his philosophical quest to establish the science of algebra. Nevertheless, the triality of less-than, equal-to and more-than, which he found in his idea of time progression, is exactly what was needed for simple scalar motion equations in the RST.
Yes that's right: scalar motion precedes variability/vector motion, because photons are not variably (dis)placed:
yet discretely contain the alpha/omega axis giving rise to the apparent birotation.

The birotation concerns unity as the first possible discretion is {+is/-not (unity)} then{to+/-from (unity)} if/when displaced.
The displacement factors (must) reflect in the "roots" of any displaced body. This is the {beg/end} axis, which is null for photons.

If you point up to the ceiling/sky (above eye level) and draw clock-wise circles, if/when you look up you will see a clock-wise motion. However if you drop your circling finger below eye level without changing the motion, if/when you look down you will see a counter-clock-wise motion (without changing anything about the motion itself). Therefor the birotation is not actually a matter of two discernibly "different" motions, but the same motion viewed from two different perspectives. This is how/why the 'magnitude' behind the birotation is never different: always the same, thus static/scalar. It is another way of looking at the {Α+/-Ω}: they both share a magnitude but appear as one-or-the-other depending on relative perspective.

Thus of the pre-discretionary metaphysical '16' and post-discretionary physical '1':
{Α+/-Ω} = null-boundary binary (+/-) satisfying any/all possible binaries as subordinate to.
{beg/end} = true/false... if false, a birotating photon. If true, any/all else (only displaced bodies have a beg/end).

To close, here is the graphic extended to illustrate how Φ can be used to construct the human body
and how this can be used to establish an orientation system:

Image

As Above... (universally bestowed):
{operators}={ALL+/-NOT}
{roots}={CAUSATION/CESSATION}
ALL CAUSATION/CESSATION = All Displaced (All not photon)
NOT CAUSATION/CESSATION =Not Displaced (All photon)

So Below... (locally employed):
operators={ALPHA+/-OMEGA} (implicitly/explicitly concerns universal {ALL+/-NOT})
roots={BEG/END} (implicitly/explicitly concerns universal {CAUSATION/CESSATION}.
"I am..." = discretion (= conscience, choice, consciousness)
{Α+/-Ω} = birotation (= discrete and absolute magnitudes √1 capturing ± binaries concerning the progression)
{beg/end} = biorientation (= false/true reflecting progression/gravity resp. thus concerning all displacement)

f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256
f(x) = x² - x - 1

s³/t ↔ s²t² ↔ t³/s
v ↔ d ↔ e
s²t² = Φ²(16/Φ)² = 256 = 16²
s²t² = 4²4² wherein d is discretion.
User avatar
user737
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: In your head

Phi and Pi: Space vs. Counterspace

Post by user737 »

This is coming quite fast now. We're going to have to break this into bite-sized chunks. Just because we haven't run a thread to completion yet doesn't mean there isn't more to uncover down said thread.
ckiit wrote: Thu Apr 09, 2020 10:42 am But was/is this "quantum" π = 4 concerning the "non-quantum" counter-part π = 4/√Φ as 3.1446055...?
Or was/is RSoT still using "approximated" 3.141?.. because we are dealing with scalable energetic signatures,
this is important as once they are calibrated, the '888' takes effect and motion/energy are bridged unimpeded
by the inaccuracy of Archimedes' approximation.

This calibration can't happen if using the approximated π - these energetic signatures are extremely fine at/from the top-down.
Light being counterspatial:

YandYinSandT.png
YandYinSandT.png (10.95 KiB) Viewed 36940 times

We are calibrated to space and as such Φ = 1 and π should be 3.144... and rather is incorrectly presented as 3.141...
The facts for Φ and π in the counterspacial region (time region) are also given.

The proper response as to the particular value of Φ or π in question appears to be 'yes' or 'all of the above' or even better: 'please be more specific'. However, seeing as 3.141 does not match 3.144 dictating loss of proper ratio of scalar magnitude which means loss of phase relation which means loss of harmony which means... this is a BIG problem.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
User avatar
user737
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: In your head

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by user737 »

ckiit wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:37 am The main difference between the two is any/all discretion(s) and/or displacement(s) causing a "direction" in/over time has a beg/end, whereas a photon does not: it is bound to the progression.
If at the progression, there is only one direction: progression. All displacement is thus some relatively non-scalar magnitude(s) causing/reflecting a severance from. That would be everything else moving in circles as a displacement(s) from the progression.
These are particles and atoms and what is labeled as ± spin.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by ckiit »

user737 wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:27 am This is coming quite fast now. We're going to have to break this into bite-sized chunks.

