Tetrahedral Reference System

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Tetrahedral Reference System

Post by bperet »

MikeWirth wrote:
bperet wrote:
Quantum foam has been looked at; I just haven't gotten around to putting my notes out on the forum/site. I had this idea to make a "quantum foam solar panel".
Look forward to reading about this. Is the panel made of elements other than silicon? I read that there's been a shortage of silicon for making solar panels so a non-silicon panel would be ideal.
The idea is pretty simple... rather than using photons to knock electrons from atoms into the conduction band, you use photons to knock electrons out of the quantum foam, into the conduction band. Virtually every photon produces a conductive electron, pushing near 100% efficiency. I haven't figure out what material yet.

MikeWirth wrote:
The expanding grid model looks right except that shouldn't the grid be based on equilateral triangle/tetrahedral to separate the absolute locations? That way they are all equidistant.
A very interesting thought... Nehru and I looked at tetrahedral relationships back in 2003; I think they are in the "Time Region Speeds" thread. I did some experimenting, and came up with this:

The cube is actually composed of a pair of reciprocally-related tetrahedrons (a configuration called a "star tetrahedron", where you connect the vertices to form a cube). If you take one tetrahedron and call it "material", and the other "cosmic"--even though the tetrahedron has 4 DOF, when linked, the result is three, coordinate dimensions in the typical axial representation. Also, the two tetrahedrons are out of phase with each other by 90 degrees--the same phase relationship we see with space and time.

This indicates that space and time, the material and cosmic sectors, are very closely linked and that the Euclidean geometry that Larson postulated is actually a by-product of the linkage of space and time. It can be deduced as a consequence--doesn't need to be postulated at all!

I did a graphic representation; see attached. Red tetrahedron represents the material sector (space/time); the green tetrahedron represents the cosmic sector (time/space); the white cube is the linkage that results between them, generating three axial dimensions.
Attachments
Tetrahedral Natural Reference System
Tetrahedral Natural Reference System
TetrahedralNRS.gif (29.85 KiB) Viewed 7600 times
Every dogma has its day...
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Tetrahedral Reference System

Post by bperet »

I created a visual of a tetrahedral coordinate system. Has some very interesting properties, most notable of which is that it is harmonically stable along every side, and is a recursion of tetrahedrons, forming layers and planes. It also generates rhombic structures, which are affine projections of cubes.

I'm going to have to study this more, but I also noticed that it is composed of equilateral triangles (3), forming tetrahedrons (4), recursing with (5) objects, forming hexagons (6).

The attached picture is only the cosmic (green) tetrahedral grid; it got too hard to see with all the other stuff in there.
Attachments
TetrahedralCoordinates.gif
TetrahedralCoordinates.gif (65.99 KiB) Viewed 7600 times
Every dogma has its day...
MikeWirth
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:53 pm

Re: Tetrahedral Reference System

Post by MikeWirth »

In regards to "quantum foam solar panel".

bperet wrote:
The idea is pretty simple... rather than using photons to knock electrons from atoms into the conduction band, you use photons to knock electrons out of the quantum foam, into the conduction band. Virtually every photon produces a conductive electron, pushing near 100% efficiency. I haven't figure out what material yet.
BTW, a clarification regarding silicon -- there is no lack of silicon, just the lack of the high grade processed kind used in PV cells.

In regards to your idea, Nehru mentions in his paper on Superconductivity the "antiferromagnetic" property (where antiferromagnetic meaning two nearby magnetic dipoles will tend to align in opposite directions) and stated:

Quote:
We can conclude that the antiferromagnetic ordering can co-exist with or even promote the electron pairing that underlies superconductivity. If this is so, it might lead to the develpoment of high Tc superconducting materials by exploiting the potential of the antiferromagnetic type of structures.
I am only speculating, but how about a sort of "inverse incandescent light bulb", a vacuum tube (containing CMB) could be a kind of "quantum foam matrix" that uses electrodes that are antiferromagnetic materials for promotion of conduction.

