Several days ago, Horace asked about how to explain hairy head moving towards the two photons from the opposite side. I look into this issue again, and found the conclusion that "head is inflating and getting bigger" may be wrong. This thought brings definite direction into the conclusion, but the motion of head has no direction/all direction.
Light does not travel away from us, we travel away from it because we gravitate. So the head is always condensing in all direction, moving away in all direction from light. The hairy head seems moving towards the two photons from the opposite side, but it is still condensing not inflating.
Light is motionless. Our inward motion creates the speed of light. It then followed that space is not extending, we are condensing. The concept of extension space in RS is not neccessary. The three-dimensional rotational inward motion generates three-dimensional rotational spaces continuously. For the same reason, one-dimensional rotational outwart motion of electron generates "conversed one-dimensional rotational spaces". Electron is not a rotational space, it just generates "conversed one-dimensional rotational spaces/one-dimensional rotational times"?
In this premises, manipulation of space become possible. We can generate space or we can eliminate it. I still don't understand why Larson bring the concept of extension space into RS, since space is never extending in essence.
hairy head moving towards two photons from the opposite side issue
Observer principles
The hairy head problem is an interesting one to contemplate, but there are a lot of factors that need to be considered and it usually ends up creating more confusion than resolving it. Both aspects of space and time have to be considered, because of the reciprocal relation. Atoms don't actually "gravitate," they are moving outward in time--the temporal speed is greater than unity, so they overtake locations. It is the inverse perspective in space that gives the appearance of gravitation, as you said, "moving away from all directions in light." But in time, atoms are smashing into each other. With a natural datum of unity, there is no zero, so you can only have speeds >= 1 in both aspects.
Photons can only be detected when they interact with something. There is no way to know the location of a photon in a vacuum, until it hits something and causes that motion to change. They are not motionless--they ARE motion, and move at unit speed in both time and space and since atoms (both material and cosmic) are everything BUT unit speed, they are constantly moving away and moving towards photons, depending on what side of the reciprocal relationship you observe from.
In RS2, I include the "observer principle" because I have found out it is very important to know where the observer is, and what environment exists for the observer. It is equally important to know what you are looking AT, and the environment that it exists in. In the RS, they are ALL motions, so at least there is the common denominator of speed, so eventually one concludes that the only thing you can actually observer or measure, is change.
In order to consider the problem, define the conditions of observer and location. I like to start simple, and say I'm standing at a location on the progression of the natural reference system. That defines my environment--I know that other locations in space, and photons sitting on them in a vacuum, will appear stationary from my point of observation. Space appears empty, so anything I see as a solid must be a temporal displacement. Uncharged positrons would appear as spinning, solid balls sitting at a location, just like a photon (which would look like a pogo stick). Now I look for an electron--and cannot find any. Electrons are rotating units of space, and because of my observer environment space is a vacuum, so the electron is not within my ability to directly observe. It is like using a black pen on black paper--no change to make the distinction. In order to observe an electron, I'd have to hop over to the "time" aspect, so I could observe the space-to-time relation of the electron to make it visible. (In electronics, the uncharged electron is viewed as a "hole" in the atomic system.)
And that is the essence of the problem. Everything is moving relative to something. You have to know where you are and what you are looking at, to create observation. Your explanation is BOTH true and false, because the observer is undefined. Relative to light, the head gets bigger in time and smaller in space. Relative to the time region of the atoms of the head, light is crashing into it, since temporal displacement is faster than unit speed.
Photons can only be detected when they interact with something. There is no way to know the location of a photon in a vacuum, until it hits something and causes that motion to change. They are not motionless--they ARE motion, and move at unit speed in both time and space and since atoms (both material and cosmic) are everything BUT unit speed, they are constantly moving away and moving towards photons, depending on what side of the reciprocal relationship you observe from.
In RS2, I include the "observer principle" because I have found out it is very important to know where the observer is, and what environment exists for the observer. It is equally important to know what you are looking AT, and the environment that it exists in. In the RS, they are ALL motions, so at least there is the common denominator of speed, so eventually one concludes that the only thing you can actually observer or measure, is change.
In order to consider the problem, define the conditions of observer and location. I like to start simple, and say I'm standing at a location on the progression of the natural reference system. That defines my environment--I know that other locations in space, and photons sitting on them in a vacuum, will appear stationary from my point of observation. Space appears empty, so anything I see as a solid must be a temporal displacement. Uncharged positrons would appear as spinning, solid balls sitting at a location, just like a photon (which would look like a pogo stick). Now I look for an electron--and cannot find any. Electrons are rotating units of space, and because of my observer environment space is a vacuum, so the electron is not within my ability to directly observe. It is like using a black pen on black paper--no change to make the distinction. In order to observe an electron, I'd have to hop over to the "time" aspect, so I could observe the space-to-time relation of the electron to make it visible. (In electronics, the uncharged electron is viewed as a "hole" in the atomic system.)
And that is the essence of the problem. Everything is moving relative to something. You have to know where you are and what you are looking at, to create observation. Your explanation is BOTH true and false, because the observer is undefined. Relative to light, the head gets bigger in time and smaller in space. Relative to the time region of the atoms of the head, light is crashing into it, since temporal displacement is faster than unit speed.
Extension space is Larson's device to make up for a lack of the observer principle. It is a stanrdardized projection screen that he can use to sit back in his easy chair, and make mathematical observations about the physical relations of the universe, always knowing the exact conditions of the observer--his 2nd fundamental postulate. It is his simplified version of projective geometry, to observe the Universe of Motion on a sheet of paper.In this premises, manipulation of space become possible. We can generate space or we can eliminate it. I still don't understand why Larson bring the concept of extension space into RS, since space is never extending in essence.
Every dogma has its day...
Observer principle
Bruce is right - you must factor in the motion of the observer when you write about ANY motion.
The motion of the material gravitating observer creates an unique perspective (akin to "viewscreen") that Larson named "the extension space".
To us (material gravitating observers) the "extension space" looks like a big expanding ball around us and we are sitting inside of that ball (at the center of it). That is why the universe looks concave to us and the limits of our observations look like a huge curved plane (the inside surface of a huge sphere).
According to the projective geometry there is another way to look at things - namely from the outside of that ball looking at its outside convex spherical surface. This sphere, from very, very far away, naturally appears as a very very small ball, a point - at infinity. Not an infinitesmaly small point but unit-sized point.
Those are the natural consequences if finite divisibility of motion (space and time). See Miles Mathis' papers.
After reading the above, don't you think now, that both perspectives are two useful ways of looking at the same thing and one of them (the counterspace) is interesting after all?
Bruce,
I still don't have an intuitive grasp why rotation is primary in counterspace, yet translation is primary in space. Probably another aspect of the observer principle. Could you alaborate on this?
The motion of the material gravitating observer creates an unique perspective (akin to "viewscreen") that Larson named "the extension space".
To us (material gravitating observers) the "extension space" looks like a big expanding ball around us and we are sitting inside of that ball (at the center of it). That is why the universe looks concave to us and the limits of our observations look like a huge curved plane (the inside surface of a huge sphere).
According to the projective geometry there is another way to look at things - namely from the outside of that ball looking at its outside convex spherical surface. This sphere, from very, very far away, naturally appears as a very very small ball, a point - at infinity. Not an infinitesmaly small point but unit-sized point.
Those are the natural consequences if finite divisibility of motion (space and time). See Miles Mathis' papers.
After reading the above, don't you think now, that both perspectives are two useful ways of looking at the same thing and one of them (the counterspace) is interesting after all?
Bruce,
I still don't have an intuitive grasp why rotation is primary in counterspace, yet translation is primary in space. Probably another aspect of the observer principle. Could you alaborate on this?
