Time (Miles Mathis)

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
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1496
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Time (Miles Mathis)

Post by bperet » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:34 am

(Original discussion here: http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/408) Discussion of Miles Mathis' concept of time, here: A reevaluation of time and velocity.

Let me start by quoting Mathis' conclusions, regarding time, from that paper (based on his reevaluation of SR and QED):
As I have shown, time is assumed to be absolute in the sense of being equivalent from one system to another. We must make this assumption in order to calculate velocities, among other things. This does not mean that it is absolute, of course. It means that we must define it as having continuity from our immediate vicinity to any vicinity we want information about. If we do not assume time and space continuity, we cannot hope to build meaningful equations. A universe without continuity is a universe without equations, without mathematics, and without science.

But time is not absolute in the sense of absolutely precise, or absolutely known. It is a concept based on the idea of uniform movement, but the concept allows of only relative measurement. A movement can be known to be more or less uniform, but not absolutely uniform.

Likewise, time is not an absolute in the sense that many "classicists" appear to mean when they mean by it that Special Relativity is wrong. Objects moving at a distance, including of course clocks, look different than objects at hand. And velocity and acceleration influence the appearance of distant objects in quantifiable and dramatic ways. Time dilation is a fact. A poorly interpreted fact—up to now—but a fact nonetheless.

Time is also dependent upon, and therefore relative to, movement. In a sense, time is nothing. Or it is nothing but a second measurement of movement. Displacement is movement. Time is movement. Time is displacement. Time is the displacement of the reference body.
First off, the Reciprocal System is NOT a branch of the SR/QED tree of physics--the postulates have about as much in common with conventional physics as a tree does with a dog. The premises are totally different--the conventional setting of matter versus a universe of motion. Let me identify some of the key components in Mathis' conclusions, that provide an interpretation in RS2 (projective geometry needed--not as applicable to Larson's RS):
  • Mathis' theory, from what I've read so far, is based on the concept of a "universe of velocity", defined by changes in velocity. Larson just calls it "motion" instead of "velocity," having the same relationships of space to time. Twenty years after Larson published his first book, he finally concluded that "we are dealing with nothing but abstract change [of motion] in three dimensions." (See thevideo Q/A on the rstheory site). Same concepts, different words.
  • Time as absolute: appears to be a confusion arising from the projective strata. Mathis does not have the same "viewpoint" as Larson (his camera of observation is in the Euclidean stratum, looking up; RS2 is at the projective stratum, looking down). Using projective concepts, RS2 can conclude that "time is absolute" only in the Euclidean stratum of the projection--in other words, it acts as the same velocity in all dimensions (the Euclidean stratum requires scale to be fixed at unity in all dimensions, which is the denominator of velocity--time). So the world in front of our eyes appears to have time as "absolute."
  • Time as not absolute: Once you move out of the Euclidean stratum of the projection of scalar motion, there is no requirement that "time" be fixed at any value, and therefore time appears relative to the reference frame. It appears most of Mathis' comments are in the Metric stratum, where time is dimensionally independent. In his Calculus papers, he wants time to be a vector quantity in the denominator, which IS the case with any measurement made above the fixed, Euclidean stratum.
  • Time dilation: Does not exist in Larson's Reciprocal System, as Larson only considers the Euclidean projection of scalar motion (as he postulates). What would normally be time dilation in the RS is adjusted by motion in coordinate time (3-dimensional time, clock space), the Cosmic half of the Universe. In RS2, time dilation only occurs in the non-Euclidean geometric strata, again because "time" is not fixed at unity, as it is in the Euclidean. Therefore, time acts as a scale factor in the relations of velocity, appearing to slow things down or speed them up. Relativity, having no analogous concepts to either the Cosmic sector, nor projective geometry, has to adjust the flow of clock time for this scale factor.
  • "Displacement is movement. Time is movement. Time is displacement.": Not much to be said on this comment, other than, "Welcome to a universe of motion!"
What I've learned from this paper is that time acts like space--as if that was not obvious already, from coordinate time and clock space. It is easy to draw the analogy between the respective spatial and temporal coordinate systems, but I've not really consider the "clock" aspect in detail, nor the fact that time can express itself either as an absolute scale (Euclidean) or relative measure, with multiple dimensions in space (Metric and Affine). So, is time absolute? Yes. Is time relative? Yes. Does time act uniformly across dimensions? Yes. Does time act independently across dimensions? Yes.

