Hi Doug, i'm sorry but I'm going to have to leave this discussion as I cannot grasp this at all, it makes no sense to me.
Compared to the RS2 tutorial series at http://reciprocalsystem.org/rs2-tutorial, which is easy to understand, when it comes to "gravity not existing yet, a one unit of space or time direction reversal, direction having no meaning at this point, a scalar unit vibration being independant of unit progression, one dimensional or 3 dimensional scalar direction reversals, oscillation of the radii of the 3d reversals, progression of a unit of one aspect or other that ceases to progress (in a universe of motion?), SUDRS and TUDRS" I am only going to be wasting my time and yours if I continue this discussion.
Apologies, your theory just isn't for me, I find RS2 a lot simpler to grasp. All the best with your research.
Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
Moderator: dbundy
-
Djchrismac
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
Well thanks for letting me know. I do want to point out that in your previous post you quoted a commentator on my site named Louis Collazo, but mis-attributed it to me.Please correct that, if you don't mind.
I did not write the above quoted text.One way that I might illustrate how time and space are related where space cycles and time inexorably progresses forward (yet linked on to one) is by making a few assumptions about the topology of the universe. First, that it has a center. Two, that All things revolve around this center, in one direction or another(clockwise-counterclockwise). Third that everything is in motion in the universe except that CENTER. That center is motionless therefore timeless and spaceless. So now we have a geometry that can can best be illustrated as a 'donut' (a torus) that containes space, is rotating about its center and is presently expanding. The donuts volume is increasing with time. Now imagine the volume of an hourglass with its pinch point at the center (hole) of the donut, with the upper half above and the lower half below. If you could conceive of this hourglass as a reservoir of space that has an INVERSE volume/space relationship to the volume/space of the donut, then you could imagine an oscillating, cycling expansion/contraction of the torus while the hourglass 'reservoirs' correspondingly contract/expand. Then space can expand without having to create more space.
-
Djchrismac
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
That's the post amended now Doug to make it clear who was quoting what, please excuse me for the error, now corrected.dbundy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:25 pm Well thanks for letting me know. I do want to point out that in your previous post you quoted a commentator on my site named Louis Collazo, but mis-attributed it to me.Please correct that, if you don't mind.
I did not write the above quoted text.One way that I might illustrate how time and space are related where space cycles and time inexorably progresses forward (yet linked on to one) is by making a few assumptions about the topology of the universe. First, that it has a center. Two, that All things revolve around this center, in one direction or another(clockwise-counterclockwise). Third that everything is in motion in the universe except that CENTER. That center is motionless therefore timeless and spaceless. So now we have a geometry that can can best be illustrated as a 'donut' (a torus) that containes space, is rotating about its center and is presently expanding. The donuts volume is increasing with time. Now imagine the volume of an hourglass with its pinch point at the center (hole) of the donut, with the upper half above and the lower half below. If you could conceive of this hourglass as a reservoir of space that has an INVERSE volume/space relationship to the volume/space of the donut, then you could imagine an oscillating, cycling expansion/contraction of the torus while the hourglass 'reservoirs' correspondingly contract/expand. Then space can expand without having to create more space.
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
Thanks for doing that Dj. Now, I will continue answering your questions here, for the benefit of others who may be interested, even though you are not. Feel free to ignore it totally.
Last night I was thinking about the statement Djchrismac made, in response to my assertion that he hadn't ever questioned me about my work. Recall that he wrote, "I'm sorry to say but you have pages and pages of research that don't really amount to much..." Oh really? The thought, "Why would he say that?" kept going through my mind over and over, and I wondered what more I could do to show that, to the contrary, it actually amounts to a great deal.
Well, I obviously can't force anyone to acknowledge something they refuse to acknowledge, but maybe I can show that the quip, "complexity is entertaining, simplicty is not," which he so misapplied to my work, would be as useful a starting point for me, as it was for Larson (recalling his 10 outstanding achievements in New Light on Space and Time.)