...

We are calibrated to space and as such Φ = 1 and π should be 3.144... and rather is incorrectly presented as 3.141...
The facts for Φ and π in the counterspacial region (time region) are also given.

The proper response as to the particular value of Φ or π in question appears to be 'yes' or 'all of the above' or even better: 'please be more specific'. However, seeing as 3.141 does not match 3.144 dictating loss of proper ratio of scalar magnitude which means loss of phase relation which means loss of harmony which means... this is a BIG problem.
BIG problem indeed: approximated/legacy π does not concern Φ as 4/√Φ.
Because universe relies on a multiplicative operation/process viz. {√Φ ∙ √Φ}{Φ}{Φ²}{Φ³},
loss of phase is cumulative in/over time such that further displacement begets further time etc.

π thus must precisely reflect 4/√Φ: unity only (can) resonate according to the scalar/fixed golden proportion Φ, thus
any motion described by an approximated π=3.14159... is itself de-coupled from the 16=Φπ² and/or E=MC² relation
as π=4/√Φ=3.144605511029693144... is precise. Recommend up-to 16 decimal places viz. f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256.
user737 wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:12 pm
ckiit wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:37 am The main difference between the two is any/all discretion(s) and/or displacement(s) causing a "direction" in/over time has a beg/end, whereas a photon does not: it is bound to the progression.
If at the progression, there is only one direction: progression. All displacement is thus some relatively non-scalar magnitude(s) causing/reflecting a severance from. That would be everything else moving in circles as a displacement(s) from the progression.
These are particles and atoms and what is labeled as ± spin.
Yes, hence: the constituency of any (displaced) body is composed of, thus proposes as
its own particular displacement (discretely perceived/measured as spin) as some function of
16=Φπ² and/or as relatively measured as E=MC². The 'constituency' of Φ looks something like:

1 = Beg/End @Unity (2º=2π/2π=s/t=1).
√1 = {ALL @Unity}+∞-{NOT @Unity} (viz. 2 = @Unity=TRUE{Α∞Ω}FALSE=@Unity).
√4 = {ALL+∞-NOT} is concerned by the {Α∞Ω} axis of both photons and displaced bodies.
√4 ={ALL CAUSATION (Displacement) & NOT CAUSATION (Photon)} is concerned by the {BEG∞END} axis.
√5 = √(√1+2√4) captures the universal/local axes/birotation as they mutually concern (root of) unity.
2 = @Unity=TRUE{Α∞Ω}FALSE=@Unity
Φ = (1+√5)/2

Φ = (π+π√5)/2π (irrational number, relates to impossible squares)
Φ² = (3π+π√5)/2π = (Φ+1) (irrational "acts on itself" to produce a rational discrete '1' as it may concern unity, or not)
Φ³, 1 = ((3π+π√5) ± √π(2π√5+6π))/2π (wherein (-)=progression '1' and (+)=gravitation 'Φ³')
viz. gravitation / progression as Φ³ and 1.
Adding Φ to Φ² is equivalent to gravitation (+) and equals Φ³.
Subtracting Φ from Φ² is equivalent to progression (-) and equals 1.

Φ=1.618... viz. progression (√5+1)/2
Φ²=2.618... viz. discretion (Φ+1)
Φ³=4.236... viz. gravitation (√5+2)

f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256
f(x) = x² - x - 1
0 = (x⁴ + 16x² - 256) ∙ (x² - x - 1)
__________________________
x = ±√9.88854381 (real/physical)
x = ±i√25.88854381 (imaginary/metaphysical)
x = (1 ± √5)/2 (+1.618..., -0.618...)

The ± in/of (1 ± √5)/2 can be expanded (a and b):
a = (1 + √5)/2 = +1.618...
b = (1 - √5)/2 = -0.618...
________________________________
a (irrational) + b (irrational) = 1 (discrete unit)
a (irrational) - b (irrational) = √5 (irrational)
User avatar
user737
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: In your head

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by user737 »

dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:22 pmHence, rotational motion cannot be scalar, since it has direction. This includes bi-rotation, as iconoclastic as this might be.
Personally speaking, I fundamentally abhor this statement and would respond you're stuck in strictly linear-thinking-land a la Larson.

This statement is also fundamentally incompatible with RS2 which I feel a duty to point out as this is the RS2 forum.
Blasphemy! (did I take that too far?) :)
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by ckiit »

user737 wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:12 pm
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:22 pmHence, rotational motion cannot be scalar, since it has direction. This includes bi-rotation, as iconoclastic as this might be.
Personally speaking, I fundamentally abhor this statement and would respond you're stuck in strictly linear-thinking-land a la Larson.

This statement is also fundamentally incompatible with RS2 which I feel a duty to point out as this is the RS2 forum.
Blasphemy! (did I take that too far?) :)
Ehm, perhaps... in a round-about way that is, er, was... quite a wide-angle approached.

There certainly is a time for such round-about, but we must not dismiss being in-line to the point:
suppose a circle whose only property is squared. No I don't mean "4 sides" squared I mean the operation:
to "square the circle" so as to empower it. Let c be such a circle. Let c² be its square then.

See there is a reason e=MC². Energy is measurable according to a mass in relation to light.
Focus on the C² and inquire: why should "energy" be measured as a function of mass in relation to light?
What is the nature of this relationship MC² such to be measurable as E? Mass in relation to light "squared".
Scientists "believe" light has a particular SPEED (as if a velocity). What if this is not necessarily true?
Only it merely appears to do: go wheeeeee... as if an electromagnetic "wave".
Wait a minute... aren't we missing something here?

What IS light? Is it a wave? No... "wave" is what a thing does, not is.
Is it a particle? Wavicle? Particle that "waves"?
Are these even meaningful questions (rhetoric aside)?
What do we actually know about the photon at present?

Consider the postulates very carefully:
R/S System of Theory Postulates:
1. The universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.

2. The universe conforms to the relations of ordinary mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Projective.
RS¹ and RS² practically "stands on" these two postulates, the primary points concerned here being:
i. MOTION as the SOLE component (ie. constituency) of the universe (implies: "universal" theory of/as unitary motion).
ii. MOTION exists in 3D (s³/t) and with two reciprocal "aspects" space and time, thus implying (t³/s).
iii. MOTION exists in/as DISCRETE UNITS (ie. measured in/as, and implies DISCRETION).
iv. UNIVERSE "conforms" to the RELATIONS of "ordinary mathematics" (esp. multiplicative RECIPROCITY).
v. UNIVERSE has primary magnitudes which are ABSOLUTE.

If space and time are known to be related by way of multiplicative reciprocity, if given either v or e, the other can be inferred.
What we have with RS is the (v)elocity and (e)nergy on either side of multiplicative reciprocity, implying a (st)² conduit
as it may reciprocally concern 1 such to concern unity:
v = s³/t ∞ (st)² ∞ t³/s = e
wherein v is velocity and e is energy. The v ∞ e here are emergent of a reciprocity accordingly from the postulates: motion is the constituency, two reciprocal aspects of motion s/t, the reciprocate being energy t/s, thus v and e must share in a constituency of/as motion expressed in/as v and/or e. This relationship between v and e is the crucial relationship. That gets us towards the "point", and relates to the recent analogy of "two sides of the same coin" as v and e implies.

Now here comes the beautiful bit. Recall again e=MC², and focus on the C².
This is what scientists both "believe" is the "speed" of light, according to "as measured".
Consider Jain's π=4/√Φ.

