Reciprocal System Research Society

Bruce,

Do you have an intuitive understanding why two atoms gravitate in space?

I know that according to DBL their mandatory motion in space is arrested by an oscillatating or rotating motion, while their mandatory motion in time is unimpeded by such directional loops.

The above reasoning explains to me why these two atoms do not fly apart in space like photons, but it does not explain to me why they come together.

I know DBL writes that since time and space are reciprocal then "increasing distance in time is equivalent to decreasing distance in space".

This explains to me why increasing distance per time has the same effect ON SPEED, as decreasing time per space, but it does not explain why increasing distance in time is equivalent to decreasing distance in space and I'd like to know your take on this issue in terms of Projective Geometry and its projection on the different geometric strata. (above one unit distance!)

Also, I think the assumption that the temporal distance between 2 material atoms must necesarily increase, is a bit too optimistic.

I see no reason why these 2 material atoms could not decrease the temporal distance between themselves as they stand spinning in space ?

After all, 2 outward moving photons can move towards each other, even to the point of collision and interference, so why can't material atoms do the same in time?

Did you ever try to make any animation of 2 atoms gravitating TOWARDS each other on the macro scale (above one unit spatial distance)?

Regards,

Horace

Horace wrote:

Do you have an intuitive understanding why two atoms gravitate in space?

Funny you should mention this... I was just pointing out an abnormality with gravity to Phil and Gopi yesterday.

Consider that there are three, basic "field effects": the electric field, the magnetic field, and gravity, which appear non-local to our environment. Now look at the space-time dimensions of each:

Electric field (charge): t/s

Magnetic field: t²/s²

Gravity: s³/t³

And the localized inverses, the dimensional speeds:

Speed: s/t

Momentum: s²/t²

Mass: t³/s³

Why do gravity and mass appear BACKWARDS, when you look at the space-time units? It would make more sense if mass and gravity were exchanged, because "mass" has the energy dimensions, not gravity. Even E=mc² says that mass is energy, and should not be localized like it is.

A reasonable assumption would be to conclude that we are observing mass/gravity from the other side of a unit boundary than we observe electricity and magnetism, and hence the dimensional relationships are inverted.

I'd like to get Nehru's opinion, but I suspect that the electric and magnetic fields are generated within the time region, whereas gravity is a measurement of the net effect of the temporal motion OUTSIDE the unit boundary, in the time-space region. Now we know that there is a 2nd-power relationship between speed inside the unit of space (1/t²) and the region outside (s/t), and I believe the "c²" in E=mc² is a reference to that 2-dimensional boundary, indicating that the region outside the unit of space (mass) is a 2-dimensional inversion inside the unit of space (energy).

That makes gravity the equivalent speed of the atomic temporal motion in space-time (not the time region).

Horace wrote:

I know DBL writes that since time and space are reciprocal then "increasing distance in time is equivalent to decreasing distance in space".

This explains to me why increasing distance per time has the same effect ON SPEED, as decreasing time per space, but it does not explain why increasing distance in time is equivalent to decreasing distance in space and I'd like to know your take on this issue in terms of Projective Geometry and its projection on the different geometric strata. (above one unit distance!)

The concept of "direction" has to do with change; if an object never changes position, it has no direction of motion, so you are looking at the derivative of speed, which is 'displacement', in order to get a direction.

Gravity shows up like this: the outward progression is like an expanding grid, where absolute locations are at the intersections of the grid lines. Every time the grid expands to 2 units, a new set of lines is created to always keep the distance between the grid lines at 1 natural unit. When motion, like the photon, is placed at a point on the grid, it gets carried away from all other points.

When a rotational motion is introduced, as in rotating the photon, it imparts an "inward" speed to the photon that such that when that next set of lines is created by the expansion, it can jump back to the original location it was at, prior to being carried away. This is the "rotational base" that Larson uses.

If you increase the speed of the rotational base, rather than being being carried outward (the photon) or staying in the same location (rotational base), it starts hopping backwards in the direction opposite to the progression. This is "gravitation".

