Time (Miles Mathis)

[bperet]

In RST and RS2 time and space are codependent as aspects of one motion and that simple relation destroys their independence and consequently prevents them from qualifying as separate dimensions.

Horace is correct. This is probably the single, largest stumbling block that students of RS and RS2 encounter--that fact that space and time are nothing more than labels for the two aspects of motion, just like "numerator" and "denominator" are the two aspects of a fraction. The fraction 3/4 does not mean you have "3 numerators" and "4 denominators", it is just a ratio that could have ANY units associated with it. I could reduce 3/4 to 0.75 "equivalent numerators" if I wanted to, in order to make it appear I got rid of denominators (as Larson does with "equivalent space") but it is STILL 0.75/1, the denominator is always there--just normalized to unity.

I think that is the most impressive piece of work that Mathis produced (in his Calculus paper), that the inferences from the labels we use is incorrect... what we call distance (space only) is actually velocity (s/t), since the time component cannot be eliminated, only reduced to unity (and ignored).

[Horace]

Bruce,

Did you read Louis' posts with the proposition that rotational motion is primary in the universe?

He comes at the RSt from a different angle but he might be writing about the same things as you have been doing for years.

Doesn't that remind you of how counterspace is perceived in space, when it becomes reflected to the observer. With the 1/x^2 relationship and all that goes with it...

If so, then it might provide explantion of the centripetal force that is required by a rotational motion in Euclidean space yet missing in Louis concepts.

In counterspace, rotation is primary and requires no centripetal force to occur.

Maybe you can continue this line of thought better than I, because the application of counterpace to RS2 is your "baby".

[Lou]

Yes Bruce, I agree. But it also contracts. At this time in our universe space is expanding. We must be mindful of macro and micro cycles. For the universe as a whole, the cycle may be on the order of billions of years; for the atom, on the order of nano seconds, for lack of a more precise number. And all agree that space and time are reciprocally related. So the question is;what is the reciprocal of space expansion with respect to how time changes? You use the same term, 'expands'. What does that imply? Are the intervals of time getting longer? Are the ticks of the clock getting farther apart or closer together? I use the terms for motion that more precisely applies to time, acceleration and deceleration. I contend that time is decelerating when space is expanding. Now this may very well mean that we are in agreement, but the defining of terms is very important here. I view 3 d time as a corkscrewing progression. When decelerating, the radius of curvature of the corkscrew is increasing, the '(progression) of time is being delayed in having to go around in ever larger circles.

With regards to 1^1 = 1^3 * 1^-2 , I don't think it changes my assertion that it all reduces to 'identity'. Again, unity cannot exhibit motion. The fulcrum is not the motion it is reponsible for generating, it is the 'idea' of the motion it manifests. I know this a philosophical argument but it is a necessary one.

Entropy is simply the fact that molecules move to where it is less crowded. In the situation of expanding space, entropy is positive or increasing, simply because more space is available to move into. Mass simply follows suit and radiates its mass and increases the energy of the system. Mass decreases as energy increases by the partial differential equation dE/dt = dm/dt * c^2.

Your last statement about the pendulum motion vs earth motion is one of relativity. My answer is simply this. Again, since all motion is rotational, complexed with expansion/ contraction, it must be ABSOLUTE MOTION. I previously gave the example that me spinning in my swivel chair does not mean that the stars in the galaxy are the ones that are swirling about my head. This would mean that the stars are travelling at speeds exceeding Warp 10! This violates relativity itself and is therefore internally inconsistent.
This would violate any observer's sensibilities. That is why I am not a relativist. It might convince some who thinks in terms of vectors, but in a universe of curves, there are no vectors and the observer is irrelevant . Remember velocity is an instantantaneous term. Acceleration is the second derivative, and you previously agreed with me in my car analogy that braking and stepping on the gas and steering were controlling phenomena. I contend that gravity is the 3rd derivative and may properly be considered to be controlling acceleration. That is why I took that liberty. Observer principles are relativistic principles and I simply reject them outright for the reasons given. Einstein wanted space to curve, my space is recto linear and expanding/contacting. Einstein's time was vectoral but varying in magnitude ( and reversible!). My time is curved and decelerating/accelerating, respectively, with space expanding/contracting. This I think this is consistent with Larson, no? Einstein wanted light to be a reference frame because relativity has none otherwise. He, therefore, required light speed be constant (this isreally what I call a ad hoc assumption ), and the concept of the 'observer' in order to uphold relativity. In doing this and getting away with it , he gave velocity 'phenomenal reality' and released a Pandora's Box of irrational thoughts, such as, time travel, the Big Bang theory, black holes, and the like.

I would like to put out there a proposal for a model of the atom that is similar to my photon model stated in another post. It differs somewhat from Larson's. I would appreciate feedback and criticism. I'm still working on the prose, but it will be forthcoming on a separate post. I wish I could draw picture.