There are probably more "natural" approaches to creating this process in terms of 4th density technology.

In regards to tetrahedral concepts:

bperet wrote:
Nehru and I looked at tetrahedral relationships back in 2003; I think they are in the "Time Region Speeds" thread. I did some experimenting, and came up with this:

The cube is actually composed of a pair of reciprocally-related tetrahedrons (a configuration called a "star tetrahedron", where you connect the vertices to form a cube). If you take one tetrahedron and call it "material", and the other "cosmic"--even though the tetrahedron has 4 DOF, when linked, the result is three, coordinate dimensions in the typical axial representation. Also, the two tetrahedrons are out of phase with each other by 90 degrees--the same phase relationship we see with space and time.

This indicates that space and time, the material and cosmic sectors, are very closely linked and that the Euclidean geometry that Larson postulated is actually a by-product of the linkage of space and time. It can be deduced as a consequence--doesn't need to be postulated at all!
I read that thread some time ago and now it's more clear as to how this "star tetrahedron" works.

This may be a stretch but if you consider the octahedral formed within the star tetrahedron and the "linking effect" to both sectors if you were to inscribe a sphere within the octahedral it creates 8 tangent points on the octahedral to form a cube which if inscribed again by a sphere creates 6 tangent points to create an octahedral and repeats this series of cube - sphere - octahedral - sphere - cube...

Question: Is this basically a model for the superposition and intersection of sectors (and the respective space and time units) and possibly of a connection to how atomic structures may appear? I haven't read those posts related to your "atomic zone" research in a while so I'm stretching again here.

Also, for some reason, I've visualized absolute locations as possibly archetypal and manifesting as star tetrahedrons of perhaps the "Planck length" of order of 10^-33 cm. (which Wikipedia states: "The Planck length is deemed "natural" because it can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.") The undefined "core vibration" concept mentioned by RA has prompted this consideration.

bperet wrote:
I did a graphic representation; see attached. Red tetrahedron represents the material sector (space/time); the green tetrahedron represents the cosmic sector (time/space); the white cube is the linkage that results between them, generating three axial dimensions.
Looks like the cubic circumscribed formation which leads to derivation of rectangular Euclidean geometry. Whereas the inscribed spherical can lead to derivation of Euclidean polar geometry. Does this make sense?

Also I recall the RA session (#52) regarding the 90 degree phase difference relating to a mode of travel:

Quote:
Question: Just as something that I am a little inquisitive about, but which is not of much importance, I would like to make a statement which I intuitively hunch. I may be wrong.

You were speaking of the slingshot effect and that term has puzzled me.

The only thing that I can see is that you must put energy into a craft until it approaches the velocity of light and this of course requires more and more energy. The time dilation occurs and it seems to me that it would be possible to, by moving at 90° to the direction of travel, somehow change this stored energy in its application of direction or sense so that you move out of space/time into time/space with a 90° deflection. Then the energy would be taken out in time/space and you would re-enter space/time at the end of this energy burst. Am I in any way correct on this?

I am Ra. You are quite correct as far as your language may take you and, due to your training, more able than we to express the concept. Our only correction, if you will, would be to suggest that the 90° of which you speak are an angle which may best be understood as a portion of a tesseract.
This may be useful to helping to explain to the mainstream how RS principles can be applied to something new and interesting.
MikeWirth
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:53 pm

Re: Tetrahedral Reference System

Post by MikeWirth »

In regards to tetrahedral concepts:

bperet wrote:
Nehru and I looked at tetrahedral relationships back in 2003; I think they are in the "Time Region Speeds" thread. I did some experimenting, and came up with this:

The cube is actually composed of a pair of reciprocally-related tetrahedrons (a configuration called a "star tetrahedron", where you connect the vertices to form a cube). If you take one tetrahedron and call it "material", and the other "cosmic"--even though the tetrahedron has 4 DOF, when linked, the result is three, coordinate dimensions in the typical axial representation. Also, the two tetrahedrons are out of phase with each other by 90 degrees--the same phase relationship we see with space and time.