To understand what has happened, we should begin with the general recognition in ISUS, that Larson's erroneous conclusion had to be challenged. This conclusion, that the only possibe way to break the symmetry of unit progression, is through the introduction of one-dimensional harmonic motion (which, of course, is the foundation of the LST community's physics) just had to be challenged for a number of reasons. Historically speaking, Dr. Nehru was the first to challenge it, with his concept of bi-rotation, which I found very interesting. However, it was clear to me that rotation of any kind, including bi-rotation, cannot be considered scalar motion.
Moreover, with the introduction of projective geometry, Bruce complicated the issue by differentiating between linear and polar concepts as reciprocal metrics, one applying to the material sector and the other to the cosmic sector. This led him to embrace the LST mathematics of magnitude, dimension and direction, in the application of imaginary numbers to form 1d complex, 2d quaternion and 3d octonian numbers from 0d real numbers (although he didn't ever incorporate octonians, as far as I know.)
It was all very complicated and therefore, I guess, interesting, especially to the uninitiated members of ISUS, who hadn't thought of concepts of counter-space inside unit-distance, which unit-distance was such an intriguing and vital part of Larson's development. Consequently, Bruce was able to forge ahead, exploiting these ideas to explain Larson's theoretical development in the new terms of projective geometry and rotation in the complex plane, which rotation was only the cosmic sector "vibration" viewed from the perspective of the material sector. Slick.
Meanwhile, my objections to these ideas on the grounds that the introduction of projective geometry and the abandonment of absolute* magnitudes, which they necessitate, violates the second postulate of the Reciprocal System of Theory (RST), fell on deaf ears, so I resigned as President of ISUS and formed the Dewey B. Larson Memorial Research Center, to pursue an entirely different approach.
That approach is radical, but simple. It is based on the conclusion that the scalar vibrational motion, which breaks the symmetry of the unit progression, is three-dimensional, not one-dimensional, as Larson had concluded. Very simple, therefore not nearly as interesting as Bruce's approach. Nevertheless, it has produced phenomenal results, which I shall proceed to present in part, as systematically as I know how, in a fresh new manner, under this topic of discussing fundamentals. But first, before doing that, I want to finish responding to Dj's recent questions:
The fact that if two things exist, one greater than another, it must be that there is a third greater than them both, is a way of describing eternity, without employing a concept of space as a substance of some kind, such as an aether, which would have to have an end (that which has a beginning, nust have an end.)
* It was "commutative mathematics" that was dropped, not absolute magnitudes
(to be continued)
Last night I was thinking about the statement Djchrismac made, in response to my assertion that he hadn't ever questioned me about my work. Recall that he wrote, "I'm sorry to say but you have pages and pages of research that don't really amount to much..." Oh really? The thought, "Why would he say that?" kept going through my mind over and over, and I wondered what more I could do to show that, to the contrary, it actually amounts to a great deal.
Well, I obviously can't force anyone to acknowledge something they refuse to acknowledge, but maybe I can show that the quip, "complexity is entertaining, simplicty is not," which he so misapplied to my work, would be as useful a starting point for me, as it was for Larson (recalling his 10 outstanding achievements in New Light on Space and Time.)
To understand what has happened, we should begin with the general recognition in ISUS, that Larson's erroneous conclusion had to be challenged. This conclusion, that the only possibe way to break the symmetry of unit progression, is through the introduction of one-dimensional harmonic motion (which, of course, is the foundation of the LST community's physics) just had to be challenged for a number of reasons. Historically speaking, Dr. Nehru was the first to challenge it, with his concept of bi-rotation, which I found very interesting. However, it was clear to me that rotation of any kind, including bi-rotation, cannot be considered scalar motion.