Regards, Louis .

[bperet]

What does that imply? Are the intervals of time getting longer?

No; I am stating that space and time are aspects of constant, scalar speed (not velocity). As a scalar, there are no such properties as inward, outward, expansion, compression, linear or angular. Once the system is projected for consciousness to measure, the concept of the clock is created, and then you have something to measure against (clock time) to create the illusion of spatial expansion, temporal compression, or whatever labels you chose to apply to the observation.

I view 3 d time as a corkscrewing progression.

I will point out that the corkscrew is a combination of linear and angular motion, the length of the screw being a linear measure, and the rotary character being angular. It is what you get when non-unit scalar speeds, in both aspects, are projected on to clock time.

If the time aspect of speed were fixed at unity, you would perceive linear motion against the clock. If the space aspect of speed were fixed at unity (as in the unit boundary of atoms), you would perceive rotational motion--the atomic, rotating systems. Non-unit values in both aspects give you the projection of a corkscrew over clock time.

Again, unity cannot exhibit motion.

That is apparent, as unity IS the datum of measurement. That is like saying the beginning of my tape measure is zero inches from the start.

Mass simply follows suit and radiates its mass and increases the energy of the system

If that is the case, all mass would radiate all its energy and cease to be mass, and the universe would be nothing more than photon frequency. I do not see the logic to that conclusion.

My answer is simply this. Again, since all motion is rotational, complexed with expansion/ contraction, it must be ABSOLUTE MOTION.

I have to thank you for posting these comments on "absolute"... for the first time in my life, I think I finally understand Einstein's concept of Relativity--and he may have had it exactly right, as least as an internal comprehension. But, as Mathis points out about Newton and others, things got a bit distorted by others interpreting his theories that did not understand his base concept.

I took a quick look at SR/GR again, and could not help but notice the "speed of light" comments... where all the emphasis is on LIGHT (a measurable thing), not on SPEED, a constant ratio of space to time. In my 1946 encyclopaedia I have here, I also notice that he says "speed of light" is constant in all reference frames, but within a reference frame, "velocity" is relative. This indicates to me that, like Larson, he understood the difference between speed and velocity, which were considered to be the same concept by others.

Yep, you've convinced me Lou... everything is relative to an observer-defined datum of reference.

[bperet]

Did you read Louis' posts with the proposition that rotational motion is primary in the universe?

Yes, I took a look. I went through that "nothing but rotation" phase about 10 years ago. It is nice in the fact that you can easily extract SHM from rotation, whereas you cannot with linear motion. But I find you need both, yin-yang, to represent motion in the Universe, which is why I am now using a complex number to represent space-time speed. (And so far, it is working very well.)

Doesn't that remind you of how counterspace is perceived in space, when it becomes reflected to the observer. With the 1/x^2 relationship and all that goes with it...

What I got from Nick Thomas' counterspace research is primarily the geometric strata, a discrete set of assumptions that allow the transformation of scalar values into an observable reference system. That has been a big help in reverse engineering what consciousness is doing inside our heads to perceive reality (particularly along the artificial reality lines of computers).

In counterspace, rotation is primary and requires no centripetal force to occur.

That is what I now refer to as "yin" in RS2, something Larson only simulated with his rotational base--but obviously knew it had to be there for things to work. Nehru came up with the same concept, independently, with his paper on "The Law of Conservation of Direction." So it does seem to be a natural consequence.

[Lou]

I refer you to Miles Mathis in his paper # 164, Unifying the Photon with other Quanta. "This would mean that c is the AVERAGE (my emphasis) speed not the maximum speed."

[Lou]

I will attempt to show how the continuous is born of the discrete. I noticed that the golden ratio produces the beautiful phi spirals we see everywhere in nature. In the examining the Golden Rectangle that generates the spiral I got to thinking how a linear structure such as the rectangle could produced a perfectly continuous spiral structure. Upon closer examination, I could see that at every 1/4 turn the curve, the radius of curvature suddenly increased by phi. I concluded that this discrete 'jump' is the only way to accomplish spiraling. I further concluded that what is happening at each 1/4 turn is that the curve is at a tangent 'point' with the flat plane of the square of that previous 1/4 prosession. At the tangent point the next radius for the next 1/4 turn increase by phi. Of course you can make the same case for a spiral that is inward where the radius jumps are decreasing by the inverse, 1/phi. This could explain the expansion/ contraction cycles without discontinuity.
In conclusion, nature must be counting in transcendentals to transform the discrete into the continuous. One is imbedded in the other, the discrete borns the continuous. I think this has implications for RS. I'm working on it, but I need for others to who are intimately imbued in the theory to to chime in. Especially since I have previously postulated that time progresses in phi spirals and that space is cubic. Let remember that my 2d example would have to be extended to 3d cubes and 3d spheres and increases in radii would be the scalers of RS. Thanks.

Regards, Louis

[Gopi]

Hi Louis, nice to have your input out here. Just one request, please use paragraphs! I am trying to read your posts fully, and am getting a bit dazed.

Coming to the comments about rotation, yes, rotation is ABSOLUTE in the euclidean reference frame, because it is an acceleration. Velocities can be relative, while their rate of change, is a constant. The boundary between relative velocity and absolute rotation is the point at which everything is unity: at speed of light. It marks the boundary, and being on the boundary, the speed of light is the ONE velocity independent of reference frames. Your Universe of curves is correct, when viewed from the region where translation is primary. When you invert these spatial relations, it gives rise to the "time region" motion, and when you interchange the space and time aspects, you get the Cosmic sector.

It is the logic that has to be consistent... a uniform translation, as a scalar, HAS to be equivalent to a uniform rotation. But in the Euclidean system, translation is vectorial. Hence, a polar Euclidean stratum is naturally derived, where uniform rotation is relative, and translation is absolute.

And since space and time are reciprocal aspects, one cannot give one precedence over the other. Hence the cosmic sector. Agreed, it might be a reflection, but it is a necessary feature of this set of postulates.

[Lou]

(Edited comment to see if I can make paragraphs --bruce.)

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. Much as I try, hitting return and all, I can't get paragraphs out. What am I doing wrong. I think the the postulate of the unit datum is wrong. Obviously it came about from Einsteins postulate that light speed is constant. This I reject this outright. Why should any motion have a special status? It is time we knock light off of this pedestal, as I see it as a major impedediment. The golden ratio (see Mathis's paper on it) is an undisputed fact of nature and gives us the real relationship between space and time. They are inseparable, they are inversely related, but the ratio is not unity, it is 'phi' (1.618...) , a transcendental expression.

The 3 d phi spiral as the time element, can spiral out or spiral in, always remaining in a clock wise rotation. Space coordinately expands and contracts. The squares in the golden rectangle should be seen as corresponding to 3d cubes. A phi spiral rotating in the counterclockwise rotation but 90 degrees out of phase can 'co-rotate' without interference. Now you have Nehru's birotational photon. (and more) Bruce can use this as a better model for his imaginary time than coordinate time. You don't need an ad hoc 'cosmic sector' with this model. I fail to see anything but rotation in the motion of birotational phi spirals. I fail to see how s/t = phi dues NOT show a preference of one over the other. I can see it, however, if you have s/t = unity. This is why I have previously made the statement, 'time measures space, space does not measure time'. They are not of equal footing, or else motion could not be. Time Lords over space.

At the heart of this issue is the speed if light and the scientific heresy of denying its constancy. I thought that the only way to justify the billions spent on CERN was for it to find that light is not a special motion. This would finally allow to progress in physics after 100 years in the dark. I believe it has recently done just that.

It could not be clearer to me that right under our noses, the simple construction of a golden rectangle and subsequent phi spiral could illustrate perfectly the fundamental relationship between time and space. Its motion allows for birotation, unidiectionalism of time in a 3 dimensional way and spiraling outward and inward to correspond with the motions of space.

I know this goes against the sacred cows of RS, namely, the unity datum and the cosmic sector, but I've always been honest. I was never convinced by them.

Now let me delve into reference frames. I postulate that velocity, speed and the like are merely useful concepts by which we can practically function in out world, where we can many times ignore the reality of acceleration. For instance, travelling in our car at 50 mi per hour is convenient to work with. We can ignore that the car is actually orbiting the earth on its surface, and is actually in accelerating. This does not make velocity real. This velocity would be relative if it had reality in the phenomenal world, but our motion in our car is acceleration with it reference as the center of earth. Therefore it's constant orbital velocity is not relative, it is ABSOLUTE, no matter what the speedometer reads. Those so called linear distances are curves on the surface of the earth. I see no vectors here. You may challenge me and say that orbital velocity vectors are at play, but I would then remind you that those are vectors that represent acceleration because the ever change direction.

All rotional motion, and there exists no other, has as its reference frame as the center of its rotation. Its center may be the center of the atom or the center of the universe, but it has a center somehere whether we can identify it or not. All motion is therefore absolute and all motions that do not appear to be so are simply not seen for what they are. Linearity is a concept, as is speed, velocity. You cannot point to it, your senses cannot detect it, it is philosophically unreal. It is not a noun. I am accelerated. My bathroom scale tells me so. Astronauts are accelerated even in weightless orbit because thay are in orbit. Regards, Louis .

[bperet]

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. Much as I try, hitting return and all, I can't get paragraphs out. What am I doing wrong.

Looking into it... I've upgraded your account to researcher status. Next time you post, we'll find out if that did anything. May be a problem with the text filters that are used to edit out bogus html. Make sure the "Text format" box below where you type a comment says "XHTML." (should be the default) If it is set to one of the plain text options, it will not recognize paragraphs.