Yes, I read Flatland many years ago and rember that females were triangular and dumb and using paint was a "punishable secret"
I often think of this book when trying to make visualizations of RS stuff.
Now I am still stuggling to grasp the 3 masses problem, as I cannot understand the mechanism of how a 3rd atom influences the relative spatial aspects of motion of 2 other atoms, especially what happens to their temporal aspects of motion while they are far apart in space. The 3rd atom must alter the temporal aspect of motion of the 2 other atoms, and the only way I can imagine that is through some kind of superposition of their temporal motion. Such temporal superposition implies small temporal distances, and this conradicts my understanding of the seemingly large temporal distances between radioactive decay events.
I try to relate all of this to tempoaral positions occupied by atoms of radioactively decaying isotope, while they are very close together in space.
As I understand DBL radioactive matter is in a state of temporal explosion that appears to be very "drawn out" to us -material observers. Considering that e.g. Plutonium's radiological half-life is 24000 years, its atoms must be scattered in time over very large temporal distances (durations, intervals).
It puzzles me how the spatial implosion compression of Plutonium can concentrate it in time so much that the radioactive explosion appears to happen almost all at once to us. A small change of spatial distance (probably polar space at this scale) results in unbelivably huge temporal movement. Arrrrrgggghhh
Horace
Why do they gravitate?
Why do they gravitate?
Horace wrote:
I'm hoping to produce a web program where you can select the set of assumpts--scalar, Euclidean, etc. to view how motion changes in time and space for a gravitating system. I believe that seeing how relationships work visually might help a great deal in understanding how scalar motion is transformed into vectorial relationships thru the use of assumption.
Horace wrote:
When I wrote the paper, "Sub-atomic mass, recalculated", I found that Larson's calculation of mass for the charged and uncharged proton were way off from the observed value. But the curious thing was that they were off by almost the same amount--in opposite directions. One was too high; one was too low. So I took an average, figuring that legacy science does not recognized the uncharged state of particles and their observational measurements might have been an average of the two. And it appears that I was right--a 50/50 mix of charged and uncharged mass values hit the observational value right on the money. And from that, I learned not to always believe what legacy science tells me!
Regarding radioactive decay, one must then ask if the observed values of thousands or millions of years are actually correct? No one has been around for thousands of years to take measurements; it is all based on theories that we know to have errors. So I have to wonder which was right... my program decay calculations or the "observed" values, which weren't actually observed but guessed at.
As far as a "visual" for radioactive decay, remember that you are dealing with "time", not "space", so it will appear non-local. In my mind, I view a temporal explosion as a series of spheres about the explosion point, where each sphere is the wavefunction of a decay particle. As our point of observation moves from the center of the temporal explosion, outward in time, we cross these spheres and observe--in space--a "local" particle fly out of the atom.
I'm afraid I don't have much to offer to help your understand, at least until I learn how to do real-time graphics in a Java applet, but I will suggest that you try to think in terms of "motion" rather than the individual aspects of space and/or time. All the basic, scalar relationships (such as gravity) are based on speed (s/t) and energy (t/s), in multiple dimensions. To paraphrase the old saying, you need to compare "apples with apples", not apples with elephants, as what happens if you try to interpret scalar relationships with a vectorial set of assumptions.Now I am still stuggling to grasp the 3 masses problem, as I cannot understand the mechanism of how a 3rd atom influences the relative spatial aspects of motion of 2 other atoms, especially what happens to their temporal aspects of motion while they are far apart in space. The 3rd atom must alter the temporal aspect of motion of the 2 other atoms, and the only way I can imagine that is through some kind of superposition of their temporal motion.
I'm hoping to produce a web program where you can select the set of assumpts--scalar, Euclidean, etc. to view how motion changes in time and space for a gravitating system. I believe that seeing how relationships work visually might help a great deal in understanding how scalar motion is transformed into vectorial relationships thru the use of assumption.
Horace wrote:
Back in 2001, I tried to write a program to do radioactive decay sequences. Got really close with the short-lifetime decays, but the long-term ones were way off.It puzzles me how the spatial implosion compression of Plutonium can concentrate it in time so much that the radioactive explosion appears to happen almost all at once to us. A small change of spatial distance (probably polar space at this scale) results in unbelivably huge temporal movement.
