How reason about aggregates?

This forum is dedicated to the student just starting out with the concepts of the Reciprocal System, or RS2. Questions and clarifications for the RS/RS2 concepts go here; please place new ideas and commentary in the appropriate RS2 fora.
Post Reply
SoverT
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

How reason about aggregates?

Post by SoverT » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:26 pm

I've been trying to puzzle out what effects would emerge from various aggregate geometries, but I haven't internalized the rules of RS2 well enough it seems.

For a first example, as mentioned on in the thread on crystal as a receiver, the claim that a quartz crystal can only store as many discrete patterns/programs as the number of faces on the end. If we assume that this is essentially true, what would be the principles that give rise to this limit/division?

I've scribbled a couple of sketches to illustrate approximately what I'm visualizing when I play with this problem.

The first line of thinking I was pursuing was trying to visualize the crystal (lighter polygon) as an aggregate of Time, which would appear as an empty, shaped chamber or void, when thinking in terms of carving something from a solid. Once you have such an empty space as should be represented by an aggregate like this, I could then imagine some type of resonance effect based on the particular geometry. In this instance, reflection based on the normals projected inward seemed plausible.

However, since the relation of time to time is not motion, I don't know how there could be anything to resonate in this situation. All the bits of space associated with this aggregate of time are probably busy being non-local, rather than sticking around to resonate. Also, since this is a relatively static type of aggregate, a resonance sort of explanation doesn't feel quite right.

Image

Another way to divide up a shape with 2 faces, would be lengthwise. I don't have any good thoughts on why it might be like this.

Image

3 faces on the end, this time also considering the effect of the other end as well.

Image

The second geometry is the good old pyramid. Most of my thinking on the pyramid shape stems from what Ra details in book 3.

The most prominent question is about what exactly is "flowing", or spiraling, or being otherwise funneled or concentrated from such a shape? It seems obvious that it's the cosmic sector effect, but what does it produce on the space side? What defines the number of spirals turns inside a given cone/pyramid? Proportional to size, based on what starting ration? Why would the spiral have gaps, or space, as Ra mentions, rather than the effect being evenly distributed over the whole shape? (like water pouring through a funnel doesn't leave gaps around the edges)

Are there any RS papers around discussing these particular types of geometries?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Visualizing the Cosmic side

Post by bperet » Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:09 am

I believe Gopi did some work with crystal structures in the RS while he was working on his Ph.D. in photocells. I do not think he published anything, however. I know we talked about it in the past.

Something to keep in mind is that observation is what creates a 3D coordinate system, either 3D space or 3D time. (You can read the discussions on the programming problems on how to do the conversion between myself and Zuoqian).

For a material observer, space is empty and time is full. This is our normal perspective, "solid" atoms arranged in the vacuum of space, constructively. We do not see coordinate time structures directly, only the influence they have on space via force fields.

If you were born in the cosmic sector, you would see time as empty and space as full--the reciprocal of what a material observer sees. It has to do with the geometry of projection. When you back off a line, like unit speed, the side you are on opens up into a cubic grid of emptiness, and the other side of the line wraps into a sphere. We interpreted anything that is spherical as an "enclosure" and solid. Material observers (us) back off onto the 3D space side, so we see space as an empty, cubic grid and time as a bunch of solid balls. Cosmic observers see 3D time as a cubic, empty grid and space as a bunch of solid balls. From the scalar sense, neither situation actually exists--it's just motion (ratios of space to time), forming a bunch of contour lines at discrete speed ranges.

The useful bit about observer information is that what you see here, in 3D space, is the same stuff that exists in 3D time. Cosmic rocks look just like material rocks, as long as a cosmic observer is looking at a cosmic rock, and a material observer is looking at a material rock.

When you cross perspectives, things get yanked inside-out. A material observer trying to interpret a cosmic structure would see the structure inside-out, much like the inverse density gradient of white dwarf stars (see Larson's paper of the same name--very useful to help visualize).

There is also the problem of dimensional shift. Larson explains this in a 1-dimensional sense as his "two units of motion," speed and energy. Speed runs from 0-1 and energy from 1-infinity. When starting from a speed perspective, you see things as linear translation, which is what defines space (our 3D space only operates 1-dimensionally, linear or angular velocity). When you move into the energy unit, s/t becomes t/s and angular--so from a linear perspective, it looks like (t/s)2, an orbital velocity, since you need X and Y axes to draw a circle on the cube framework of space (which is why c2 shows up so much in physics--it is "light" as energy, rather than speed).

So when you want to look at carbon or silicon crystals, the aggregate of atoms is arranged in space--the temporal rotations (A and B of Larson's A-B-C notation). The organization in time is from the spatial displacement, the C, which is a "rotating unit of space" and therefore has the geometry of a cosmic atom, arranged in the "cubic framework" of 3D time. So you have to look at the electromagnetic relationships of the atoms involved, not the gravitational ones.

Pressure forms crystals, by causing free atoms to arrange themselves in such a fashion as to consume the least volume, in order to resist the pressure. It is the basic gas relationship, PV=t. In electronics, electronic pressure is derived from voltage per unit area (the cross-section of the wire). This is what would cause structural arrangement on the cosmic side of things, versus mechanical pressure to adjust the material volume.

If you notice, Qi/chi'i masters, like the notable John Chang (Djang), can produce electrical charges from their bodies. I suspect all of the wizards and like of old days had mastered Qi similarly, and were using that biological electricity to organize the temporal side of things, as just described.

Bottom line is: if it exists in space, it can exist in time. If it cannot exist in space, it cannot exist in time. So what kind of a structure do you get, if you yang a crystal, inside-out?
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply