I don't want to go into that comparison now. It could be that your approaches are even compatible.dbundy wrote: Horace, Larson's assumption that "direction" reversals, were the only way to introduce variation into the uniform progression of space and time was challenged by Nehru and Peret, who came up with their alternative assumption based on the concept of bi-rotation.
...but does it create a sine wave of the photon and how? How are non-3D phenomena created when the reversals always take up all of the available dimensions?dbundy wrote: On the other hand, I maintained that the objections to Larson's idea of "direction" reversals could be overcome, if the reversals were considered as 3D reversals instead of 1D reversals, since that would eliminate the "saw tooth" waveform, which was the main objection to the reversal assumption.
Larson's displacement refers to the deviation from unit speed. Such deviation is possible only when the speed is averaged out over multiple units of motion. Deviation from unit speed is not possible over one unit of motion. Because of this, the deviation is not an intrinsic property of one unit of motion but is a result of relating multiple units to each other.dbundy wrote: But now, you raise another one of those challenges: If space and time can only be regarded together as motion, how then can there ever be what Larson called a "displacement" between them?
That's obvious, but you must define what these numbers in the denominator and numerator mean. To me these two numbers denote how much the space has expanded or shrunk during a quantity of time (or vice versa). What do they mean to you?dbundy wrote: We think of the integers as separate from the rationals, but in reality, they are not. The set of integers that we call natural numbers, or counting numbers, are in reality rational numbers, partially represented.
Yes they are, but unit denominators are not merely ignored for convenience of expression, they are normalized out on purpose. The material observers normalize out time and the cosmic observers normalize out space. Because of that difference alone you have to admit that the scalar directions (and their reversals) are not intrinsic to the motions because the are affected by the type of the observer (material or cosmic), that's doing the observing.dbundy wrote: The unit denominator of these numbers is ignored for convenience of expression, but the truth is, they are always part of the number.
That's just a different notation.dbundy wrote: What we choose to call negative numbers, which are so troublesome philosophically, are actually inverse integers, with unit numerators.
There is no confusion, A less than unity ratio simply means that space expanded less than time when averaged over multiple units.dbundy wrote: These inverse integers can also be regarded as fractions of a whole, but not without introducing an element of confusion into the discussion of ratios. The ratio of time over space is the inverse of the ratio of space over time, but when we consider the number line as a whole, we have to realize that there is another sense, a second sense in which we can perceive the reciprocity of numbers and that is a reciprocal number line.
The best analogy I can think of to illustrate this is to picture a "teeter-toter," or "see-saw"
(when the amount of time is put into the denominator).
These "variations from the unit progression" make my point - they appear different for different observers. Which means that the direction of reversals, which make these "variations" possible, are also affected by the observers. Ergo, directions are not intrinsic to the observed motion but are functions of relations between at least two motions.dbundy wrote: This analogy is very useful for understanding the two senses of reciprocity in the RST. The view of the unit progression from the MS point of view is the reciprocal of the same unit progression from the CS point of view. This is important to keep in mind, when we consider variations from the unit progression, because if we don't we can easily lose track of what the numbers mean.
That's fine and dandy but you again provided evidence against directions being intrinsic to the observed motion.dbundy wrote: The number s/t = 1/2 is the inverse of the number s/t = 2/1 in the MS, where s/t = 1/2 is normally represented on the number line to the left of the unit progression, s/t = 1/1, and s/t = 2/1 is to the right. To be consistent, the CS representation of the number line, should have t/s = 2/1 on the left of the unit datum, and t/s = 1/2 on the right, if we were to extend our investigation into the CS. Just sayin.
So "directions" are determined by relations between motions, too. Changes of these directions are the cause of reversals that cause speed deviations.dbundy wrote: Remember, that in any given RSt, everything is a motion, combination of motions, or a relation between motions and combinations of motions,
Yes, it can be quantified but not in separation. The aspects need to be considered together. One unit of space per three units of time can look as three units of space per one unit of time depending what observer is observing it. The motion of the observer matters, because the change of direction, that is the essence of the reversal, depends on the relation between the observer and observee.dbundy wrote: So, with this much understood, we come to the question of absolute magnitudes. Does Larson's postulate hold that posits these? I think so, precisely because an increase or decrease in magnitude of space over time, or time over space, can be quantified as just discussed.
All of these examples assume an underlying uniform progression of time and that is generated only by material observers.dbundy wrote: Representing tne cycle of expansion/contraction for every two units of time (space) is completely analogous to the analysis of a rolling wheel, or a swinging pendulum or a propagating water wave, sound wave or light wave.
The only alien concept to you seems to be the proposition that a direction of motion does not stand on its own and is affected by its observer.dbundy wrote: That's all I can say at this point, Horace. I can understand and work with these numbers, but I can neither understand nor work with the concept you are presenting here, at least so far.