Basically, you need 2 units of displacement (a temporal speed of 3) in order for an atom to gravitate. This is shown in BPOM with inter-atomic distances, where the basic inter-atomic distance is calculated by the natural log of the temporal speed, and it is not until ln(3) is the result greater than unity (and having an effect outside of the unit boundary--gravitation).

Regarding the direction, remember that direction requires change. A speed change of 1/2 to 1/4 is an increase of 2 displacements of time, the temporal aspect going from 2 to 4 (space at unity), with the latter being larger, and hence "outward" (away from zero in a coordinate system). But now look how space sees the same change: 0.5 to 0.25 (time at unity) -- the latter being smaller, and hence a direction of change that is "inward" (towards zero). From this, Larson deduces that an increase in the temporal aspect is tantamount to a decrease the spatial aspect, so "outward in time" is "inward in space".

Horace wrote:

Also, I think the assumption that the temporal distance between 2 material atoms must necesarily increase, is a bit too optimistic.

I see no reason why these 2 material atoms could not decrease the temporal distance between themselves as they stand spinning in space ?

Remember that you are dealing with a UNIT of space regarding the time region, which is less than a speed of 3 so it has NO EFFECT in time. The temporal distance between atoms is constantly increasing (outward temporal motion not neutralized by outward spatial motion, since the displacement is too small).

Just as motion in time creates gravitation in space, motion in space creates gravitation in time. The only way to get the temporal distance to decrease would be to rotate the space of the time region. Now this CAN happen, as we see with the spatial electric displacements of atoms, but it is not enough to overcome the outward motion of the temporal rotation to bring them together--just slows them down.

There is actually one case where the spatial motion is sufficient to overcome the temporal motion, and cause the atoms to gravitate in time--when the number of neutrinos (gravitational mass) within the atom increases to 4Z (magnetic ionization level of 0). However, the shear that results from trying to gravitate in both space and time simultaneously literally rips the atom apart. Larson refers to this as the "age limit" of matter.

Horace wrote:

After all, 2 outward moving photons can move towards each other, even to the point of collision and interference, so why can't material atoms do the same in time?

The only time two photons can interact is when one is circularly polarized, giving it torque to hop locations on the absolute reference system. It is actually an observed fact that linearly-polarized photons never interact with each other. The wave patterns you see from "interference" in slit experiments is actually the photon interfering with itself (seen Nehru's article on this).

Horace wrote:

Did you ever try to make any animation of 2 atoms gravitating TOWARDS each other on the macro scale (above one unit spatial distance)?

No, but that's a great idea. I'm trying to learn Java graphics, so it might be an interesting program that I could put on the web.

Bruce,

Your explanation is nice and dandy until I consider the empirical "3 body problem" shown below.

Horace wrote:

Your explanation is nice and dandy until I consider the empirical "3 body problem" shown below.

The simple explanation is that it is all an illusion, created by the way our senses perceive a Euclidean universe. What you are looking at is the transition point between scalar motion (mass/gravity) and coordinate motion in extension space (Euclidean perception of scalar motion). In Projective geometry terms, the final stage of the conversion between the Metric and Euclidean strata, where the dimensions of all objects and relationships must be adjusted to convert the perceived scale to Unity.

I'll try to explain in conceptual terms, rather than mathematical ones.

First, we need to establish a reference frame, a set of rules on how the environment works to observe the objects under consideration. Since we are dealing with gravity, a scalar motion, let's pick the Natural Reference System--the unit expansion of the universe. So pick a point on the grid of the Natural Reference System, so you have the point of view of a photon. You just ride with the expansion.

Next, adjust your physical size (and measuring sticks) to expand at the speed of light on that grid. This brings the grid to a halt, as the observer sees it, because you are now undergoing an "inward" scalar expansion at the same rate as the "outward" expansion of the NRS. As an analogy, if you left an airport in a plane at noon that was moving just as fast as the rotation of the Earth, but in the opposite direction, no matter how far you travelled, it would always stay noon, with the sun fixed overhead, because the motion of the plane neutralizes the rotation of the Earth, and from an outside point (the sun), you remain stationary.