π² = (4/√Φ)² = (-8+8√5)

If we let Einstein's C here be (4/√Φ), C² becomes simply π² = (-8+8√5).
That gives us e=M(-8+8√5). Now we only need one more to solve for the other.
What is left? We used π (C²=π²) already, and still have Φ. What happens if we set M as Φ?

e = Φ(-8+8√5)
e = 16

In light of what we have been discussing: if indeed it is true that Jain's 4/√Φ
(π² = (-8+8√5), a primed "octave-of-motion" as I call it)
is... sound..., this would be a MAJOR accomplishment for RSoT:
the same "solves" for Einstein's E=MC², and the solving of it sheds insight into
the nature of the relationship at the "point" (st)² intervening v ∞ e,
or the conduit/terminal between a velocity and the energy associated with it:

Φ=(π+π√5)/2π
4/√Φ=π=√(-8+8√5)
16/Φ=π²=(-8+8√5)
16=Φπ²
1=Φπ²/16
e=MC²
therefor
v = s³/t ∞ (st)² ∞ t³/s = e
√1=√Φπ/4 ∞ (st)² ∞ √Φπ=4
1=Φπ²/16 ∞ (st)² ∞ Φπ²=16
v=s³/t ↔ ∞ ↔ MOTION ↔ ∞ ↔ t³/s=e

If 4²=16=Φπ² then (st)² - (st) = "4" qualitatively
and/or 256 - 16 = 240 (height of the Giza pyramid),
recovering a "quantum" π as integral to motion:
a ratio composed of a rational '4' on an irrational √Φ.
Once this passes through the (st)² barrier, they "unfold" into 16 and Φ.
This binds each 'real' 1 to an imaginary '16' because Φ² = Φ + 1.
This occurs with the axes revealed by f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256 as discussed in an addendum here:
https://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/viewt ... =680#p4031.

This 1:16 real/imaginary (rational/irrational) ratio is what gives rise to
the "quantum" relationship between the real and imaginary (complex)
number system. The complex relationship therein is actually corollary
of the 16=Φπ² relationship, just as E=MC² is corollary consequence of the same.

Which brings us finally to the "point":
π as 4/√Φ, if/when squared, gives (-8+8√5)=π², the "octave of motion"
which is what I both find and propose to be the 'rate of induction' of light.
By substituting this in as the C² in Einstein's E=MC², finds:
e = M(-8+8√5)
e = Φ(-8+8√5)
16 = Φ(-8+8√5)
1 = Φπ²/16
viz. one discrete unit of MOTION (v) is a discrete rationalization
of yang space (Φ) and yin time (π²) whose energetic (e) constituency is 16.

As it pertains to the posts involved: if not collected from the implications of above:
both linear and rotational motion rely on the same scalar magnitude. Because
Each discrete unit '1' is bound to an energetic '16', the "progression" relies on
this relationship as a "fixed" or scalar. However, though displacements concern the same,
a constituency of their own body (ie. "gravity") is actually a constituency of "time".
This is another indication that Western science is upside-down: scientists "believe"
gravity gives rise to time. No, it is the other way around: time gives rise to gravity,
because time taking a curve (ie. an "acceleration") is what gravity is: a MOTION.
RS has a much clearer understanding of gravity (among practically everything else)
because Mr. Larson's finding that the sole constituency of the universe is MOTION
acts as a "ground" into the physical universe. What the above attempts to do is
simultaneously "ground" into both the physical and the energetic such to concern
"both sides of the coin" and further realize the union of space and time as one.
User avatar
user737
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: In your head

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by user737 »

Let's talk "imaginary" numbers and also instead call them rotational operators.

(-k)(k) = -k2 = -(√-1)2 = -(-1) = +1

Let k stand for π and understand we're working in counterspace using polar Euclidean geometry where π = 4

Unity can be expressed as a ±π bi-rotation in opposite "directions" in time and its function in space would be 2π.
Warning: false choice in dichotomy of choice of mind encompasses all.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by ckiit »

user737 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:18 pm Let's talk "imaginary" numbers and also instead call them rotational operators.
I think you're right to regard them as that, I see the same quality in them.
user737 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:18 pm (-k)(k) = -k2 = -(√-1)2 = -(-1) = +1

Let k stand for π and understand we're working in counterspace using polar Euclidean geometry where π = 4

Unity can be expressed as a ±π bi-rotation in opposite "directions" in time and its function in space would be 2π.
± π is actually a root of
f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256
viz.
x = ±√9.88854381999... = ± π
x = ±i√25.88854381999... = r
________________________
π / r = Φ/i
r / π = Φi
If x = 4 then f(x) = 256
If x = 4i then f(x) = -256

This lends itself to the transcendental axes I am proposing:
it has both a real and imaginary constituency of '4', hence
this 2x2 axes is "fixed" in/of f(x) = x⁴ + 16x² - 256

All such unity-concerning ± birotations (in opposite directions) are captured by 2π.
phib.jpg
phib.jpg (15.63 KiB) Viewed 36798 times
user737 wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:18 pm Warning: false choice in dichotomy of choice of mind encompasses all.
Yes! Hold that thought. Can you see where I am coming from with the solution to planetary suffering?