This indicates that space and time, the material and cosmic sectors, are very closely linked and that the Euclidean geometry that Larson postulated is actually a by-product of the linkage of space and time. It can be deduced as a consequence--doesn't need to be postulated at all!
Just want to point out that your derivation of the typical 3D axial representation is based on the external/circumscribed cube with "vertex to vertex" contact with the star tetrahedron (outersection) and the possible polar Euclidean representation is based on the internal/inscribed sphere with "surface to surface" contact with the octahedral which is the intersection of the star tetrahedron. There is also "surface to vertex" contact of a circumscribed sphere to the octahedral which adds emphasis to the spherical relationship.

In regards to this thought.

Quote:
This may be a stretch but if you consider the octahedral formed within the star tetrahedron and the "linking effect" to both sectors if you were to inscribe a sphere within the octahedral it creates 8 tangent points on the octahedral to form a cube which if inscribed again by a sphere creates 6 tangent points to create an octahedral and repeats this series of cube - sphere - octahedral - sphere - cube...
There may even be a proportional relationship linking space unit radius to atomic size radii if you take this series far enough. The sphere/cube/octahedral will eventually reduce to this atomic size but will it be the exact size and what is the number of recursions in this series to take it down to this scale? Will that number of recursions have a relationship to the inter-regional ratio? Since I brought it up I'll see if I can get some figures on this.

Taking a closer look.

Quote:
Question: Is this basically a model for the superposition and intersection of sectors (and the respective space and time units) and possibly of a connection to how atomic structures may appear? I haven't read those posts related to your "atomic zone" research in a while so I'm stretching again here.
You basically answered the first part of this question in your quote at the top of this post but was interested in how correctly applied is the phrase "superposition and intersection of sectors".

Taking a closer look.

Quote:
Also, for some reason, I've visualized absolute locations as possibly archetypal and manifesting as star tetrahedrons of perhaps the "Planck length" of order of 10^-33 cm. (which Wikipedia states: "The Planck length is deemed "natural" because it can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.") The undefined "core vibration" concept mentioned by RA has prompted this consideration.
In the reduction series of octahedral - sphere - cube, I left out the aspect that the cube with its eight vertices can also be interpreted as a star tetrahedron. It's just not as simple a structure to create from the vertices. But the star tetrahedron seems to act as a "seed structure" for creating the octahedral (intersection - surfaces) and cube (outersection - vertices). So, this star tetrahedron still manifests down to atomic scale and possibly lower.

That's one aspect of the visualization. Another comes about by visualizing the reversal of the "outward progression" as viewed with this grid so that an "inward progression" leads to the shrinking of the star tetrahedron (composed of each respective sector tetrahedral) down to sub-unit scale (Planck length?) before it disappears. This is a bit off since this would mean 8 absolute locations merging into one point (they would of course vanish at the unit distance) but this is where it has more of an archetypal/template meaning.

Since the gravitational constant is only a conversion factor, I'm not even sure if the "Planck length" has any significance in the RS. But if so then perhaps can be derived in same way that Planck's constant is derived. Will have to reread Nehru's paper to get a better idea.

I get the notion that the "core vibration" aspect seems to relate to a "central position" within the time region or space region of a unit (a point at infinity in counter-space terms? which could also be a centralized rotational base?) so perhaps that is one reason to also relate it to the absolute location.

Another look.

Quote:
I am Ra. You are quite correct as far as your language may take you and, due to your training, more able than we to express the concept. Our only correction, if you will, would be to suggest that the 90° of which you speak are an angle which may best be understood as a portion of a tesseract.
I wonder why Ra doesn't consider the star tetrahedron model here. Maybe the effect works with both? I'm not endorsing Ra's view. Just considering the possibility that both may work.
Post Reply