In the NRS grid, what the observer sees when looking at M0, M1 and M2 are spheres, fixed at a specific point on the grid, but are growing in size relative to each other and to the observer. This is because they are gravitating (moving faster than we are, in a scalar sense). Eventually, they will hit each other (collide), due to "gravity". The centers of the spheres remain at the same distance apart--they don't move at all, but because they are constantly expanding, they WILL eventually crash into each other.

Now the tricky bit... to "see" in a Euclidean sense, we have to hop off the grid of the Natural Reference System. First thing is we have to slow back down by "c", so we are no longer expanding and again are being carried away from everything at the speed of light. Next, we have to hop off the reference frame, and on to a gravitating object, like the Earth. This has some consequences...

First, we are now located at a point in the NRS that is expanding faster than the Natural Reference System is, and our measuring sticks are expanding at the same rate as the Earth is, so we can no longer view scalar motion as we saw standing on the grid of the Natural Reference System since there is on absolute system of measurement.

Next, our senses have to deal with that... first, it has to halt the perception of scalar motion. Can't have objects constantly changing size everywhere you look. It does that by constantly adjusting the size of the objects (and the size of the space between) so the scale remains at Unity. For example, an object of 10 units of size, expanding at a scale of 2, is transformed to an object of 5 units in size with a scale of one. The brain does that by giving the appearance that the object is further away... a 10-inch high stick at 2 yards distant looks exactly the same as a 5-inch high stick at 1 yard (from a monocular perspective, like a camera). The brain can calculate scale because it has access to binocular vision (or hearing) and can triangulate. If you only had one eye, and encountered an object out in the blackness of deep space, you could not tell how large the object was, nor how far away it is. This has been a big problem with astronomical observations.

What we view as relative motion between objects is just the way our senses adjust scale. When you look at M0 and M1, the mind makes the calculations needed to adjust the distance to them, and between them, so you move into the absolute measurement scale of the Euclidean strata. When gravitating object M2 is introduced, that view has to be recalculated because your mind is rescaling the objects and the perceived distances to and between them, so it looks like M2 influences M0 and M1. But if you remember the NRS viewpoint... the relationship between M0 and M1 is the same, regardless of the presence of M2. The resulting coordinate motions are an artifact (illusion) of the scalar conversion to Unity.

The old Philosophers summed it up nicely: "To Be, is to be Perceived."

... but the collision of M0 and M1 is postponed when M2 is near, so it is not just a matter of distorted observation...

Horace wrote:

... but the collision of M0 and M1 is postponed when M2 is near, so it is not just a matter of distorted observation...

Don't forget that 'motion' is what is being normalized to unit scale, distance AND clock time.

What about direction being normalized to a straight time line too ?

I always suspected that the direction in time is closely related to the direction in space, e.g if the direction reverses in both aspects it is tantamount to no directional reversal at all.

See the animation below for illustration of "directional normalization":

Horace wrote:

What about direction being normalized to a straight time line too?

That is the function of the "absolute conic" in Projective Geometry where independent dimensions, each with their own scale, are brought into relation with each other (moving from affine to metric) using both linear and angular measures. After the transform, you have relative lengths and angles, and all dimensions are of the same scale (not necessarily unity scale). Are you considering a uniform change of angle to be a "straight time line", versus a non-uniform change being "curved time"?

I hadn't thought of using splines to represent dynamic motion in space and time... very clever!

Horace wrote:

I always suspected that the direction in time is closely related to the direction in space, e.g if the direction reverses in both aspects it is tantamount to no directional reversal at all.

That would only occur if the motion is reduced to a single magnitude, for example thru the arctangent function. I've always been treating the displacements of space and time as individual components, retaining direction, so the idea of "negative motion" does exist in the work I've done so far. Do you have any evidence for or against such a transform?