It all depends on the observer--where the camera is located, and where it is looking. That is why I consider the observer effect to be a key factor in RS2.
Every dogma has its day...

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

Time

Post by Lou » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:27 pm

The absolute of time is eternity. We perceive time by analysis and space by synthesis. Time is a succession of instants, while space is a system of associated points. The real difficulty we have on the material level is due to the fact that, while material bodies exist in space, space also exists in these same bodies. Hence, when a body moves through space, it also takes the space which is in and of such a moving body. Time comes by virtue of motion and because mind is inherently aware of sequentiality.Time and space are inseparable. Space is measured by time, not time by space. The more our consciousness approaches the awareness if seven cosmic dimensions, the more awareness we have of the whole as perfectly related cycles, and in this way will circular simultaneity increasingly displace the onetime consciousness of the linear sequence of events; time being the fragments of the never beginning, never ending eternal continuum. Time is the moving image of eternity projected on the holographic screens of space. How can we be objective observers if we ourselves are merely actors in the movie?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1496
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Death by Mathematics

Post by bperet » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:18 pm

The absolute of time is eternity. We perceive time by analysis and space by synthesis. Time is a succession of instants, while space is a system of associated points.
This is exactly what Miles Mathis points out as the #1 problem in physics, "death by mathematics." Read his paper on Calculus--heck, I understood it and I hate math. That's why I learned to program computers, so I wouldn't have to do the math!

His premise is remarkably similar to Larson, that the physical universe has a natrual datum of UNITY. It is only the "diagrammatic universe," the one created on sheets of paper by mathematics experts, that have the issues of zero, infinity, now and eternity. Like the RS, since you can never have a quantity less than 1, it is impossible for any equation to go to zero, to infinity, or to eternity. It also eliminates the concept of instanteanous velocity ("now"), and the concepts associated with them, such as a "dimensionless point" or "plane at infinity."

It is only concerned with abstract change in multiple dimensions--exactly what Larson concluded in the very last bit of the Q&A video on the RStheory site.

And you'll like this bit: since the concept of the point was eliminated, what we call velocity is actually acceleration, since the first delta is the difference between an arbitrary reference we label "zero" and the one we chose to measure. No points, only deltas with a minimum quantity of ONE. So in Mathis-matics, Larson's "unit speed" is actually "unit acceleration," which goes in line with your comments on same.
Time and space are inseparable. Space is measured by time, not time by space.
Given that they are inseparable, as Larson and myself would agree, BOTH conditions must be TRUE... space is measured by time, and time is measured by space. That is why they are aspects of motion.
Every dogma has its day...

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

Space as a measure of time

Post by Lou » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:24 am

Sorry Bruce, I must respectfully disagree on this one. Your scalar space motion I take as the inspiratory half of the breathing universe. Space must contract as the universe must eventually expire. Time, on the other hand, moves inexorably forward (in a spiral fashion, I believe). Space cannot flip its role with time any more than a man and a woman can trade their genitalia. I'm a Gynecologist so I can make that comment and remain professional. Motion IN space is another matter entirely. One must take on the role of the ruler (measurer). One hand drawing the other is an ontological absurdity.

