Reciprocal System Research Society

I'm having particular difficulty visualizing this one.

When an atom reaches it's age limit matter, and throws off extra time, I can somewhat visualize how it would throw pieces in 3 dimensions/directions, however, I don't know how we can later "run into" the explodes pieces.

I tend to visualize space and time moving in opposite directions, away from each other. When I try to imagine some pieces of time moving "ahead" of now, it seems that it must move toward the unit boundary, and in order to move into the "future", would have to cross the unit boundary, increasing the ratio of space.

Throw in the normalization of space to 1, and my visualizing ends up rather like a pile of spaghetti.

The analogy of walking down a hall and spilling a bag of marbles midway helps, but when translating to 3d time, I don't know where "ahead" down the hallways IS. Where is the ahead which we shall run into shortly?

On a related note, if an explosion in the time region throws pieces in all directions, if an atom explodes in the "future" with enough force, should we not see the radiation from the future, right now?

Or is it to be considered from the perspective of the future now, where explosion does reach into the past and future, but we're not at those locations any longer to observe such events?

Any aids to considering this more accurately would be most appreciated.

That is a tough one to visualize. "Forward" is outward, following the progression. When an atom explodes, it is moving outward in all directions, and is therefore moving forward in time, in all directions. Atoms gravitate--moving inward or backwards. Explosion moving out and atoms moving in results in a collision, the same way we run into photons, rather than photons running into us.

You must take care not to confuse the clock with causality, which is where the concept of past and future comes from. The clock is the step of the progression, whereas causality is a function of consciousness--how we perceive that measurement system.

Try thinking of it in scalar terms--inward and outward. More like a vacuum cleaner (observer) sucking up all the marbles in the hall, after the spill. It doesn't matter which direction they rolled in, only the distance (magnitude) from the vacuum that determines the amount of time it takes before it gets sucked in.

That helps considerably, though I have subsequent questions now.

Since the definition of an atom here is a motion which has all 3 time dimensions occupied by some non-unity displacement, I assume that the scalar mechanics of unsustainable motion being thrown off equally apply to a single dimension as to the 3 as a whole.

Something that does not make sense at all is what happens to the time which has moved outward.

Supposing an atom receives motion 10 "units" above what can be combined, and throws those 10 outward. In the discussions I've read here, and including Larson's Density Gradient paper, nowhere is it mentioned where this extra motion goes, besides "outward in time". Something which is not motion cannot exist, and all motion must be a ratio of space to time, so where does this outwardly moved motion go? From observation (e.g. a white dwarf), it still exists, but it just as obviously is not "effective". In other words, it must somehow still be attached to the space which constitutes the observed aggregate, while not providing mass. Is the mass somehow "hidden" in the "future" because of our normalized perspective? Rereading the white dwarf article, I realized I had confused the sentences indicating which portions were lesser/greater density

As a similar case, I understand the half-life of radioactive atoms is due to an atom throwing motion outward, then running into it again, rather like an atomic Paddle Ball game. What prevents this continuing forever? If other external motions snag what was thrown outward, then that immediately implies that outward is coordinate as well as scalar. This has bothered me considerably.

Relatedly, I've been trying to conceive of a visualization for how our observer normalization of clock time plays out.

If a very large scalar motion is considered to be like an elevator shaft, do we always observe the entire state of the structure in toto? Or, if we normalize time to 1, do we somehow view a "current" state of the motion, like the elevator moving upward at the rate of...ahem, 1 time at a time.

Or to put it more numerically, given normalization of

s10/t20 = 1/2

s500/t1000 = 1/2

Which of those thousands of extant times and spaces does our perception choose to view?

Our entire perception appears to revolve around hiding most of the universe by observational fiat.

On a minor sidenote, if an isotope has a half life of say, 60 seconds, and a second is around 4 quadrillion progression steps, was that isotope really made up of motions in the scalar magnitudes of 240,000,000,000,000,000?

Since the definition of an atom here is a motion which has all 3 time dimensions occupied by some non-unity displacement, I assume that the scalar mechanics of unsustainable motion being thrown off equally apply to a single dimension as to the 3 as a whole.

The biggest difficulty with understanding the RS is that it is based on motion, not matter. Motion is not tangible, you cannot buy a bag of "45 meters/second" at the local supermarket. We tend to think in terms of tangibles, such as volume and mass to make "things." All of conventional science is based on tangibles, which is why they completely miss the cosmic side of the universe--it cannot be observed or measured in space.

