On the Gravitational Boundary (Of Any Body)

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

On the Gravitational Boundary (Of Any Body)

Post by ckiit »

Thought experiment:

In 3D space, let a body (v) be within & at the very centre of a sphere (of radius r) & let the interior walls (at b) of the sphere be reflective.
Let the body project light rays at velocity c towards any region(s) of the interior wall of the sphere according to the discretion of the (same) body.
Gravitational Boundary.jpg
Gravitational Boundary.jpg (63.13 KiB) Viewed 13792 times
Now apply the basic RSoT framework:
if s/t = 1 the body is "uncharged" it has no gravitational boundary associated, whereas
if s/t ≠ 1 the body is "charged" it has a net "displacement" & corresponding gravitational boundary.

All charged bodies have a corresponding "gravitational boundary" as a "natural consequence" of their own particular impedance(s).
That is: the nature & magnitude of "charge" determines the nature & angle(s) of light received (back) to the body. Reciprocity obviously allows for this.
Implied is: the "fidelity" of any light projected & thus reflected back to any charged body is "relative" in nature but "absolute" in magnitude(s).

For example, the quality of light human beings see from the sun is according to the particular charge of their body (with earth itself being such a body).
The sun is not a ball of gas: it is really condensed matter with a real surface, thus incompressible beyond a discrete boundary.
This means the appearance (colour, size etc.) of the sun is actually owing to the charge of the body/planet beholding & not the sun itself.

This is how & why Miles' "Charge Field", like Relativity, is wrong: "charge" is not a property of a "field", it is a property of a body.
Miles serves us all as example of a body who can not figure to measure the "charge" in/of themselves before measuring that of others.

Now look again at r. Notice how r is the vehicle for both "projection" and "reception".
That is: the body projects light via r to the gravitational boundary & it reflects back via the same r.
So r actually has two valid directions: "out" and "in". This dichotomy relates to light and gravity resp.

If we allow both "out" and "in" to occur simultaneously, the difference is naught but the charge of the body v,
the same responsible for the collapse of the sphere towards v until... "time is up".

For all bodies, "time" thus acts as (if) a contracting sphere collapsing about a body.
The gravitational boundary is "defined" by the radius of the sphere "out" in all possible directions.
All information relating to any/all displacements is stored on/as the surface(s) (ie. boundary) of the sphere.

Instead of (only) thinking as if light "travels" from the sun to our eyes,
think instead of a coaxial circuit wherein light also travels from our eyes to the sun.
Both are simultaneously true, thus so are both gravity & light.
User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: On the Gravitational Boundary (Of Any Body)

Post by Djchrismac »

This makes sense but I have some questions.

What if the inside of the sphere is not reflective? This is how the gravitational boundary would be, in a similar fashion to our own atmosphere, with the boundary not being an end point for the limit of gravity around v but fading out as r increases in a scalar motion outwards from v.
ckiit wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:33 pm For example, the quality of light human beings see from the sun is according to the particular charge of their body (with earth itself being such a body).
An interesting thought, which could possibly link into people seeing colours differently or being colour blind.

What if there is an observer placed on r, both before b and after b?
ckiit wrote: The sun is not a ball of gas: it is really condensed matter with a real surface, thus incompressible beyond a discrete boundary.
This means the appearance (colour, size etc.) of the sun is actually owing to the charge of the body/planet beholding & not the sun itself.
ckiit wrote: Instead of (only) thinking as if light "travels" from the sun to our eyes,
think instead of a coaxial circuit wherein light also travels from our eyes to the sun.
Both are simultaneously true, thus so are both gravity & light.
Would an observer on r only be intercepting a tiny portion of photons into their coaxial circuit? What about the earth also being placed on r with an observer on the surface? Does the larger coaxial circuit/ light reflector of the planet override the miniscule surface observer, or do these work in unity with the many smaller observers adding to the overall charge/coaxial circuit of photons being absorbed/reflected from/to the sun by the entire planet?

I realise this complicates your thought experiment a great deal but if the underlying logic is sound, then it should scale up and be able to account for everything after without invalidating the original theory, or provide more info to make the initial theory more solid.
ckiit wrote: For all bodies, "time" thus acts as (if) a contracting sphere collapsing about a body.
The gravitational boundary is "defined" by the radius of the sphere "out" in all possible directions.
All information relating to any/all displacements is stored on/as the surface(s) (ie. boundary) of the sphere.
As space/time expands with the natural reference system in a scalar fashion and time/space contracts, does the gravitational boundary move outwards as time goes by, or only as the mass/charge/spin of the larger object (such as a planet/sun) increases in the same scalar way on a more local level, i.e. earth expansion?

If this simultaneous projection/reception loop of photons is charging up the body, what is happening in time/space with inverse charge?

Logically, the other realm of 3D time should already be fully charged, so like the analogy of building something in 3D space also chipping away at something in 3D time, does the charge in time/space get dissipated into the sphere of rest?

There is also the reciprocal connection between planets to consider, if the theory Bruce and I discussed, that there is a link between a hard shell planet surface with soft core and a sun with a "soft" sun's surface and hard central core (so to speak), is correct.

It could be that there is a charge recycling happening between solar system bodies (planets & suns) on an internal level in time/space that loops out into the charge field in space/time, the bigger version of the coaxial circuit of our eyes.

Maybe as planets absorb photons from the sun and build charge in space/time, anti-charge is generated internally by planets then absorbed by the sun in time/space?

I think it's important not to forget the other gravitational boundary as one approaches the "sphere of rest" in the centre of a planet, not just the one extending outwards from the object.
User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: On the Gravitational Boundary (Of Any Body)

Post by ckiit »

Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pm This makes sense but I have some questions.

What if the inside of the sphere is not reflective?

It can not not be (double negative).

The radius of a sphere is already reflective of any/all net displacement(s) (for being caused by them) & they in turn reflect in/at/as the surface of the boundary.
So for example: we believe something to be true, but in reality it is false. This causes a local net displacement reflecting some discrete magnitude of the inversion.
What we see is thus only "relative" according to such local displacements (& accordingly upside-down, no less) thus all bodies have a corresponding gravitational boundary.
It defines the point beyond which we can't see owing to our own local barrier(s). This is why the only thing worth measuring is (for) ones own local boundaries.
If as they are eradicated, the radius of the sphere diminishes as does the gravity (of ignorance).

I can try to give a practical example of this: take the polygon "approximation" method mathematicians use to approximate pi.
Mathematicians believe they are approaching the circumference of the circle by using inscribed & outscribed polygons.
But ask: how does one approach a 0-sided figure such as a perfect curve with an n→∞-sided polygon(s)?
Mathematicians should not be "adding" sides, but removing them (!) until there are only four right angles.
So mathematicians are, measurably, upside-down in their approach from the onset. This inversion has a real "magnitude" associated
& ultimately makes its way into the retinas of our eyes via. light. The light will always reflect the inversion(s).

It is the same with the physical universe: a radial magnitude will always reflect the nature of the displacement & appear in/on/as the surface surrounding.
So information is never lost even as it dissipates, as the dissipation is nothing but the inverse of the collection which was/is ordered.
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmThis is how the gravitational boundary would be, in a similar fashion to our own atmosphere, with the boundary not being an end point for the limit of gravity around v but fading out as r increases in a scalar motion outwards from v.
It is both: it does scale according to proximity but also still has a discrete boundary beyond which inward motion no longer occurs.
For example: two bodies outside of each others' gravitational boundary will appear to move away from one another.
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmAn interesting thought, which could possibly link into people seeing colours differently or being colour blind.
What if there is an observer placed on r, both before b and after b?
The only valid point of observation is assumed directly from v because all bodies have their own corresponding gravitational boundary.
If we assumed any other point of view, that point (ie. body) would also have its own corresponding boundary relative to its own v.
The only meaningful alternative point of reference outside of any v is s/t = 1 driving the constancy of light.
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmWould an observer on r only be intercepting a tiny portion of photons into their coaxial circuit? What about the earth also being placed on r with an observer on the surface? Does the larger coaxial circuit/ light reflector of the planet override the miniscule surface observer, or do these work in unity with the many smaller observers adding to the overall charge/coaxial circuit of photons being absorbed/reflected from/to the sun by the entire planet?
If it were possible to observe from a s/t=1 perspective, light is relatively still so there is no means to intercept anything.
Concerning the earth: v would be the white dwarf fragment at the core of the earth. This is basically its "point of origin".
Therefrom, r is then a radial proximity from v with any/all relative bodies/perspectives being their own v.
However, their v is now relative to the v of the planet, the planet of the solar system, the solar system of the galaxy etc.
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmI realise this complicates your thought experiment a great deal but if the underlying logic is sound, then it should scale up and be able to account for everything after without invalidating the original theory, or provide more info to make the initial theory more solid.
There is no complication, perhaps only a misunderstanding. With attempt to clarify: any/all perspectives are relative from their own v which has its own corresponding gravitational boundary.
It's not possible to "cheat" ones own gravitational boundary by assuming a perspective having none. We must assume our own local v & our own gravitational boundary b.
As to how "time" works: r collapses into/at v until they coincide at "death". Or in other words: "time" acts as (if) a contracting sphere of radial magnitude.
All information as to our own displacement(s) invariably comes closer and closer as we get older. That's the miraculous thing about death: it is invariably "enlightening".
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmAs space/time expands with the natural reference system in a scalar fashion and time/space contracts, does the gravitational boundary move outwards as time goes by, or only as the mass/charge/spin of the larger object (such as a planet/sun) increases in the same scalar way on a more local level, i.e. earth expansion?
Gravitational boundaries only move outwards as negative acceleration increases (ie. motion is confined to smaller & smaller regions of space)
Conversely, positive acceleration means the motion is liberated to larger & larger regions of space.
If/when/as gravity causes a body(s) to accelerate beyond c, the exotics emerge (ie. black holes / quasars).
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmIf this simultaneous projection/reception loop of photons is charging up the body, what is happening in time/space with inverse charge?
Energy is expended in/as the motions of the bodies concerned. For example, the human body expends energy in/as "calories".
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmLogically, the other realm of 3D time should already be fully charged, so like the analogy of building something in 3D space also chipping away at something in 3D time, does the charge in time/space get dissipated into the sphere of rest?
It is expended in/as the motions occurring in 3D space / time. One analogy would be: if you are watering a garden, wherever you point the hose & whatever gets watered is the dissipation of the charge.
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmThere is also the reciprocal connection between planets to consider, if the theory Bruce and I discussed, that there is a link between a hard shell planet surface with soft core and a sun with a "soft" sun's surface and hard central core (so to speak), is correct.
Yes - this is extremely significant.
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmIt could be that there is a charge recycling happening between solar system bodies (planets & suns) on an internal level in time/space that loops out into the charge field in space/time, the bigger version of the coaxial circuit of our eyes.
The scalar expansion principle occurs from within any/all units of space (hence the importance of solving for the origin of any/all coordinates as √Φ).
This means that √Φ indicates non-locality (ie. applies indiscriminately every-when & -where) & it is through this principle such instantaneous circuits are possible.
Djchrismac wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:33 pmMaybe as planets absorb photons from the sun and build charge in space/time, anti-charge is generated internally by planets then absorbed by the sun in time/space?

I think it's important not to forget the other gravitational boundary as one approaches the "sphere of rest" in the centre of a planet, not just the one extending outwards from the object.
Planets also simultaneously expend charge in/as their motion while/as they collect - we know matter can't indefinitely build charge as eventually one runs into the thermal or age limit(s).
As for the "sphere of rest"... it is simultaneously caused along with & upon the cause of a gravitational boundary thus the two go hand-in-hand.

What is interesting about all of this is how it applies indiscriminately to both planets & humans.
One can use the properties implied to "make out" the reality by trying to turn it upside-down,
as doing so reverses the same processes needed to create the displacement in the first place.

Notice how this relates to the imperative science thus ought to have concerning challenging basic underlying assumptions.
A false basic underlying assumption is the same thing as a net displacement from unity. It causes time & time causes gravity.
Post Reply