3d time

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.
jpkira
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

3d time

Post by jpkira » Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:18 am

Can some one explain in simple terms movement in 3d time and clock space as viewed from the Cosmic sector? I would like to understand this in examples that relate to our view of the universe.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Looks the same

Post by bperet » Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:42 pm

3D time/clock space would look exactly the same from as cosmic perspective, as a material observer would see 3D space with clock time. The only difference is that your tape measure would be in natural units of time, rather than natural units of space.

As long as the observer and observed are in the same region, time-space, space-time, time region, space region, everything looks like the common geometry we are already familiar with.
Every dogma has its day...

jpkira
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

time measurer

Post by jpkira » Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:02 am

that's easy to say [?] but hard to imagine moving aroung in 3d time vs. 3d space. it would mena clock space is "not moving" but instead is constantly "aging"? and moving in time means i travel in past - present - and future but just "moving"? and how do i do that in 3 dimensions?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Measuring time

Post by bperet » Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:00 pm

it would mena clock space is "not moving" but instead is constantly "aging"? and moving in time means i travel in past - present - and future but just "moving"? and how do i do that in 3 dimensions?
I believe you are confusing time with causality. They are not the same in the RS.

Causality is past, present, future, which is an ordered sequence.

Time, like space, is just a magnitude. Space = distance, Time = duration. You can say that object is 6 meters long, or that even lasted 6 seconds. "6" is the magnitude.

Because the RS has a datum of unity, one is convertable to the other by the speed of light.

I can take a piece of paper and draw a line that is "1 second" long--and it may take a while, as that line will be 299,792,458 meters in length, because conventional units equate 299,792,458 meters to 1 second.

I can create a cube that is 1 second "long" on each side, and it will be a very big cube, but it's volume would only be 1 cubic second.

It is easier to understand in natural units, since the speed of light is 1/1. So 1 natural unit of time = 1 natural unit of space. If I draw a line that is 1 natural unit of space in length, it is also 1 natural unit of time in duration.

So if you want to get the temporal dimensions, just divide your spatial measurements by the speed of light. Then you will have an object described in seconds, not meters, in 3D time.
Every dogma has its day...

jpkira
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

time

Post by jpkira » Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:44 am

odd - never thought of looking at this that way - converting time to length. But using this to describe time is the same as saying duration doesn't describe how the object changed its location. If an object moves to a new position in 3d space and takes 1 second to do so we can't just say it took so many meters to do so because that tells nothing about how fast or slow it moved got there or is continuing to move. What am i missing?

Horace
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

that's easy to say but hard

Post by Horace » Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:40 pm

odd - never thought of looking at this that way - converting time to length. But using this to describe time is the same as saying duration doesn't describe how the object changed its location. If an object moves to a new position in 3d space and takes 1 second to do so we can't just say it took so many meters to do so because that tells nothing about how fast or slow it moved got there or is continuing to move. What am i missing?
What if the empty space, that you are accustomed to thinking as separation between objects, does not really exist?

In other words: The space that makes up 2 protons really exists, but the space that makes up separation between them does not ...and if their spatial separation were increased, then the amount of computer storage needed to represent such system of two protons, would not increase proportionally to the spatial distance between them.

You can draw the same conclusions about time and the amount of motion needed to represent two separated protons ...or two anti-protons.

jpkira
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

space between doe not exist?

Post by jpkira » Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:30 pm

That makes no practical sense whatever. Objects have space between them. No theory can change that. Time is how we post changes and mark before and after. no theory can change that. Sure the result is they at different spatial points but that tells me nothing about what make our universe real [or exist at all!]- motion!

Horace
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

That makes no practical sense

Post by Horace » Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:07 pm

That makes no practical sense whatever. Objects have space between them.
But how do you know that space is really there, without light or other motion traveling the distance?

Alas, you cannot feel empty space!

@Bruce

Is the storage requirement of your computer model dependent on the separation distance in extension space between two protons?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Storage requirements

Post by bperet » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:22 am

@jpkira: space is an intangible vacuum, not a "thing," so to be technically correct, "objects have nothing between them."
Is the storage requirement of your computer model dependent on the separation distance in extension space between two protons?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Distance (spatial and temporal) between locations is calculated from the net motion between any two locations, normalized to the clock. The rotational content of each location determines the net inward motion in space and time.

For each step of the progression, I do calculate and store extension space (and time) geometry to produce something that can be graphically rendered.
Every dogma has its day...

Horace
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

I'm not sure I understand the

Post by Horace » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:02 pm

I'm not sure I understand the question. Distance (spatial and temporal) between locations is calculated from the net motion between any two locations, normalized to the clock. The rotational content of each location determines the net inward motion in space and time.
I understand.

Does your program use more memory to simulate 2 protons that are 1 mile apart, versus, 2 protons that are 1 inch apart (in the extension space) ?

In other words, does the "nothing between them" consume any resources in your simulation...

Post Reply