Coincidence & Touch

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: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Coincidence & Touch

Post by bperet »

Horace wrote:
But we can infer them. Maybe we can even plot this inference for some kind of temporal observer and calculate how many temporal collisons/superpositions happen for a given E/B/G field intensity.
It would probably look very much like it's material counterpart; atoms spherically distributed and interacting. One other thing to consider is that "magnitude" has no direction in either time or space, so all directions are equally probable. This results in concepts like Larson's Inter-regional ratio to account for the distribution of magnitude of motion. My gravitation plots do this to a degree; basically spheres with a density gradient, and the density indicates the probability level of a "collision".

Horace wrote:
Even if these collisions are widely distributed in space, they should be observable as a phenomenon like the CBR. More importantly there should be geometry to it (e.g. the spatial distribution of these collisions shoud be different for cosmic electrons repelling in coordinate time at short temporal distances vs. large distances).
Anything interacting in time will have two attributes (defined in UOM): first, it will have a distribution geometry depending upon speed range (2-x planar, 3-x linear). Second, emission is viewed as quantized. This should hold true even with atomic fields.

Horace wrote:
I know that coordinate time is not the same as the clock time that we experience everyday, but time is time - it still is the same aspect of motion, regardless of reference system.
But that's the rub... "clock time" ISN'T an aspect of motion, it is a scaling factor to location. If I want to scale a measurement down by half, I divide the spatial coordinates by 2--but that ratio is not a speed. Like speed, it has a numerator and denominator, but the interpretation is different. From what I have been able to deduce from geometry, logic and math, is that "clock time" is a scale factor our consciousness applies to get uniform measure of spatial distances in all dimensions and orientations.

Time, as an aspect of motion, is just a magnitude which can be represented in a 3D temporal reference frame. Kind of a double entendre.

Horace wrote:
Temporal collison/superposition exists depite the reference system they are depicted in (regardles of clock v.s coordinate time), don't they?.
In a "projective" stratum (scalar), there are only magnitudes, so magnitudes cannot "collide" as there is no direction or position.

Once you get the affine concept of "direction", then you can have interaction. As yet, there is no position, so an interaction is a change in magnitude.

Adding the dual conic of metric, so you can have dimensions and relations between axes, then you can get superposition since you now have location and hence position.

Then scaling all the measurements to Unity for an absolute frame of reference and measure gives you the Euclidean perspective.

Coordinate time/space exist at the lower 2 levels (metric and Euclidean), so that is where you would have to look to define a superposition.

Horace wrote:
How can motion collide in coordinate time yet stay separated in clock time - shouldn't compute, should it?
The clock time "scale factor" can give the APPEARANCE of coincidence, but it may not actually be the case. Because magnitude has no direction in either space or time, the field effects can look like a superposition with an altered magnitude. Where to draw the line between the actual "interaction" and the illusion of observation is the tricky bit. (Working on it now, but it is a real mind-bender).
Every dogma has its day...
davelook
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:50 pm

Coincidence & Touch

Post by davelook »

I'm in a 4-day class right now for a really cool software package called ANSYS CFD...

http://www.ansys.com/solutions/cfd-primer.htm

I learned that in convective acceleration, particles approaching a pipe restriction experience a decrease in pressure as they accelerate, which is sort of counter-intuitive. This reminded me of how shrinking the space of an electron causes it to bounce around faster, so I remarked to a coworker that the Navier-Stokes equation seems to be similar to the Schroedinger equation, but for the classical scale. I think the N-S equations are deeply linked to Larson's ideas. Then the instructor blew me away. He started talking about how if you accepted the idea that time could be transported, in addition to energy, momentum, mass, you could drastically simplify the equations. His paper was initially rejected but is under re-review at Journal of Fluid Dynamics right now. I had just been think about the meaning of t/s the previous night! velocity is space per unit time, but energy is time per unit space, so is this an actual transport of time per unit space (albeit rotationally when dealing with atoms)?

So I googled "navier-stokes" & schroedinger and found this paper...

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -12-07.PDF

...man I wish I could make sense of this stuff. Oh well, guess I better get on the ball learning.

Anyway, I'm hoping to do some modeling of RS concepts when I get good at it, since I control the input variables.
RMohan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:49 pm

Coincidence & Touch

Post by RMohan »

thanks for post, Dave.

pressure, if i recall correctly, is a sum of static pressure and dynamic pressure. I think that in a pipe constriction, static pressure decreases, but dynamic pressure increases, and the latter's rate of increase with

the degree of constriction outstrips the former's rate of decrease with

constriction, resulting in higher overall pressure.

