Time Region Speeds

[bperet]

Greetings Nehru,

See attached Word document, and animated GIF talked about in the Projective Geometry section.

Sincerely,

Bruce

[k_nehru]

Dear Bruce

Please see attached file.

Nehru

[bperet]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been out of town helping a friend with a new computer.

See attached.

Bruce

[k_nehru]

Dear Bruce

Please see attached file.

Nehru

[bperet]

Hi Nehru,

I'm laid up sick in bed with influenza, so my mind isn't really working too well right now. Some quick responses:

>

If you interpolate the sequence, you can find the missing columns.

For a rotational depth of "1", the "left column" contains the deuteron [1-1-0] and proton [1-1-(1)]; the right column contains the alpha particle and deuterium. Since anything below deuterium isn't consider an "atom", they are not included on the Periodic Table.

Since a rotational depth of "0" is also possible, it should also contain 4 more sub-atoms, which would be, on the right: the muon and electron neutrinos, and on the left: the photon (or rotational base w/o linear movement) and positron. I notice that there is no place for the electron in the system of progression... but your idea in an earlier message that the c-positron and electron are rotationally identical may solve that problem.

A book I was reading earlier today states that the circularly polarized photon is the "natural state" of the photon, and the linear polarization only occurs with interaction. This makes a lot of sense to me, because it means that photons WILL interact outside the presence of any other matter, and produce particles as a result. Given what we identify as a rotational base is the CP photon, it fits in well with the rotational depth model.

>

From what I inferred from your table, when 1 Rnat in the time region is represented in the ES of the TSR, it becomes 1 Lnat... my assumption (like many others in ISUS) is that ES is the TSR expression of the TR. I made the comment because of the apprehension that this was not the case -- ES was not a "space bubble" in which TR motion took place, but just a transformation boundary between the two representations, and hence acted with TR "rules", not "TSR" rules.

ES is a difficult concept for people without a strong math background, and who tend to view things geometrically as I do. There is always the tendency to fall back to that "container" approach to viewing the universe, without realizing it.

>

Again this is tied to a misunderstanding of ES. I was well familiar with Larson's description of the 1/t sequence being the last term, and how the natural log represents it... but never occurred to me that it applied to angular motion as well.

I never even knew things like "solid angles" existed until you introduced me to them, so I'm still going over a bit of a learning curve. I'm a farmer, not a physicist... so until I can "picture" something in my head, I really can't conceive of it. And Larson's books fail greatly there -- very few diagrams,.

I hope you can be patient with me -- I am trying and reading books on math and physics to try to keep up with you, but you do have a 20 year head start on me!

There is an old saying from Ecclesiastes, "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven." It takes time for seasons to change; and new concepts to be understood.

>

I'm not sure I am following your explanation. I created the water molecule image with an inverse projection; the surface of the spheres are "0", with the center being an "ideal point" at infinity. When I swept an angle (which normally is a radius from a point sweeping an arc, producing an area), the transform converted it to a surface (the origin) sweeping a radius, producing a volume, with the result being a "thickness" running from the surface defining the origin towards the point at infinity (a truncated conic shape rotated over 4pi steradians). The gray areas represent the volume in which rotation takes place; I am unable to distinguish individual angles at this time, just the region of "probability" where the motion takes place. (Note that the molecule was cut in half, in order to see the inside.)

The water molecule picture is my attempt to show temporal locality, from a T-frame reference. If I have a bad assumption here, I would appreciate further clarification. Can you do a quick sketch of what the motions in the TR would look like, when viewed from the T-frame of the TR?

Re: Symmetry

I am afraid that the last couple of communications regarding the tetrahedron have totally confused me. I apparently am not familiar with the rules of the geometry you are using. When you state, "PS-QS-RS, with S as the common point", to me that is simple, 3-axis Euclidean geometry, where S is the origin. No tetrahedron required, and the reason you can't have a 4-dimensional hyper-rotation is because you don't have a 4th dimension the system (only 3 dimensional axes pass thru point S, not 4). The way I interpret your description gives the equivalent of two independent 3-dimensional systems, each containing a double and single rotation. I can understand where you are coming from -- the double-rotational base (two photons) of Larson -- but that doesn't give you a true 4-dimensional system, does it? Is the TR a true, 4-dimensional system or is it just a 3-dimensional system where the rotational depth gives the appearance of dimension?

I'll keep re-reading your messages to see if I can understand, but it just does not "feel" right to me. Of course, I'm not feeling all that good right now anyway; perhaps I'll understand better when I start to recover from this influenza, and can think clearly without a fever.