When I wrote the paper, "Sub-atomic mass, recalculated", I found that Larson's calculation of mass for the charged and uncharged proton were way off from the observed value. But the curious thing was that they were off by almost the same amount--in opposite directions. One was too high; one was too low. So I took an average, figuring that legacy science does not recognized the uncharged state of particles and their observational measurements might have been an average of the two. And it appears that I was right--a 50/50 mix of charged and uncharged mass values hit the observational value right on the money. And from that, I learned not to always believe what legacy science tells me!
Regarding radioactive decay, one must then ask if the observed values of thousands or millions of years are actually correct? No one has been around for thousands of years to take measurements; it is all based on theories that we know to have errors. So I have to wonder which was right... my program decay calculations or the "observed" values, which weren't actually observed but guessed at.
As far as a "visual" for radioactive decay, remember that you are dealing with "time", not "space", so it will appear non-local. In my mind, I view a temporal explosion as a series of spheres about the explosion point, where each sphere is the wavefunction of a decay particle. As our point of observation moves from the center of the temporal explosion, outward in time, we cross these spheres and observe--in space--a "local" particle fly out of the atom.
Every dogma has its day...
Why do they gravitate?
While I was putting page numbers in "New Light on Space and Time" (Page 183-184), I spotted this reference to gravitation. Thought it might be of some help in understanding gravitational motion.
Dewey Larson wrote:
Dewey Larson wrote:
In order to understand just how the electric and magnetic forces are related to the gravitational force, let us take a closer look at the direction of the gravitational motion. As brought out in the previous discussion, the gravitational motion of each individual atom is not a relation between this atom and other atoms of matter, as it seems to be, but a relation between the individual atom and the general framework of space-time. The scalar aspect of the rotational motion of the atom moves it inward in space toward all locations in space-time, in opposition to the motion of the space-time progression, which is carrying the location that the atom occupies (momentarily) outward in space away from all other locations. We cannot see space locations, but we can see objects, which occupy these locations, and we therefore note that each such object, if not restrained, moves inward in space toward all other objects.
It is important to realize, however, that what we see is only one part of the action that is taking place. We see a unit mass, which we will call object A, moving in space toward the spatial location occupied by object B but; in reality, object A is moving in space-time toward the space-time locations occupied by object B. The significance of this, in the present connection, is that if object A were moving, only toward the spatial location occupied by object B. then the mass of object B should not affect the velocity of A (the gravitational force). This, of course, contradicts experience, which indicates that the force is proportional to the mass of B. The explanation is that although the m mass units of object B occupy substantially the same spatial location, they occupy m different temporal locations, and consequently m different space-time locations. What we see as a motion toward one specific space location is actually a motion toward m different space-time locations, and its magnitude is m times as great as the portion of the total motion of object A that is directed toward a single space-time location.
A reference to the somewhat analogous relation of the gravitational force (or motion) to distance may be helpful if there is any difficulty in grasping the nature of this force to mass relationship. From the probability principles we can deduce that a scalar effect such as the gravitational force is exerted equally in all directions. It follows from geometrical considerations that at distance d the total force is distributed over a spherical surface of radius d, and the portion of the total force which is exerted against a unit area at this distance depends on the ratio of that unit area to the total area of the spherical surface. This is the familiar inverse square relation. If the unit area is so small compared to the total surface that the probability of any appreciable number of coincidences in n units selected at random is negligible, the force exerted against n units is then n times the force exerted against one unit.
If we now substitute locations in space-time for locations in space, it can easily be seen that the general situation remains the same. Again the force exerted against an individual space-time unit depends on the ratio of that unit to the total number of space-time units over which the force is distributed, and since each mass unit occupies a separate unit of space-time, even though it may be part of an aggregate of m units occupying substantially the same space location, the force exerted against these m mass units is m times the force exerted against one unit.
Every dogma has its day...
Why do they gravitate?
Note: I fixed Horace's image links, which got broken when we moved to the new server.
I believe I found a solution to the 3-mass problem, which arises because "mass" is evaluated as a point in space, and "gravity" is considered to be a field effect. If you examine the space-time relationships, it is "mass" that is the field effect--t3/s3--an energy relationship like electric or magnetic charge--and gravity is s3/t3, a spatial speed.
