Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

dbundy
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by dbundy » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm

Horace wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:34 am
...but not your 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.
Well, it's hard to see what you're driving at. It's not as if any observation could be made, of course. However, we can conceive of a changing radius of space (time), as the reciprocal, time (space), increases. I don't understand the time distinction being made here.
Horace wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:20 am
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.
You've completely lost me here. What I'm saying is that, unlike the famous thought experiment of Newton's, where the water rising/falling in the rotating bucket is clear, but that it can't be legitimately ascribed to the motion of rotation, unless said rotation is relative to absolute space (or the fixed stars as Mach argued), the expansion/contraction needs no such external reference. An observer (if such a one were possible) would easily detect the motion directly. There is no need for a concept such as absolute space or fixed stars to define it. It is simply a change in size. :|

Horace
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Discussions on Scalar Motion Fundamentals

Post by Horace » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:03 pm

dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
Well, it's hard to see what you're driving at. It's not as if any observation could be made, of course.
I am driving at a very important issue.
At least you seem to realize that no observation can be made of one unit of motion (UoM) by itself. That means, we are getting somewhere with this.
The immediate corollary of this realization is that all observations within the RST universe require another unit of motion to act as an observer.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
I don't understand the time distinction being made here.
The distinction is between ΔT1 and ΔT2.
The former is the time experienced by the observee and the latter is the the time experienced by the observer... or if you prefer: "observee's temporal reference" and "observer's temporal reference", respectively.

Since the observer is observing the observee, the observer perceives the motion of the observee in its own temporal reference (the observer's reference). I like to call it the "egotistical reference".

If the time aspect of the observer had the opposite sign, the motion of the observee would appear opposite to the observer, too.
In god's math notation: +ΔS1 | +ΔT1 observed by +ΔS2 | +ΔT2 ⇔ -ΔS1 | -ΔT1 observed by -ΔS2 | -ΔT2.
...the same isomorphicity in god's shorthand notation would be: +|+ obs.by +|+ ⇔ -|- obs.by -|-

...below are more cases of isomorphisms in god's shorthand notation:
+|+ obs.by +|+ ⇔ -|- obs.by -|- ⇔ -|+ obs.by -|+ ⇔ +|- obs.by +|- :(non-reversing)
+|+ obs.by -|+ ⇔ -|- obs.by +|- ⇔ -|+ obs.by +|+ ⇔ +|- obs.by -|- :(reversing)

there are two times more cases in which the roles of the observer and observee are reversed.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
However, we can conceive of a changing radius of space (time), as the reciprocal, time (space), increases.
You just wrote of a changing magnitude of observee's space (such as radius) as the reciprocal aspect of observee's motion increases, but that would mean that one UoM can observe itself in isolation. This is in contradiction to your own words several paragraphs above: "It's not as if any observation could be made, of course".

If you really meant it, than it should be obvious to you, that when an observation cannot be made, then no properties nor relationships nor conclusions can be drawn from this impossible non-observation. This includes all statements to the effect of a spatial or temporal aspect expanding or contracting in absolute terms (on 1 UoM basis in isolation).
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
You've completely lost me here. What I'm saying is that, unlike the famous thought experiment of Newton's, where the water rising/falling in the rotating bucket is clear, but that it can't be legitimately ascribed to the motion of rotation, unless said rotation is relative to absolute space (or the fixed stars as Mach argued),
Because I am not discussing rotations of material objects such as water and buckets. Such objects are relations between myriad of units of motion and they collectively possess properties which the basic UoM does not, such as Euclidean geometry, vectorial motions and inertia.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
the expansion/contraction needs no such external reference. An observer (if such a one were possible) would easily detect the motion directly.
No, the observer (a single UoM in isolation) could not detect anything by itself, because at this stage of development, neither the Euclidean geometry nor the inertia nor vectorial motions exist yet. Without inertia, rotation cannot be detected in absence of an external reference.
dbundy wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:11 pm
It is simply a change in size.
There is no such thing as "simple" change in size. I grant you that the RST fundamental postulates precisely define the magnitude of this change, but they deliberately leave the sign of this change as an ambiguity .
This ambiguity leads to 16 isomorphisms when considering 2 UoMs from god's view, out of which 8 are reversing and 8 are non-reversing (progressing) from RST's view.
It is this ambiguity which makes the nonuniformity of the RST universe possible.

Post Reply