Insides and Outsides
It is the old, Chinese principle of yin-yang. There are many, many explanations of yin-yang on the net, but the simplest one I have found is just, "inside-outside." The ancient Chinese recognized that there are three conditions for anything to exist: it has an exterior, an interior, and a boundary delimiting the two. This is what Larson calls "motion" and he liked to describe it as a box:I still don't have an intuitive grasp why rotation is primary in counterspace, yet translation is primary in space. Probably another aspect of the observer principle. Could you alaborate on this?
In mathematics, yin-yang is just a ratio: numerator (yang), denominator (yin) and boundary (division). It can also be a complex quantity: real (outside, the "real world") and imaginary (inside, the images in your mind). It can also be expressed as the two aspects of energy, potential (inside) and kinetic (outside). Even velocity works that way, linear, straight space compared to "rotational" clock time, with movement at the boundary.“You can't define the inside and outside of that box, without defining a box, too. You got all three of 'em. If you have an inside, you also have an outside and also have a box. If you got a box, you got an inside and an outside. You can't define any one of them, without defining all of them. That's the same thing with motion.”
-- Dewey Larson, Q&A video
As to why "primary"... from a scalar perspective, it's just aspects of speed--numbers, nothing else.
How does one get from a ratio to an inside-outside? To paraphrase Oliver Hardy, "this is another affine mess you've gotten me into!" You need an assumption, what is called in computer graphics as the perspective: a camera and something to look at.“It's nothing but a number. Space and time, both. When you come right down to it, all you use is a number. What justification do we have for saying it's anything else?” --DB Larson
Consider the ratio as sitting in the middle of a see-saw. It doesn't matter which bench is up or down, you stay at the same place. Now, a friend comes along and hops on one seat, and you slide into the other. That is the first of the affine projective assumptions, in non-mathematical terms. You are now the camera, and your friend is the "look at" point. Everthing on your side of the see-saw now becomes "your side" -- the INside. Your friend is on the other side -- the OUTside, and you move in reciprocal relation to each other; your ups are his downs, and vice versa.
The primary motion of a ratio, the pivot point, is just the speed as the pivot has no inside nor outside. Now you can spin around in your seat and your friend appears to be orbiting you, from your perspective--a rotation. If your friend spins around in your seat, he does not change position relative to you. However, he CAN slide in closer towards you, until his legs hit the pivot, and you see a change--a linear one. (In this analogy, your eyes would have to be located at the pivot point, so if you slid in, your butt would move but your eyes would not, so you would see no linear change.)
This is where the idea of primary motion, which I now call "uniform motion" comes from--it is not hard-coded, but an assumption that comes from the observer. Uniform motion on the inside is yin and rotational--a constant, uniform change of angle (direction, angular speed), whereas uniform motion on the outside is yang and linear--a constant, uniform change of distance (translational speed). It is just how we perceive change.
As far as the intuitive component goes, try your own analogy with this assumption: you are at the center of a ball of fixed radius. How do you location objects on the inside of that sphere? Linear distance--how far it is from you, is irrelevant, because it is always the same distance away. You have to resort to polar coordinates--roll, pitch and yaw, to locate objects. That is why angle is primary on the inside. On the outside, the situation is reversed, because now your sphere is behind you and all the other spheres are at varying distance, hence the need for linear measure, because you could not tell two objects apart that had the same polar coordinates. Only distance does the trick.
Larson summed it up nicely as the last comment of the 1978 Q&A video:
That is what I have been doing with RS2--backtracking the postulates, to find their conceptual origin. I've now been able to reduce the universe to just a single postulate: "Something exists." From there, I can derive the postulates and conclusions thereof.“I've been interested in working backwards from the reciprocal relation and I have about come to the conclusion that what we are dealing with is simply abstract change in three dimensions. You call it change rather than motion, to make it easier for some of you people who can't understand how you can have motion without anything moving. You can see change, alright!”