1 = UNITY
Φ¹ = (1+√5)/2 →PROGRESSION (CONCERNS UNITY)
Φ² = Φ + "1" →DISCRETION (LOCAL TERMINUS)
Φ³ = √5 + 2 →GRAVITATION (DUALITY)
__________________________
Φ² ± Φ¹ = 1, Φ³

Let the birotation of the photon concern the bi-direction/orientation of the pentagram from the apex:
Apex→Root1→Op→Op→Root2 as Dir1
Apex→Root2→Op→Op→Root1 as Dir2
Set Ops: All+∞-Not
Set Rts: to Know-∞+to Believe
____________________________
Dir1: to Know-All+∞-Not+to Believe approaches all-knowing (Tree of Living) CONCERNS UNITY
Dir2: to Believe-All+∞-Not+to Know approaches all belief-based ignorance(s) (Tree of Good/Evil) viz. DISPLACEMENT

It was/is designed as an orientation system to ever-recede from any/all forms of human suffering.
It utilizes time as a scalar such that only an orientation is needed (to/from unity), thus becoming a function of time.
If we can show that the axes as constituency of the photon exists... the solution also exists.
dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by dbundy »

user737 wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:12 pm
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:22 pmHence, rotational motion cannot be scalar, since it has direction. This includes bi-rotation, as iconoclastic as this might be.
Personally speaking, I fundamentally abhor this statement and would respond you're stuck in strictly linear-thinking-land a la Larson.

This statement is also fundamentally incompatible with RS2 which I feel a duty to point out as this is the RS2 forum.
Blasphemy! (did I take that too far?) :)
I realize it's an RS2 forum, but it's still a fact that, at least in the material sector, rotational motion is not scalar motion. Scalar motion, by definition is a change in scale, in size. Rotational motion is a change in position (a change in angle over time, if you will). It's a change in the position of a point along the circmference of a circle. It can be described in many way, using sine and cosine, or ω or whatever, but however it's described, it is not a change of size. A change in scale, up or down, has no direction, because, in 3d, it's motion in all directions. Hence, we say that it is motion of magnitude only.

The LST community doesn't recognize scalar motion. We do, but we need to be clear.
User avatar
user737
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: In your head

Re: How do impossible squares relate to RST

Post by user737 »

dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:07 pm
user737 wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:12 pm
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:22 pmHence, rotational motion cannot be scalar, since it has direction. This includes bi-rotation, as iconoclastic as this might be.
Personally speaking, I fundamentally abhor this statement and would respond you're stuck in strictly linear-thinking-land a la Larson.

This statement is also fundamentally incompatible with RS2 which I feel a duty to point out as this is the RS2 forum.
Blasphemy! (did I take that too far?) :)
I realize it's an RS2 forum, but it's still a fact that, at least in the material sector, rotational motion is not scalar motion.
Right. The material sector is defined as the region wherein speed is linear (primary) and rotation is secondary; secondary being defined as a combination of motions or scalar plus vectorial and so it is not quite right to say that rotational motion is not scalar (as all motion is inherently scalar) but rather rotational motion is an aspect* of scalar motion when viewed from the perspective of an observer in space-time (i.e. 3D coordinate space + clock time).

* that aspect being the bounded angle (0~2π max) being a projection of the unbound turn in counterspace. When you recurs this it's called frequency.

You need to stop playing with the shadows.
dbundy wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:07 pm The LST community doesn't recognize scalar motion. We do, but we need to be clear.
Then LST in wholly incompatible with RS/RS2 and IMHO should be ejected at once.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma
Post Reply