Moreover, with the introduction of projective geometry, Bruce complicated the issue by differentiating between linear and polar concepts as reciprocal metrics, one applying to the material sector and the other to the cosmic sector. This led him to embrace the LST mathematics of magnitude, dimension and direction, in the application of imaginary numbers to form 1d complex, 2d quaternion and 3d octonian numbers from 0d real numbers (although he didn't ever incorporate octonians, as far as I know.)
It was all very complicated and therefore, I guess, interesting, especially to the uninitiated members of ISUS, who hadn't thought of concepts of counter-space inside unit-distance, which unit-distance was such an intriguing and vital part of Larson's development. Consequently, Bruce was able to forge ahead, exploiting these ideas to explain Larson's theoretical development in the new terms of projective geometry and rotation in the complex plane, which rotation was only the cosmic sector "vibration" viewed from the perspective of the material sector. Slick.
Meanwhile, my objections to these ideas on the grounds that the introduction of projective geometry and the abandonment of absolute* magnitudes, which they necessitate, violates the second postulate of the Reciprocal System of Theory (RST), fell on deaf ears, so I resigned as President of ISUS and formed the Dewey B. Larson Memorial Research Center, to pursue an entirely different approach.
That approach is radical, but simple. It is based on the conclusion that the scalar vibrational motion, which breaks the symmetry of the unit progression, is three-dimensional, not one-dimensional, as Larson had concluded. Very simple, therefore not nearly as interesting as Bruce's approach. Nevertheless, it has produced phenomenal results, which I shall proceed to present in part, as systematically as I know how, in a fresh new manner, under this topic of discussing fundamentals. But first, before doing that, I want to finish responding to Dj's recent questions:
No one knows. Larson wrote:Djchrismac wrote:What initiates periodic reversals in one or the other aspects of the uniform progression?
A point of considerable significance is that while the postulates permit the existence of these independent motions, and, on the basis of the principle previously stated, they must therefore exist in the universe of motion defined by the postulates, those postulates do not provide any mechanism for originating independent motions. It follows that the independent motions now existing either originated coincidentally with the universe itself, or else were originated subsequently by some outside agency. Likewise, the postulates provide no mechanism for terminating the existence of these independent motions. Consequently, the number of effective units of such motion now existing can neither be increased nor diminished by any process within the physical system. (see NBM, Ch 4)
The fundamental postulates posit the initial motion, which consists of discrete, three-dimensional units with two reciprocal aspects, space and time. Larson wrote: "Furthermore, it must be continuous and uniform at this stage of the development, because no mechanism is yet available whereby discontinuity or variability can be produced. "He chose to assume 1d "direction" reversals to produce variability, and then explained:Djchrismac wrote:What if your assumption below, and several others you admit to, are incorrect assumptions? Would it not be better to eliminate your assumptions by referring to funamental postulates in order to remove any doubt and confusion and settle on a definitive answer?
I agree with him, only I changed the 1d simple harmonic motion to 3d simple harmonic motion.As pointed out earlier, the theoretical structure that we are developing from the fundamental postulates is a description of what can exist in the theoretical universe of motion defined by those postulates. The question as to whether a certain feature of this theoretical universe does or does not correspond to anything in the actual physical universe is a separate issue that is explored in a subsequent step in the project, to be started shortly, in which the theoretical universe is compared item by item with the observed universe. At the moment, therefore, we are not concerned with whether or not simple harmonic motion does exist in the actual physical universe, why it exists, if it does, or how it manifests itself. All that we need to know for present purposes is that inasmuch as this kind of motion is continuous, and is not excluded by the postulates, it is one of the kinds of motion that exists in the theoretical universe of motion, under the most basic conditions.