Kind of related to how "lift" on an airfoil works. dynamic pressure

higher over the wing, static pressure lower, airfoil "floats".

davelook (email removed) wrote:

Quote:
I'm in a 4-day class right now for a really cool software package called ANSYS CFD...

http://www.ansys.com/solutions/cfd-primer.htm

I learned that in convective acceleration, particles approaching a pipe restriction experience a decrease in pressure as they accelerate, which is sort of counter-intuitive. This reminded me of how shrinking the space of an electron causes it to bounce around faster, so I remarked to a coworker that the Navier-Stokes equation seems to be similar to the Schroedinger equation, but for the classical scale. I think the N-S equations are deeply linked to Larson's ideas. Then the instructor blew me away. He started talking about how if you accepted the idea that time could be transported, in addition to energy, momentum, mass, you could drastically simplify the equations. His paper was initially rejected but is under re-review at Journal of Fluid Dynamics right now. I had just been think about the meaning of t/s the previous night! velocity is space per unit time, but energy is time per unit space, so is this an actual transport of time per unit space (albeit rotationally when dealing with atoms)?

So I googled "navier-stokes" & schroedinger and found this paper...

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -12-07.PDF

...man I wish I could make sense of this stuff. Oh well, guess I better get on the ball learning.

Anyway, I'm hoping to do some modeling of RS concepts when I get good at it, since I control the input variables.
davelook
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:50 pm

Coincidence & Touch

Post by davelook »

Quote:
pressure, if i recall correctly, is a sum of static pressure and dynamic pressure. I think that in a pipe constriction, static pressure decreases, but dynamic pressure increases, and the latter's rate of increase with

the degree of constriction outstrips the former's rate of decrease with

constriction, resulting in higher overall pressure.
You're right, the top of the wing acts as a constriction, with higher dyn. press., which redirects the velocity vector more toward the rear of the wing (due to conservation of momentum) instead of normal to it, which also means the force vector is redirected toward the rear.

I've been thinking of the "continuity equations" lately, which are equations in which some quantity is conserved (energy, charge, momentum, mass, even probability). Earlier today I had a flash of intuition: Time is a conserved quantity.

Just now I read at http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/03/1 ... es-is-hard...

Quote:
But we are still not very good at discovering new globally controlled quantities; to quote Klainerman, “the discovery of any new bound, stronger than that provided by the energy, for general solutions of any of our basic physical equations would have the significance of a major event” (emphasis mine).
Notice that most of the conserved quantities have time as the numerator, which goes completely unrecognized in current thought.
Horace
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Bruce,   Have you advanced on

Post by Horace »

Bruce,

Have you advanced on this mind-bending puzzle ?

Bruce wrote:

"The clock time "scale factor" can give the APPEARANCE of coincidence, but it may not actually be the case. Because magnitude has no direction in either space or time, the field effects can look like a superposition with an altered magnitude. Where to draw the line between the actual "interaction" and the illusion of observation is the tricky bit. (Working on it now, but it is a real mind-bender)."
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Ratio versus Speed

Post by bperet »

Horace wrote:

Have you advanced on this mind-bending puzzle ?

Yes, I've made a lot of progress in that "direction", so to speak. There are two subsets of "motion" that Larson does not distinguish from one another, which I believe is why he never addressed the conversion from scalar motion to coordinate motion.
  • Motion as ratio: space/time or time/space, defining a SCALAR proportion of magnitudes.
  • Motion as speed: space/clock-time or time/clock-space, defining a SCALED speed or velocity.
It is a subtle difference. The ratio is like looking at an actual object, whereas the speed is like viewing a scaled drawing of an object. Now that may seem backwards, but what we define as our local environment is technically a "scaled" drawing, with the scale fixed at unity. It is the Universe that runs on non-unity scales (hence the concept of scalar motion).

Most mechanical or geometric observations are measuring speed. Atomic configuration space and the interactions between atoms and particles are measuring ratio.
Every dogma has its day...
Gopi
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

Re: Ratio vs Speed

Post by Gopi »

Code: Select all

Motion as [i]ratio[/i]: space/time or time/space, defining a SCALAR proportion of magnitudes.

Motion as [i]speed[/i]: space/clock-time or time/clock-space, defining a SCALED speed or velocity.
The first would be the scalar regime, with space taking only natural number values, while the second would take Real number values. We also have to include "complex" motion... space/imaginary time!
Post Reply