## Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Horace wants to discuss the fundamental concepts of scalar motion, and I think it's a great idea, so I would like the discussion to have it's own topic, so it'll be easier to follow and not interfere with the flow of existing topics.

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Horace wants to discuss some of the fundamental issues of scalar motion and I think it's a great idea, but it needs to have it's own topic, as it could prove to be quite lengthy. So, this is the topic and I've copied the previous posts to start us off:
Horace wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:56 pm
dbundy wrote:
Sat Nov 02, 2019 10:46 am
Over the years, I've considered the possibility of a simultaneous oscillation of both the space and time aspects of an S unit or a T unit, but I have never been able to get anywhere with the idea.
That is because your mind is stuck in a rut. I would like to get you out of it very much, because your other work about the number of directions in multidimensional motion, the tetraktys, etc... are fine. My motives are altruistic.
Once your mind is freed out of this rut, who knows what greatness it can accomplish.
dbundy wrote:
Sat Nov 02, 2019 10:46 am
Only in the combination of the two into an S|T unit, where one or the other aspect of the S or T motion is oscillating, can I make any progress.
That is because an alternative is not possible ...the key out of the rut is understanding why.
The answer in a nutshell is: "homotopic equivalence"...but that requires further explanation.

For starters: In order to have an oscillation of any kind, you need at least two units of motion. Do you agree ?

For example, one unit of motion: +ΔS1 | +ΔT1 and a second unit of motion: -ΔS2 | +ΔT2.
...where the two consecutive signs ' + ' and ' - ' indicate the reversal.

For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that these ± signs collectively denote the directions in ALL available dimensions, because at this stage I want to avoid the discussion about the 1D vs. 3D oscillation ( which is an important issue in general, but not for the sake of this discussion )
dbundy wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:21 pm
Hoarce wrote:
For starters: In order to have an oscillation of any kind, you need at least two units of motion. Do you agree ?

For example, one unit of motion: +ΔS1 | +ΔT1 and a second unit of motion: -ΔS2 | +ΔT2.
...where the two consecutive signs ' + ' and ' - ' indicate the reversal.
Yes, I agree absolutely.

However, lets discuss it in a separate topic. I have some important things to say about E = mc2 in this one. I'll start it and call it Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals," if that's ok.

Horace
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

dbundy wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:21 pm
Horace wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:56 pm
For starters: In order to have an oscillation of any kind, you need at least two units of motion. Do you agree ?
Yes, I agree absolutely.
OK, so would you be open to narrowing down the scope of the discussion and analyzing these two units of motion in total isolation?
...as if the entire universe consisted of only these two units +ΔS1 | +ΔT1 and -ΔS2 | +ΔT2 ...and nothing else at all?

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Ok, I'm game. Let's do it.

Horace
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Very well, so we have this simplistic universe with only two units of motion +ΔS1 | +ΔT1 and -ΔS2 | +ΔT2.

Paying close attention to the signs, you might conclude the above notation means,
that in the 1st unit of motion: the spatial aspect is expanding and the temporal aspect is expanding.
and in the 2nd unit of motion: the spatial aspect is contracting and the temporal aspect is expanding.

Can you spot the big assumption made in the interpretation above, about the spatial and temporal directions, which is not a part of this simplistic universe?

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

No, I don't think I can, unless you are not making the distinction between vectorial direction and scalar "direction," where the latter would be interpreted as a 3d increase, decrease (8 units out, 8 units in; i.e. the oscillation in 23 = 8 "directions" of the space aspect)) over a 1d increase, increase (one unit out, another unit out; i.e. the uniform increase in 20 = 1 "direction" of the time aspect.)

Horace
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

No, it is not that but it is an important issue that deserves its own thread.

The big assumption, I have deliberately made in that description, is that I am a god who is able to view this simplistic universe from outside and judge the directions of these motions. I know, not a very humble thing to do...
For example, writing that the "spatial aspect of the first unit of motion is expanding" is an example of my arrogance.

If I am to stay true to this simplistic universe, I have to confine my observations to this universe only. An outside "point of view" is not allowed ...unless I am god.

Q: So if outside (god like) observers are not allowed, how can observations be made?
A: In case of this simplistic universe, the only possibility is the first unit of motion observing the second one. Such observation of one unit of motion by another is relative by its very definition.

Only on the basis of such relative observation a determination can be made whether e.g. an aspect of motion is expanding or contracting. IOW, without "god's perspective" made from outside of the universe, it is impossible to determine whether an aspect of one unit of motion is expanding or contracting IN ABSOLUTE TERMS.

Am I understood so far?

dbundy
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Yeah, it's back to Mach's principle, and the argument with Newton's concept of absolute space. It's true that the inside observer cannot detect the rotation of a bucket without an external reference of some kind. However, this is not true with expansion/contraction motion, since the change is internal, self-referent.

It is a change of radius, so the circumference grows over time. The radius changes with respect to the center-point, which would be quite apparent to the observer without a god-like perspective.

Horace
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:22 am
It is a change of radius, so the circumference grows over time.
The radius and circumference changes over the time of the observer, not of the observee. The observee cannot observe itself at a unit level.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:22 am
However, this is not true with expansion/contraction motion, since the change is internal, self-referent.
That is were you go wrong - a self-reference does not exist in RST at one unit level. One unit of motion cannot observe itself - it needs another unit to do the observing.
Observation is only possible between two or more units and the temporal direction of the observer affects the perception of the spatial direction of the observee, too (and vice versa).
This means that e.g. spatial "expansion" can appear as "contraction" when viewed from a perspective of a second unit of motion in which the temporal aspect is opposite.

Please feel free to argue against me on this issue.

Horace
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:22 am
The radius changes with respect to the center-point, which would be quite apparent to the observer without a god-like perspective.
Do you realize that this type of thinking leads you down a garden path which ends with the notion of the "beginning of time" ?
This is because a "point" implies a zero-radius (effectively a beginning of space) and that is possible only at some ephemeral "beginning of time" BEFORE space had the time to expanded yet.

The speed of light is fundamentally a differential relation involving a ratio of two changes. That's why I religiously write the speed as the ratio of two deltas. The essence of a change (delta) is very different from a "point".
For example: "5 gallons" is a measure of a magnitude of space. If this space was spherical (a big geometrical assumption), then these "5 gallons" could have an identifiable center point.
However, a change of spatial magnitude would be something like a change from 5 to 7 gallons and it is the same change of magnitude (spatial differential) as a change from 8 to 10 gallons and geometric points do not figure in the calculation of this change anywhere. In other words: a change of magnitude does not have an intrinsic center.

All in all, points do not exist at this level of abstraction - only changes of magnitudes do.