The only references I can find is Nehru's Non-locality paper, where the -1/-1 is the life boundary, and Nick Thomas' work on counterspace as "negative space" (implying "negative time").

Bruce wrote:

Are you considering a uniform change of angle to be a "straight time line", versus a non-uniform change being "curved time"?

It seems that from our material point of view, the arrow of time is a 1D path devoid of directional properties, and because the lack of directional variations is immediately brings up a straight line in our minds, we tend to think of time as a line (timeline). In fact there are no logical reasons to make that assumptions (just because we cannot observe directional temporal variations does not mean they are not there). The "directional normalization" I depicted makes this assumption in order to cater to the common concept of a timeline, but there is nothing preventing this normalization to be done to a different path than a straight line (e.g.) circle. In fact I've done it many times in my simulations.

Bruce wrote:

Do you have any evidence for or against such a transform?

I didn't think of empirical evidence yet, but I considered what DBL wrote and came to a conclusion the EVERY spatial property must be realtive to some temporal property. I think it is generaly accepted on this forum that a property such as length of space must be associated with some length of time and these lengths are taken as equal, and the ratio of these two lengths is called a "unit speed". It is impossible to define a lentgth of space without somehow involving a length of time. I took this reasoning further and applied the same thinking to the property of direction.

First I considered a movie, and immediately noted that rewinding the movie causes all spatial directions to be altered by 180deg, this led me to the conclusion that spatial direction is related to temporal direction. Then I asked myself a question "does this relation hold only for 180deg" and concluded that it does not - it must hold for other angles too, or it would be too artificial.

Next, I tried to animate unit motion using the CONSTRAINT of 1 unit length of space PER one unit length of time, with random directions, and my meager attempts yielded this:



The red dot always moves the same distance in space and in time (a scalar constraint of unit speed), but the direction is arbitrary. From this - the blue and green paths have equal lengths. Then I noticed that the motion of the red dot on the computer screen is an artifact of the animation, because the motion of the dot happens not in one time, but in in two times: the "green time" on the lower graph and the "real time" that my computer and I live in. This was bad and I needed a way to eliminate the "real time" from the animation. Alas, I couldn't do it because then my animations would stop moving (and so would I). In RS there are no axes Xs, Ys, Xt, Yt and no time like the "real time" - aspects of motion are simply relative to each other.

Now by a mental leap that I can't put into words (maybe you can) I arrived at a conclusion that if I were a red living dot on the blue line and couldn't see the other dot or perceive "real time", it would seem to me that the other red dot is coupled with me but exists in another coordinate system and is moving in a straight line. I would call this motion my "time".

Would this assumption alter the directions of my motion (like it did in a rewinded movie) observed from my point of view or form an external refernce system (e.g. one belonging to the screen).

From there was a short step to perform the "directional normalization" to different paths (straight lines and circles) and I was enjoyed to note that my dot would not even notice such directional transformations, if they were done symmetricaly on the blue and green paths. Of course the dots could not be allowed to perceive the artifacts of "real time" or the upper/lower coordinate systems or the computer screen, otherwise the directional transformations would manifest to them.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Horace wrote:

In fact there are no logical reasons to make that assumptions (just because we cannot observe directional temporal variations does not mean they are not there). The "directional normalization" I depicted makes this assumption in order to cater to the common concept of a timeline, but there is nothing preventing this normalization to be done to a different path than a straight line (e.g.) circle. In fact I've done it many times in my simulations.

In Hermetics, the "flow of time" is considered to be like a river flowing through a landscape, complete with twists and turns that the temporal landscape imposes on it. It also has its eddies, backwashes, calm points and waterfalls which change the rate at which we perceive time, and turbulence for those turbulent times. Granted, it was a philosophical view, but does have some commonality to what you are describing.

Regarding transforms... time appears polar to our perspective, so it is more likely that the "time line" would actually be curved as we consider temporal direction. We also know that there are temporal fields, cosmic electricity, magnetism and gravity, that influence the line of time. As for what it is weaving its way thru is another question.