When we view the spatial universe, we see basically points on an X-Y-Z grid, with nothing or a vacuum between locations. If Larson's reciprocal relationship is applied conceptually as well as mathematically, then we would view the temporal universe as geometric planes or surfaces (the geometric inverse [dual] of a point being a plane) that appear as a SOLID, not a vacuum.
I believe this latter concept of the temporal realm, those relationships having a space-time structure of t/s, is what the old researchers referred to as aether.
In RS2, geometry inverts at unit speed. Space is viewed as rectangular Euclidean, time as polar Euclidean. All polar transforms into space appear oscillatory or rotary due to polar geometry (no straight lines), hence this "solid time" between Euclidean spatial locations would have a vibratory structure to it. And where there is vibration, there are pressure changes. And like the wing of an aircraft, if there is a change in pressure you get vectorial movement in a specific direction.
The 3-mass problem then becomes simplified; when you visualize a mass, the mass is actually a sphere with a radius of the gravitational limit, centered on a spatial location, creating a temporal "pressure zone". When another mass is introduced, it brings with it its own pressure zone, increasing the temporal pressure (NOT spatial) between the spatial locations, pushing the objects apart in time, which is equivalent to pulling them together in space. When a 3rd, 4th or more mass is introduced into the system, the pressure contours are updated, and we get a model of gravitational "attraction"--with no need for gravitons or any other mechanism to transmit "force" in a specific direction.
I am working on a simulation now; so far, the results look very promising.
I believe I found a solution to the 3-mass problem, which arises because "mass" is evaluated as a point in space, and "gravity" is considered to be a field effect. If you examine the space-time relationships, it is "mass" that is the field effect--t3/s3--an energy relationship like electric or magnetic charge--and gravity is s3/t3, a spatial speed.
When we view the spatial universe, we see basically points on an X-Y-Z grid, with nothing or a vacuum between locations. If Larson's reciprocal relationship is applied conceptually as well as mathematically, then we would view the temporal universe as geometric planes or surfaces (the geometric inverse [dual] of a point being a plane) that appear as a SOLID, not a vacuum.
I believe this latter concept of the temporal realm, those relationships having a space-time structure of t/s, is what the old researchers referred to as aether.
In RS2, geometry inverts at unit speed. Space is viewed as rectangular Euclidean, time as polar Euclidean. All polar transforms into space appear oscillatory or rotary due to polar geometry (no straight lines), hence this "solid time" between Euclidean spatial locations would have a vibratory structure to it. And where there is vibration, there are pressure changes. And like the wing of an aircraft, if there is a change in pressure you get vectorial movement in a specific direction.
The 3-mass problem then becomes simplified; when you visualize a mass, the mass is actually a sphere with a radius of the gravitational limit, centered on a spatial location, creating a temporal "pressure zone". When another mass is introduced, it brings with it its own pressure zone, increasing the temporal pressure (NOT spatial) between the spatial locations, pushing the objects apart in time, which is equivalent to pulling them together in space. When a 3rd, 4th or more mass is introduced into the system, the pressure contours are updated, and we get a model of gravitational "attraction"--with no need for gravitons or any other mechanism to transmit "force" in a specific direction.
I am working on a simulation now; so far, the results look very promising.
Every dogma has its day...
Why do they gravitate?
bperet wrote:
Can you convert your idea of "pressure" to something like scalar potential where the concept of force exists? In other words, can we get back to classical model from there?When another mass is introduced, it brings with it its own pressure zone, increasing the temporal pressure (NOT spatial) between the spatial locations, pushing the objects apart in time, which is equivalent to pulling them together in space. When a 3rd, 4th or more mass is introduced into the system, the pressure contours are updated, and we get a model of gravitational "attraction"--with no need for gravitons or any other mechanism to transmit "force" in a specific direction.
Why do they gravitate?
MWells wrote:
Go back to geometric duals in three dimensions. Points and planes (2d surfaces, like a bubble) are duals. A dual is a geometric inverse. In space, we have a point defining the "absolute location" on the natural reference system. This is where an object is located in SPACE.
But remember that all atomic motion is in TIME, the time region. Also remember that the time region, usually listed as "1/t" is still "s/t", and that s=1. The time region is MATERIAL, even though displacement can only occur in time.