I agree that moments in time (instances) and points in space are not definable in the physical world but they are the fulcrum of it. The fact that they are not definable does not preclude their existence.
ALL motion in the universe must have a center somewhere in that universe. Those centers must be motionless. All motion must be born from stillness. All motion must be balanced. All motion must be rhythmic (cyclic). The best example is a seesaw. Its fulcrum does not move; it exhibits no space or time yet there is no motion without it. Think of a pendulum whenever motion is considered. It has a fulcrum. It exhibits motion. That motion is cyclic. It's motion requires a force. That force is constant. The pendulum swing motion is not uniform in velocity. It is a state of constant acceleration (or deceleration). It motion stops at the two apexes and essentially disappears from phenomenal existance for that 'instant'. The motion demonstrates 'reflection' at the trough by going from maximal acceleration to maximal deceleration at that 'instant' in time. Daydreaming in my office and staring at a pendulum clock a patient gave me got me thinking along these lines. I always have to ground myself by intensely observing the physical world but acutely aware that all I see must have its source.
I have to ask a profoundly philosophical question now. How can we begin to understand our universe if we cannot say what is happening in the apparently simple motion of the pendulum? What is really occurring to the motion at the apexes and at the trough? Whatever is happening, I challenge anyone to explain it without referring to instances in time or dimensionless centers (points) and still be talking about the same pendulum. What is happening between the apexes and trough are what we can sense and measure because it is acceleration/deceleration (constant changes in velocities of differing powers). Whatever we point to that has the appearance of a constant velocity we must assume that that motion is in fact accelerated motion in the guise of velocity due to an extremely large radius and a flattening of curvature.

Regards,

Louis

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

More on time

Post by Lou » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:23 pm

I have just read Mathis's paper on the ether and I must keep pressing on with the time issue. Mathis states that light is primal, not just as a motion, but in creating an absolute system of time and space by virtue of its constancy. It moves in relation to a background which is at rest and one which light itself created. He goes on to say that the emission and reception of light are 'nearly' instantaneous (what about reflection?). My question is simply this. How can a motion 'create' its own reference frame? Is light such a special kind of motion that has creator prerogatives? What comes first, the fulcrum or the motion? Without a fulcrum there is no motion. Without motion there is still a fulcrum. What are the properties of light that allow 'nearly' instantaneous acceleration from 'rest' to light speed? What interval of time is nearly instantaneous? I suspect it is even below Planck's Time (Ha, Ha).

I do agree with Mathis that light is the primal motion but all other motions derived from light must exhibit the traits of the parent motion. Referring to the pendulum above, I have a direct experience with the motion there exhibited. This motion should express the genetic traits of its primal parent. It is easier to analyze this pedular motion with my direct senses than purchase expensive spectrographic equipment. I can immediately discern that when the pendulum is in motion, that motion seems to be speeding up or slowing down, depending on the interval of swing I am observing. Motion is 'emitted' from the apex and 'received' at the other apex, only to be emmited once again. According to Mathis, the 'nearly' instantaneous intervals are happening at these apexes. Another 'nearly' instantaneous interval is occurring at the trough, where the motion reflects from one of acceleration to one of deceleration, in nearly an instant (or almost exactly an instant, give or take). My pendulum is doing all the things light does because all motions follow the same laws and are patterned after it. Now comes the blasphemous part. The speed of light is not constant! Wait, I think I've committed that heresy preciously. I have no reason to think otherwise. Imagine anybody of stature in the physics community doing the kind of experiments that could really confirm or refute such a claim. Any experiment you can point to that state that light speed is constant would have to be a 'nearly' instantaneous measurement. Nearly instantaneous time measurements may be acceptable (or not) at the apecies and troughs of motion but not so kosher for those 'in between' motions of the pendulum swing, especially if your tether line is really really long.
What if light speed is not constant but can accelerate and decelerate, like the motions of the pendulum? What then?
Regards, Louis