In Projective Geometyr, 3D perspective has point-plane duality, where a point is dually represented as a plane in the inverse geometry. The common factor is a line--in the Euclidean stratum, for example, two points form a line. The dual if that is two planes intersecting to form the same line.

In your graph, everything is "linear", even if represented by curves. This is appropriate for the space graph. To see the flow of time, you need to represent it by imaginary operators--polar motion of planes, versus linear motion of points. 180 degrees of rotation constitutes a natural unit of rotation. But it time we deal with the "turn", not the "angle", so that it takes an infinite angle to return to 0 degrees again. In space, angle is the result of a secondary motion and is bound to 1 natural unit of rotation. Hence, when 180 is reached (one natural unit), the next step is to retrace the path back to 0 degrees resulting in what we commonly understand as rotation.

Horace wrote:

I didn't think of empirical evidence yet, but I considered what DBL wrote and came to a conclusion the EVERY spatial property must be realtive to some temporal property. I think it is generaly accepted on this forum that a property such as length of space must be associated with some length of time and these lengths are taken as equal, and the ratio of these two lengths is called a "unit speed". It is impossible to define a lentgth of space without somehow involving a length of time. I took this reasoning further and applied the same thinking to the property of direction.

There is an relationship between space and time, as though they are out-of-phase with each other by 90 degrees--orthogonal to each other. The "center" of a unit of space would be the boundary of a unit of time. This does not show up very well with 180-degree rotations, as things simply reverse direction.

In order to effectively plot "time", then the unit of time is between the units of space. Both distance and duration are measurements of change and are of the same character.

Horace wrote:

First I considered a movie, and immediately noted that rewinding the movie causes all spatial directions to be altered by 180deg, this led me to the conclusion that spatial direction is related to temporal direction. Then I asked myself a question "does this relation hold only for 180deg" and concluded that it does not - it must hold for other angles too, or it would be too artificial.

Here you'll need to investigate the phase relationship between motion in space and motion in time. What if you only ran the Y axis of the movie backwards, and let the X axis proceed forward? What does that do to the relationships in the picture?

Horace wrote:

Then I noticed that the motion of the red dot on the computer screen is an artifact of the animation, because the motion of the dot happens not in one time, but in in two times: the "green time" on the lower graph and the "real time" that my computer and I live in. This was bad and I needed a way to eliminate the "real time" from the animation. Alas, I couldn't do it because then my animations would stop moving (and so would I). In RS there are no axes Xs, Ys, Xt, Yt and no time like the "real time" - aspects of motion are simply relative to each other.

Sounds like you are coming to the same explanation that I did regarding the movement of mass as discussed earlier. A lot of what is "viewed" depends upon the characteristics of the reference point you choose to measure from. In your graphs, that is "real time", which is not "graph time." If you move to graph time, then your animation doesn't move, because your "camera" is moving at the same time as your time graph.

I guess the question becomes one of what you are trying to represent? I know from personal experience how hard it is to get an apprehension in your mind out into something visual.

Horace wrote:

Now by a mental leap that I can't put into words (maybe you can) I arrived at a conclusion that if I were a red living dot on the blue line and couldn't see the other dot or perceive "real time", it would seem to me that the other red dot is coupled with me but exists in another coordinate system and is moving in a straight line. I would call this motion my "time".

That's where the orthogonal relationship comes in... we can move about the "X" axis, but only view the Y and Z as a point intersecting our axis of reality.

Would this assumption alter the directions of my motion (like it did in a rewinded movie) observed from my point of view or form an external refernce system (e.g. one belonging to the screen).

Horace wrote:

From there was a short step to perform the "directional normalization" to different paths (straight lines and circles) and I was enjoyed to note that my dot would not even notice such directional transformations, if they were done symmetricaly on the blue and green paths. Of course the dots could not be allowed to perceive the artifacts of "real time" or the upper/lower coordinate systems or the computer screen, otherwise the directional transformations would manifest to them.

Have you ever read a book called "Flatland"? Makes sense to me.