When you look at it from the Cosmic viewpoint, it is TIME that sits at an absolute location, the temporal displacement of the atom. But we cannot view the cosmic sector, only the material one. The only way we can interpret temporal motion of this kind is through a FIELD effect, where the temporal point is dualized into a spatial plane--a plane at ZERO, the bubble forming the gravitational limit.
All the motion in time is outward in time, since they are all positive integers in the denominator. "Outward" means going from zero towards infinity. The "infinity" in the dual view is the POINT AT INFINITY -- the "absolute location" of Larson's material reference system. Therefore, we view the temporal motion in the time region as an "inside out" field, where zero is a surface comprising the gravitational limit, and the "outward' motion is going from that limit towards the center--understood as gravitation.
The "force of attraction" is a by-product of the interaction of two, non-localized temporal displacements--not the cause. Force is just the measurement of the change in pressure. The temporal "pressure", t/s4 will be reduced by the PLANE representing the temporal location (not the point). A plane is s2, so therefore the resultant "force of attraction" = pressure / area, with the extension space adjustments being made by those force vectors.
I find that the idea of "pressure" is easier to comprehend than that of scalar speed displacements over a non-localized realm. It is simply "Force per unit Area", t/s4.Can you convert your idea of "pressure" to something like scalar potential where the concept of force exists? In other words, can we get back to classical model from there?
Go back to geometric duals in three dimensions. Points and planes (2d surfaces, like a bubble) are duals. A dual is a geometric inverse. In space, we have a point defining the "absolute location" on the natural reference system. This is where an object is located in SPACE.
But remember that all atomic motion is in TIME, the time region. Also remember that the time region, usually listed as "1/t" is still "s/t", and that s=1. The time region is MATERIAL, even though displacement can only occur in time.
When you look at it from the Cosmic viewpoint, it is TIME that sits at an absolute location, the temporal displacement of the atom. But we cannot view the cosmic sector, only the material one. The only way we can interpret temporal motion of this kind is through a FIELD effect, where the temporal point is dualized into a spatial plane--a plane at ZERO, the bubble forming the gravitational limit.
All the motion in time is outward in time, since they are all positive integers in the denominator. "Outward" means going from zero towards infinity. The "infinity" in the dual view is the POINT AT INFINITY -- the "absolute location" of Larson's material reference system. Therefore, we view the temporal motion in the time region as an "inside out" field, where zero is a surface comprising the gravitational limit, and the "outward' motion is going from that limit towards the center--understood as gravitation.
The "force of attraction" is a by-product of the interaction of two, non-localized temporal displacements--not the cause. Force is just the measurement of the change in pressure. The temporal "pressure", t/s4 will be reduced by the PLANE representing the temporal location (not the point). A plane is s2, so therefore the resultant "force of attraction" = pressure / area, with the extension space adjustments being made by those force vectors.
Every dogma has its day...
3-body Temporal Pressure plot
I made some images of what the temporal pressure would look like for three masses.
The first figure shows 3 masses; the circles representing the gravitational limit. The darker the area, the higher the temporal pressure in the zone.
You can see the higher pressures by the darker areas between A-B, B-C and C-A, indicating a "gravitational" force in a specific direction, even though A, B and C are nothing but "distributed scalar motions", as Larson describes them, without direction. The temporal pressure will result in a change in spatial location to reduce the pressures.
Note that in this diagram, ALL THREE masses are within the gravitational limits of each other.
Three masses within the gravitational limits of each other.
[img]/files/temporalpressure_3body_377.jpg[/img]
The first figure shows 3 masses; the circles representing the gravitational limit. The darker the area, the higher the temporal pressure in the zone.
You can see the higher pressures by the darker areas between A-B, B-C and C-A, indicating a "gravitational" force in a specific direction, even though A, B and C are nothing but "distributed scalar motions", as Larson describes them, without direction. The temporal pressure will result in a change in spatial location to reduce the pressures.
Note that in this diagram, ALL THREE masses are within the gravitational limits of each other.
Three masses within the gravitational limits of each other.
[img]/files/temporalpressure_3body_377.jpg[/img]
- Attachments
-
- TemporalPressure-3body.jpg (25.26 KiB) Viewed 11998 times
Every dogma has its day...