Thanks for your time and patience with me,

Bruce

[k_nehru]

Dear Bruce

I was imagining that ailments like the 'flu' have long been eradicated in the USA! Hope you have gotten over the fever now, but I suppose the weakness remains for some more days.

Firstly I want to assure you that you have been doing a SUPERB job regarding your study of the RST. Two of your great talents I have always appreciated are open-mindedness and search for Truth. Glad that you were NOT a physicist. (Neither am I.) Yes: visualization greatly assists our thinking---and I have been very much helped and motivated by your computer animated images. Since we are working as a group we need not all develop expertise in all things. We actually complement and supplement each other.

One good fortune, which Larson was denied, is our ability to interact in real time thru the Internet. I am not a trained mathematician either. Now I am beginning to see what you point out about the possibility or otherwise of a 4-dimensional hyper-rotation. Secondly, I want to mention that I could not follow what you described as the 'planar' and the 'polar' math.

My question regarding the image of the water molecule is: are we justified in drawing three spheres with different centers?

Lastly, recent re-reading of the QM has brought up the doubt whether

(a) inside the quantum of space do we have to switch from the three-dimensional SRF (Spatial Ref. Frame) to the three-dimensional TRF, or

(b) do we only need to substitute INVERSE SPACE for space (retaining the scalar time flow intact)? I am working on a separate communication over this point. After discussing it we should be ready to publish an edited version of these our recent findings.

With Greetings and Regards

Nehru

[bperet]

(some personal stuff omitted)...

I just finished typing in my notes from this "archive of the Ancients", and will attach them for you to review. Worth a look, if just to introduce some new ideas.

> My question regarding the image of the water molecule

> is: are we justified in drawing three spheres with

> different centers?

I think you are exactly right. It would be a single sphere of three molecules.

Let me know what you think of the concepts in the attached document. I'm going to try to develop a computer model based on them tomorrow.

Bruce

[bperet]

Hi Nehru,

I think I figured out the dimensional relationship between the time-space and time region. Referring to the attached diagram, consider a "unit" of space to be a cube of "unit radius", such that it forms 8 adjacent cubes (the atomic unit boundary is the inscribed unit sphere). I will call the 8-cube structure the "unit cube" (each side has a length of 2).

The time-space Euclidean dimensions are a projection from the center of the unit cube thru the center of each FACE, thus giving 3 orthogonal dimensions. These are the red, green and blue cylinders on the diagram, extending outward from the unit sphere.

In the time region, however, the dimensions are a projection from the CORNERS of the unit cube, towards the center (infinity). This gives 4 "axes", but the axes are represented by the surface areas on the unit sphere in each octant of the unit cube. The diagram shows a conic projection from the center of these surface areas towards infinity (center of unit sphere/cube). (I reduced the conic diameter in to aid in visualization). This makes the time region 4-dimension in interaction, though only requiring 3 values to represent it (see below).

The corners of the unit cube indicate the imaginary axes, whereas the center of the faces indicate the real axes. This tends to be in agreement with the structure of the complex plane.

You can still represent the interior dimensions with 1/x, 1/y, 1/z by projecting the time-space Euclidean dimensions towards the center of the unit sphere, but they will not operate as they do outside unit space, since inside they are "related", each defining a ratio of the potential interior rotation (1/x:1/y, 1/x:1/z, 1/y:1/z). If you project these ratios into the complex plane, the rotation can be represented by (1, ix, jy, kz) -- the quaternion.

Note that a single quaternion can only express a rotation in ONE plane, due to the ratio nature of its definition. To represent all possible motion, the vector needs to become a 4x4 matrix, just as it does with homogeneous coordinates to represent all possible motion in space. The 4x4 quaternion matrix will also allow the incorporation of secondary linear motion, just as HC incorporates secondary rotational motion in its matrix.

The only problem is that the 4x4 quaternion matrix can only represent "local" motion within the time region; it does not express non-local manifestation in the time-space region, for which a HC matrix is required. I am now trying to find a mathematical form where this complex elationship can be expressed in the same transform. I have a lead on something alled an "octernion", but, unforunately, is mathematically so far above my head, I need a telescope to see it. But I'll keep on trying.

[bperet]

Here is an excellent computer and mathematical description on how to get 4-dimensional rotation from a quaternion. I'm still going over it, but it looks quite promising. (Q47 starts quaternions).

http://skal.planet-d.net/demo/matrixfaq.htm

[k_nehru]

Dear Bruce

Please see the attached file.

Nehru