Sun
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

All motion must be born from

Post by Sun » Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:01 am

All motion must be born from stillness...The best example is a seesaw. Its fulcrum does not move;
This is nteresting, or we should ask"what is moving?what is moving from stillness?". But there's nothing moves, moving is something. Stillness is just nothing, the real vacuum. Thoughts of conciousness create the motion, or the activites of conciousness manifest as motion. Larson calls it motion just because he describe it as s/t, speed, then something have a speed is the common sense motion. Or we should call motion as "space/time ratio". Space is motion, time is motion, everything is motion. Space and time are created for perception of motion, while they are motions. Humans are N dimensional being, the meat body is 3-D. Time is not a succession of instants, but just is percepted by us as a succession of instants, then envents can be divided by time. Everything is happening simutaneously, but in different time region. Watching space in time is just like watching a filmstrip. That's why the concept of "timeline" is so popular these days. If men are male and women are female in space, they are respectively female and male in time. See? Space is measured by time or time is measured by space is just depend on your point of view. I've been to medical college too. Men and women have different space/time ratio. More t/s(energy) of men and more s/t(mass) of women, but it is reversed in time. This is the essence of herbal medicine. Acupunture is working on the time region of human body, which have not been discovered by western medicine.

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

Motion

Post by Lou » Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:28 pm

I can see that we must first agree on the fundamental postulates before a a meaningful discussion can be had. Motion must be sensible. Anything that is in stillness cannot be sensed by our bodies. Rhythmic balanced interchange is how nature expresses phenomena. Motion is initiated from an imbalance seeking balance and is perpetuated by a rhythmic or cyclic interchange that provides for this alternating imbalance. When balance is a achieved, motion stops; we no longer have motion. I will permit you to use your senses and rationality of interpretation by providing the now perverbial seesaw as an example. Two 50 lbs children get on the seesaw at opposite ends simultaneously and at equidistant points from the fulcrum. No motion is possible in this balanced situation. To offset the balance and create motion, one child, who we will name Positive, is given a ten pound ball to hold. The unbalance is created. The other child named Negative moves in the upward direction. The instant Positive touches ground, he tosses the ball to Negative (interchange). Negative moves down as Positive moves up. Then Negative reciprocates in a cycle of motion. Thus I'm illustrating the principle of rhythmic balanced interchange. The fulcrum is not perceived because it does not move, but we know it must be there. Its existence is reasonable if imperceptible. Who got the ball rolling, so to speak? You say "thoughts of consciousness" and I cannot disagree. However, space-time ratio as speed as defined by Larson is nonsensical . This is still at the level of consiousness and is not yet manifest because s/t is balanced and Larson calls it Unity. This is the very definition of balance and my seesaw does not move when it is balanced. There has to be either a little more t or a little more s. There can also be a little less s but time cannot contract whereas space can. Now were in business. We still require the other aspects of the principle to apply. Seeking balance from the imbalance is the driving force of motion, but in seeking balance there must also be a continuous interchange between the players, as with Positive and Negative. Now Positive and Negative must toss the ball back and forth to each other but not at the expense oftheir identities. Time must remain time and space remain space. They can even trade places on the seesaw in an 'instant' and that would be permissible. That would be analogous to a reflection.
When you argue that something is merely a perception, I say that perception is all we have to evaluate the universe. The very reason for the finite is to permit our existence as sentient beings. To say that everything is happening all at once is meaningless unless you deny time and space. In the realm of infinity this is true, but for right now I'm trying my best to make 'sense' of the finite realm. I can't understand how one would segregate time as in your phrase 'time region'. You ask of me to 'see' but at the same time you blind me by not permitting me to use any of my senses to reason out your meaning. That is why we employ examples and I mean concrete examples. While we live in the finite universe, there is no reason why you cannot find something to show me to illustrate your point. Abstractions are confusing, give me something concrete.
Respectfully,
Louis