The answer is an imbalance in the units of space and time oscillations in a combination (S|T). When these units are combined equally, as in a neutrino or photon, there can be no mass, by definition (notwithstanding neutrino experiments to the contrary.) When they are not balanced, they deviate from unit progression (c-speed) and this imbalance is the origin of their matter properties such as charge (1d displacement) and mass (3d displacement). Gravity is a 3d net inward scalar motion that is an inherent property of matter itself. Exactly how to account for it is not clear yet, at this stage of the development.Djchrismac wrote:What is it that stops the natural progression of the reference system in a universe of motion, this oscillation you speak of? Could you please give a detailed description of how gravity works in your version of the RSoT?
No, not at all. The development is limited to working on the fundamentals only at this point.Could you also explain coronal holes in the sun to me using your theory? I understand this well in RS2 terms so it might be a good place to provide more detail after you explain gravity to me in LRC terms. Thanks.
Well, the only definition of space and time that we use is that they are reciprocal aspects of motion. Space in what Larson called "extension space" is what the LST community calls space, but its definition is a set of positions that satisfy the postulates of geometry. However, that geometry can be warped by mass in their view, even though they can't say how, except mathematically. The fact is, however, distance between objects, or positions, locations, can't be measured without motion, so, logically, space and time are simply nothing more than reciprocal aspects of motion. It begs the question, in the sense of being a tautology.The part in bold baffles me and you sound confused at your own explanation.
The fact that if two things exist, one greater than another, it must be that there is a third greater than them both, is a way of describing eternity, without employing a concept of space as a substance of some kind, such as an aether, which would have to have an end (that which has a beginning, nust have an end.)
I'm at a loss to know what he means by a "third fundamental factor of nature that is bigger than space and time," here, unless he's refering to the growth of the "directions" of dimensions from 20 = 1, to 23 = 8. If that's true, he's referring to my text he quoted, which reads:What is this third fundamental factor of nature that is bigger than space and time? Is motion not your fundamental factor with space and time being a reciprocal relationship of this? Is your frame of reference as an observer only in space/time and you cannot make the jump over to time/space to view the unverse from that perspective?
Apparently, he doesn't understand a fundamental part of my research, which deals with the magnitude, dimensions and "directions" of numbers and their correspondence with the magnitude, dimensions and directions of geometry. The essence of this crucial concept is expressed in the relation between the numbers of the tetraktys and the geometry of Larson's cube. If this is so, it's way beyond the scope of this discussion, but has been covered extensively in the Introduction topic of this LRC Research forum.When we begin with space and time, we begin with magnitude, dimension and "direction," where "direction" are the two "directions" inherent in a given dimension. As these dimensions are compounded into one three-dimensional construct, the two "directions" grow to a maximum of eight "dimensions" that enable us to define an infinitude of directions in terms of them.
* It was "commutative mathematics" that was dropped, not absolute magnitudes
(to be continued)
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
As I continue answering Dj's questions here, his confusion is becoming more and clear to me. Not only does he not have a grasp of the LRC research, he has confused the words of an unknown commentor on my site with my words and instead of removing them as I requested him to do, he has left them intact as if they were relevant to his understanding and thus his questions, even though he has corrected the mistaken attribution aspect of the issue.
As a consequence, I'm not going to attempt to deal with the ensuing mess. Instead, since Dj has said that he understands Bruce's papers on the RS2 so clearly, I will start a new topic, where I will compare the RS2-based theory with the LRC's RST-based theory, in hopes of making things much more clear.
As a consequence, I'm not going to attempt to deal with the ensuing mess. Instead, since Dj has said that he understands Bruce's papers on the RS2 so clearly, I will start a new topic, where I will compare the RS2-based theory with the LRC's RST-based theory, in hopes of making things much more clear.
-
Djchrismac
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
Hi Doug, you asked me to amend the posts which I did to make the quotes clear. I have now removed them.dbundy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:37 am As I continue answering Dj's questions here, his confusion is becoming more and clear to me. Not only does he not have a grasp of the LRC research, he has confused the words of an unknown commentor on my site with my words and instead of removing them as I requested him to do, he has left them intact as if they were relevant to his understanding and thus his questions, even though he has corrected the mistaken attribution aspect of the issue.