The way that I overcame that thinking in terms of tangibles (or as they said in the 19th century, "ponderable"), since I need to visualize something to understand it, was to look at the universe as a giant contour map, where the contour lines were demarcations of speed.

For example, I had made this image as part of the "Why do they Gravitate" thread:



which is actually a water molecule, H₂O -- or more exactly H-OH on the image. Oxygen is in the center, bonding with Hydrogen on the right to make the hydroxide ion, the net speed then being neutralized by the 2nd Hydrogen atom on the upper left, resulting in the "smooth", unit-speed contour of the molecule.

This is the way a conventional water molecule is represented:
My diagram is a contour map of the interaction of speeds, the motions of atoms, whereas conventional physics is the tangible, "balls in a bag" concept.

If you wish to know more on the history of how this modality of thought came into existence, I just uploaded (last night) an informal presention that Gopi did for a group of people a while back, on Physics History. It is an HTML5 video so should play on most devices (I currently have mp4 and webm formats loaded; still converting ogg):

Physics History on reciprocalsystem.org

There are also a number of other videos there you may want to watch.

In my image, the white dots are just a cutoff, since the contour lines were too closely spaced to be discernable. (The hydrogen atom dot sizes look different in size, but that is because the camera is a bit off to the side.)

So if you look at it this way, motion cannot be "throw off" because there is nothing tangible to be ejected; the contour lines just widen out, changing the way things interact. It is more like "splashing in water" to make waves. (The RS concept of motion is actually closer to the old, aether models.)

With that understanding, let's take a look at your questions:

I assume that the scalar mechanics of unsustainable motion being thrown off equally apply to a single dimension as to the 3 as a whole.

Yes, but understand that "thrown off" just means that a unit speed contour line appeared within a complex contour, as a consequence of the surrounding contours blending out to unity. That gives the appearance of being thrown off. It is essentially "wave cancellation."

Something that does not make sense at all is what happens to the time which has moved outward.

Just a ripple from a splash. What happens to the ripple in the pond? It progresses away and will keep going, unless it runs into another ripple or atomic splash.

As a similar case, I understand the half-life of radioactive atoms is due to an atom throwing motion outward, then running into it again, rather like an atomic Paddle Ball game. What prevents this continuing forever?

Absolutely nothing. An astute observation. The half-life is just the "recharge rate."

In the above analogy, it is more like the waves of a splash (atom) overrunning the waves being blown by the wind (particles).

If other external motions snag what was thrown outward, then that immediately implies that outward is coordinate as well as scalar. This has bothered me considerably.

All scalar motion has a coordinate projection, once you have an observer, something to be observed and another thing to define the assumption of three, orthogonal axes. And by "observation," I mean ANY sensory system, because that is what our senses DO--place enough assumptions on scalar motion to normalize it into a geometric system that we can comprehend. I'm sure that, as man evolves, he will eventually learn to observe coordinate time, as psychics already do to a small degree.

Projective geometry is the formalization of how to apply assumptions to scalar relationships (referred to as "cross-ratios"), to get the world we currently observe. And it is quite detailed, showing what each assumption does to scalar motion and the consequence of it.

You can visualize the unit speed progression as the flat surface of a very calm ocean. Displacements in time cause spashes in the water, displacements in space cause splashes in the air (pressure changes). Displacements in the air cause the surface of the water to ripple, making photons and such. Displacements in the water cause splashes to interact, making atoms and chemical compounds.

Or to put it more numerically, given normalization of

s10/t20 = 1/2

s500/t1000 = 1/2

Which of those thousands of extant times and spaces does our perception choose to view?

Our entire perception appears to revolve around hiding most of the universe by observational fiat.

What you are looking at is the ratio between distance and duration--the size of the waves. 10 miles in 20 hours is the same ratio as 500 miles in 1000 hours. 1/2 is normalized for space, not time. To normalize for time, it would be 0.5/1, which is why the coordinate system is rational numbers, not integers. And all that represents is a "rate of change," space changes half as quickly as time. Since "change" is "motion," that becomes the "rate of motion," not the "motion" itself.

On a minor sidenote, if an isotope has a half life of say, 60 seconds, and a second is around 4 quadrillion progression steps, was that isotope really made up of motions in the scalar magnitudes of 240,000,000,000,000,000?

Decay is a "probability." There was only one combination in 240,000,000,000,000,000 attempts that resulted in a unit speed result, allowing a wave to separate from the splash. (This is where the inter-regional ratio comes in, which is the probability of an atomic system "lining up" with the spatial axis outside the unit space boundary.)