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

Regarding The Calculus

Post by Lou » Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:29 pm

Mathis is pretty much correct. He is also correct in saying that this problem of finding the slope of the natural log of x is going to be protracted. You see, Leibniz did cover up a very inconvenient truth and colluded with Newton to pull it off. The integral of 1/x dx, using the chain rule, solves to 1/0 (oops!). The chain rule would have the numerator be x^(-1+ 1) and the denominator -1+1, giving you that dreaded infinity. Can't have that. They would have been the laughing stock of all modernity. So they came up with a solution natural log x. Considering that integrating and differentiating 1/x dx and 1/x respectively, is the most frequently used mathematical operations in physics, one can only shake ones head. The problem was that they found a way to solve this problem of infinities that was close, but no cigar. Yet their deception suceeded until Mathis called them on it.
Here is the rub. The solution to that integral is infinity for a reason. It most definitely is an operation that cannot be performed in time/space, but it is an operation that must exist, and it is possible only outside of space/time. The integration of the inverse function is crucial to the universe if it is to be of an ongoing concern. Light undergoes this operation at reflection. Light must reverse polarity and be re-emitted. It must integrate and then differentiate in infinity! In an 'instant'. The pendulum shows us where this is occurring. At the trough. Emmission and absorption at the apexes. These are POINTS where the pendulum literally must disappear from space/time and reemerge in an INSTANT. These are processes that cannot happen in the universe of motion. The universe of motion exists only between trough and apexes. Mathis comes painfully close to admitting this very thing but is only willing to go as far as calling emission and absorption of light as occurring 'nearly' instantaneously. This is crucial here because to come to this realization that the finite universe of motion is bounded by infinity at 'points' of emission, reflection, and absorption is paramount. The actual border is unity. Imagine if all light emits, reflects and absorbs only 'nearly' perfectly. Goodby universe. For your consideration.

Regards, Louis.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1496
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Two Timing Time

Post by bperet » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:03 am

I have been examining the concept of "clock time" versus "coordinate time," and their reciprocals, "clock space" versus "coordinate space," as proposed by Larson in 1959. In the artificial realities generated by computers (which, BTW, ignore SR), all the components for space and time are present in order to give a realistic representation of a model. Let's take a look at that:

To define an object, an arbitrary center is selected (for example, the corner of a box), that creates a reference for measurement. From that location, the yin-yang of distance-angle is used to define vertices, edges and faces. Time is not considered to be present in a static, geometric model. But, by virtue of the matrix algebra used to represent the structure, it IS, but considered to be a 4th dimension of space the acts inversely to the coordinate dimensions of space. Space cannot act inversely to space; the ratio of space:time must be maintained, even for a computer model to appear realistic. This 4th dimension is used to "scale" the spatial coordinates, in essence zooming it in or out from its selected origin. This 'zooming', which is "normalized" in the computer to retain a value of unity, constitutes motion--a relation of space to clock time.

The same situation is true, from an inverse perspective, when one desires to move geometry in space. A quaternion is used: a system of three rotations and a scalar that acts inversely to the rotations. Rotations, being yin and temporal, means that this inverse scale factor must be spatial in nature, time to clock space.

Both of these systems require that the scalars (clocks) be normalized to unity as part of the "rendering" process, else the resulting image will not appear at the proper location, or may be distorted to the point of being unrecognizable. This is the Euclidean projective plane, where all axes are uniformly scaled to unity, with a single value that appears to have the properties of a clock.

When the rules are followed, we get images that are indistinguishable from those "in reality" that we see with our eyes, so obviously something works... integer numbers in the computer are projected into realistic images, just as Larson's scalars are projected into our reality.

If one moves to the Metric projection, then each defined dimension (space or time) requires an independent scalar (clock) to operate, and images appear distorted and misplaced to the observer. It appears that the concept of the time as a CLOCK is an artifact of the Euclidean projection, not a defining process.

There cannot be two types of "time," nor two types of "space," but only labels for specific conditions of same, the logical conclusions would be that:
  1. As Larson stated, time is not a vector, but an aspect of motion, always coupled with the aspect of space.
  2. "Clock time" is the label we use to represent the net, temporal displacement of scalar motion at a specific location in space, normalized for the Euclidean projection.
  3. "Clock space" is the label we use to represent the net, spatial displacement of scalar motion at a specific location in time, normalized for Euclidean projection.
  4. Scalar motion resolves into local (location-based, observable) and non-local (force field, unobservable) projections.
  5. Locations in space are out of phase by 90 degrees with locations in time, in a Euclidean projection, from the process of normalizing the clock. Geometrically the face of yin/time appears between the vertices of yang/space, with a boundary condition defined by an edge.
  6. When speed, s/t, is normalized by clock time, 1/t, the result is acceleration: s/t2.
  7. When energy, t/s, is normalized by clock space, 1/s, the result is force: t/s2.
  8. The geometric process of normalization says that speed will be projected between temporal locations, the projected distance being t, resulting in the same equation for acceleration: s/t / t = s/t2.
  9. Normalizing energy will be projected between spatial locations, the projected distance being s, resulting in the same equation for force, t/s / s = t/s2.
  10. The fulcrum between acceleration and force is the concept we call mass. (I also have a pendulum clock in the living room and could not help but notice that the pendulum requires MASS to operate, with two, opposing motions to keep it functioning: the force of the wound spring, and the acceleration of gravity. Take away either--don't wind it, or put it in orbit--and it stops functioning.) This is why F = ma. Or more appropriately expressed: m = F/a (mass is the ratio of force to acceleration.)
  11. The concept of mass only exists in the Euclidean projection, as it requires a uniform clock, either set by a computer programmer in a virtual reality, or our consciousness in our consensus reality.
  12. The inverse of mass is gravity, s3/t3. Gravity is the localized, observable effect of the fulcrum of force and acceleration. Mass is the nonlocal, unobservable effect. By definition, we have the labels of mass and gravity backwards to the associated concepts. (Not surprising, as Larson identified a large number of concepts that conventional science has backwards.)
  13. Absolute locations, as defined by Larson: are dimensionless points that can be utilized as an arbitrary, coordinate reference location, that exist as the focus or fulcrum to express the effects of temporal displacement in space. They are not coordinate locations. As Mathis states, one cannot assign coordinate dimensions to a point, when the point inherently has NO dimensions. The conscious observer can decide "I will call this zero," to create a diagrammatic point (center of his graph) WITH dimensions. The dimensions come from the conscious mind of the observer, not the natural system.
  14. The Euclidean projection is, by nature, diagrammatic (using Mathis' definition). Acceleration and force are devices used by the consciousness of the observer to interpret the diagrammatic system.
  15. The underlying, natural system is scalar, based on a unit ratio of space to time, with no points, planes, zeros or infinities. Only the ratio of space to time: motion or speed.
Larson's Reciprocal System incorporates both the concepts of the diagrammatic (coordinate) and natural (scalar) systems, but only associates the two via "random distribution," because techniques such as projective geometry were not readily available, nor easily understood, in the 1950s. Mathis' assumption that there are no points, only deltas, concurs with the natural, scalar structure underlying Euclidean projection. You only get points on a diagram--a Euclidean projection.
Every dogma has its day...

Lou
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:25 pm

I'm confused

Post by Lou » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:36 am

Can you clear up something for me about the above relationships. According to Larson, energy is t/s and according to E = mc^2, energy is inversely related to time. Is Larson at odds with Einstein's equation or am I just misunderstanding? He is in agreement Einstein's equation with respect to mass being inversely related to space. As far as the pendulum, can you agree that with an 'ideal pendulum', where friction is not in play, after motion is initiated, all that is required is gravity and not the spring? Thanks for summarizing Larson. My paradigm is not yet complete and I require constant review (old dog, new tricks). Regards, Louis

Post Reply