As a consequence, I'm not going to attempt to deal with the ensuing mess. Instead, since Dj has said that he understands Bruce's papers on the RS2 so clearly, I will start a new topic, where I will compare the RS2-based theory with the LRC's RST-based theory, in hopes of making things much more clear.
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
Ok. thanks for removing them Dj. That will help. Now, the remaining questions are:
I'll name the new topic will be "The LRC's RSt in Context."
What these questions indicate to me is that, given you have al least read through it, the material must assume a basic understanding of Larson's work too much. But then, actually, it wasn't intended to be a tutorial. It was written to an audience who understands the new system. So, again, let me take it step by step from the top, with a new approach, under a new topic. We can continue discussing the fundamentals here, if they need to be discussed in greater detail.Djchrismac wrote:What is this third fundamental factor of nature that is bigger than space and time? Is motion not your fundamental factor with space and time being a reciprocal relationship of this? Is your frame of reference as an observer only in space/time and you cannot make the jump over to time/space to view the unverse from that perspective?
How does the LRC explain the inverse/temporal region, where space is in one dimesion and time is in 3 dimensions, a landscape of time? I have not seen an explanation of this.
How does LRC explain faster than light motion? I have not seen this mentioned anywhere.
Do you agree with the fundamental postulates of RS2?
What are the fundamental postulates of LRC physics?
I'll name the new topic will be "The LRC's RSt in Context."
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
No, because the directions* that you have plotted on this diagram are relative to its white background. I have been trying to direct your attention to this error for years.
This "white canvas" of your "World Line Charts" does not exist for us (denizens of this universe) - it exists only from "God's point of view", which would be the view from "outside" of this universe.
For us mere mortals, the direction* can be observed only from the vantage point of another unit of motion. This collapses 16 directional possibilities in God's view to just 2 possibilities in our internal view for a pair of UoMs.
I even listed half of the directional* isomorphisms for you in "God's shorthand notation" on the previous page of this thread.
One unit of motion cannot observe itself in isolation. A unit of motion is NOT self-referential !!!
Space can only "see" space ...and it can do that only indirectly through a common time reference.
Time can only "see" time ...and it can do that only indirectly through a common space reference.
This means that e.g. the spatial aspect of an UoM does not possess an intrinsic direction* and that the same unit of motion can "appear" spatially inward to one observer and spatially outward - to another observer.
Please, really consider the meaning of the word "indirectly" above, before you reply, that I lost you again.
* of expansion/contraction of one aspect of motion
Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals
It's been over 9 months since you wrote this.dbundy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:59 amYes. Unfortunately, I'm dealing with some personal issues that are too distracting to permit me to engage in something as esoteric as this discussion. I just can't get up the energy to decipher the language being used, let alone the logic.Horace wrote:@Doug
Did you disengage ?
I find it hard to believe that you are dealing with personal issues for so long, and that they are preventing you from "deciphering" the language and logic of my arguments while you have time to continue discussion with others.
We still have that unresolved issue about self-referential Units of Motion, in which you apparently staunchly believe in but do not present logical arguments for.
Frankly, I find your repeated disengagements annoying and disrespectful ....as well as the characterization of this most important and fundamental issue as "esoteric" and my arguments so convoluted as to requiring "deciphering".
Since you are unable or unwilling to process my logic and you are being disrespectful to me with repeated disengagements and unfair characterization of my arguments, I am resorting to attacking your processing power and accusing you publicly of having such an ossified mind, that it is unable to get out of the rut of self-referential units of motion and preconceived notions.
Remember who you are talking to - I used to be you biggest supporter. This has been gnawing at me for a year, so writing this message isn't just a spur of the moment decision. There wasn't a week that I wasn't thinking about you leading yourself astray with the concept of self-referential UoMs. Also, see what Bruce thought about that concept.
Perhaps that will shock you into seeing the error of your ways