Every dogma has its day...
What about choosing the location outside space and time
I said photon is motionless is wrong. I know what a photon is. What i meant to say is "photon is in the same location in the natural reference system." Now let me tell the story again. I did choose a location on the progression of the natural reference system as you did. I am sitting on a photon right now. I see positrons spinning, i can't see electron of course. But i don't see solid balls sitting at a location, i see it condensing because of its 3-D motion. It is easy to understand what happens when you sitting on a cosmic photon. The reciprocal relation, the Yin/Yang aspect is not hard to understand.I'm standing at a location on the progression of the natural reference system...Uncharged positrons would appear as spinning, solid balls sitting at a location, just like a photon (which would look like a pogo stick).
This conclusion is what i got. But i found some consequences from this conclusion.Relative to light, the head gets bigger in time and smaller in space. Relative to the time region of the atoms of the head, light is crashing into it, since temporal displacement is faster than unit speed
Let's figure a bigger picture. Forget what Larson's saying, forget unity, forget space and time, but using the thought of Larson. I am sitting on a location of "dao" or "god" or "the one", sitting on motionless. Now the rotational motion is starting in 3-D in two different scarlar direction(There's no direction in fact. Scarlar direction comes out becaused space is generated, and we do live in space). Let's talk about "inward" first. I see our earth and the other planets are growing, and a 3D-rotational someting(we call it space) is generating by it. I also see our earth rotationally expanding into another something of 3D(we call it time). Now, i think it is not neccessary to talk outward. Take your reciprocal eyes with you, everything is simple. The conclusion from this deduction differs from Larson's that both the space and time is rotationally expanding.
In this conclusion, the whole space is rotating, so does time. But we will never know we are rotating if "we live IN a rotating balloon". You can say the space is expanding or you can say the earth are condensing. But the truth is: space is expanding because of we are condensing in space( Confusing in English isn't it?I did imply choosing a location in space.). Space and time is generating for us by the primary motion--rotation. No rotation, no space, no time. Space and time is 3-D because of the 3-D rotation. You have two aspects of motion only if you have a motion. Another thing is the 3-D rotational space and time. It is a special rotation. Not just the "balloon" is rotating, every point in the balloon is rotating and expanding. If we cut the space into two hemisphere, and look into the transverse plane, we will find its diameter is rotating and every point at the diameter is also rotating.
Thinking about a 3-D condensing solid ball, every point in this ball condensing in every direction. If we are condensing with this ball and stand on it, nothing happens to us, but 3-D bubbles are emitting from every point of it. Time is nothing but just a conversed space. From my deduction, there's a symetry between them. Rotation is primary, translation is just the result of inward and outward motion.Cosmic matters should be 3-D rotationally outward expanding energies in sapce.
Now outward motion of electron should be generating "conversed one-dimensional spaces". Electron runs across matter will counteract spaces or add times in that dimension. The same conclusion as Larson.
It seems only one fundermental postulate is needed:"The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions." The primary motion of rotation will create everything.
I still work on the bi-rotation model of photon. If i do not get it wrong, although the rotation of photon is 3-D from my deduction, there is one orientation when couple to the spatial reference system. The rotation of space and time manifest itself as photon in its extension. The frequency of photons generate by Earth is linked to its 3-D rotational motion(turns)?
each unit of motion consists of one unit of space...
Agree with my deduction. Everything can be deduced from only motion. Space and time is nothing but just the reciprocal view that we learn about motion. Since space and time coming from motion, each unit of motion of course consists of one unit of space in association with one unit of time.I've now been able to reduce the universe to just a single postulate: "Something exists.
Interestingly, why 3-D? Why not n-D. We live in space, so we think motion can be no more than 3-D. But the dimensionity is just depending on our observer location. Every 3-D can nest with other 3-D, composing n-dimensional in the same location.