3-body Temporal Pressure plot -- 2 gravitating
This diagram shows the same 3 masses, distributed such that B and C are OUTSIDE the gravitational limits of each other, and hence, due to the discrete unit postulate, cannot influence each other through gravity.
Gravitational force will appear between A-B and A-C, but NOT between B-C (no dark area between B and C, hence no temporal pressure, and no resultant force of gravity).
An easy way to understand this configuration is to consider A to be the sun, B to be Mercury and C to be Pluto. Mercury and Pluto do not interfere with the orbits of each other, yet both remained captured by the sun.
Three masses, but only 2 interactions gravitating.
[img]/files/temporalpressure_3_2_640.jpg[/img]
Gravitational force will appear between A-B and A-C, but NOT between B-C (no dark area between B and C, hence no temporal pressure, and no resultant force of gravity).
An easy way to understand this configuration is to consider A to be the sun, B to be Mercury and C to be Pluto. Mercury and Pluto do not interfere with the orbits of each other, yet both remained captured by the sun.
Three masses, but only 2 interactions gravitating.
[img]/files/temporalpressure_3_2_640.jpg[/img]
- Attachments
-
- TemporalPressure-3-2.jpg (25.55 KiB) Viewed 11998 times
Every dogma has its day...
Why do they gravitate?
Bruce,
I'm glad you did not sweep the 3-body problem under the carpet.
Bruce wrote:
On the other side - does the atomic motion of cosmic matter in SPACE, affect other spatial motions (including those of the material sector) ?
I'm glad you did not sweep the 3-body problem under the carpet.
Bruce wrote:
Am I correct in understanding that the motions of two gravitationally interacting objects actually come in contact (and interfere) in the time region, which affects their projections into our space region, in such a way that we perceive it as attraction ?But remember that all atomic motion is in TIME, the time region.
On the other side - does the atomic motion of cosmic matter in SPACE, affect other spatial motions (including those of the material sector) ?
Why do they gravitate?
MWells wrote:
I envision two racing cars. If the time is slowed down for one of these cars, then the car with "slow time" will get to the finish line faster.
This happens because the material observer always assumes that time moves at a constant rate (even when it's not), and this assumption attributes more speed to the car with "slow time" (because now we observe more space per time, and this means more spatial speed). Reciprocity at its best...
Thus when time slows down for a segment of a journey (e.g. because it makes one loop in place), it appears that a force acts on this car and causes it to accelerate. Hence we get an illusion of a mysterious force field accelerating the car (accelerating at the beginning of this 1 mile, traveling at twice the normal speed during this 1 mile and deccelerating symmetrically at the end of the mile)
If you still don't get it - try imagining that for 1 mile, a car's time slows down by a factor of two and how this phenomenon appears to an observer that can observe only space and assumes a constant time rate.
As Bruce recently reminded:
Bruce wrote:
The superposition is more likely to happen when the masses are close to each other, due to the probabilistic distribution of their motions. This is the origin of the inverse square law.
Regards,
Horace
I wouldn't call it a pressure but I think I understand what Bruce means:Can you convert your idea of "pressure" to something like scalar potential where the concept of force exists?
I envision two racing cars. If the time is slowed down for one of these cars, then the car with "slow time" will get to the finish line faster.
This happens because the material observer always assumes that time moves at a constant rate (even when it's not), and this assumption attributes more speed to the car with "slow time" (because now we observe more space per time, and this means more spatial speed). Reciprocity at its best...
Thus when time slows down for a segment of a journey (e.g. because it makes one loop in place), it appears that a force acts on this car and causes it to accelerate. Hence we get an illusion of a mysterious force field accelerating the car (accelerating at the beginning of this 1 mile, traveling at twice the normal speed during this 1 mile and deccelerating symmetrically at the end of the mile)
If you still don't get it - try imagining that for 1 mile, a car's time slows down by a factor of two and how this phenomenon appears to an observer that can observe only space and assumes a constant time rate.
As Bruce recently reminded:
Bruce wrote:
Motions of 2 gravitating masses can become superposed in time region, slowing down their relative time rate, and giving an illusion of attraction when projected onto space.But remember that all atomic motion is in TIME, the time region.
The superposition is more likely to happen when the masses are close to each other, due to the probabilistic distribution of their motions. This is the origin of the inverse square law.
Regards,
Horace