Time measurement problem

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
Sun
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Time measurement problem

Post by Sun » Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:40 am

Code: Select all

s +1 -1 +1
- -- -- --
t +1 +1 +1
Above is the concept of Larson's direction reversal, but i'm always wondering why it is not

Code: Select all

Δ s/t 
+1 -1 +1 (or 2/1 1/2 2/1)
-- -- --  
+1 +1 +1
progression s/t 
The result of direction reversal is no more than a 1D 2/1 1/2 displacement periodically. Suppose we live in a 1D universe, 1D gravity should result in 2/1 or 1/2. If we gravitate continuously, by adding one unit displacement to 2/1(or 1/2), it should result in the reverse 1/2(or 2/1)(discret unit postulate), producing a 1D vibration, photon. Then the universe starts to grow, from 1D to 2D, by adding one unit of a 2D rotation, we get the rotational base, which is every location in space in RS2.
I think the result of direction reversal is ok, both bi-rotation and direction reversal produce a 1D vibration except the square wave problem. But there's another problem in Larson's model. In Larson's model, one cycle of a photon vibration include two unit of progression, two unit of time, and this logic is used for the caculation of unit time. How could Laron get frequencies other than 1/2? I think we can't calculate frequencies by time but the reverse. In SI system, one second is defined by 9 192 631 770 oscillations of the light emitted by a cesium-133 atom, but obviously this duration of one second is vared by time dilation effect. How could Larson caculate unit time via a frequency since we define time by a frequency?
Time dilation: Does not exist in Larson's Reciprocal System, as Larson only considers the Euclidean projection of scalar motion (as he postulates). What would normally be time dilation in the RS is adjusted by motion in coordinate time (3-dimensional time, clock space), the Cosmic half of the Universe. In RS2, time dilation only occurs in the non-Euclidean geometric strata, again because "time" is not fixed at unity, as it is in the Euclidean. Therefore, time acts as a scale factor in the relations of velocity, appearing to slow things down or speed them up. Relativity, having no analogous concepts to either the Cosmic sector, nor projective geometry, has to adjust the flow of clock time for this scale factor.(Time (Miles Mathis) topic)
Quoted above doesn't provide an explanation to the time dilation by measurement. Time dilation is caused by measurement but not time itself, should be an observer effect i think. In fact what we measured is a number of oscillations but not time itself. Since only space can be measured directly, i doubt it is the measurement of time by fixed space unit and oscillations bringing π into the system, bending a square wave into sin/cos, observer dependent.
If so, electron, magnetism, atoms should all be waveform. Frequency is just an observer effect. Wave of electron should be like:
electron wave.png
electron wave.png (4.74 KiB) Viewed 659 times
1D expansion periodically.
Not sure i'm getting these things right.

Sun
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Re: Time measurement problem

Post by Sun » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:30 am

Let the measured time be t', and natural time be t, assuming a motion with s/t ratio change one unit of t' into s/t unit of t, t'=2t for uncharged electron 2/1 for instance. But the measured s/t' ratio will change with t', so the relation between t' and t is not a constant. The function of s(t') , the measured electron will not be s=2t either.
The measured s(t') would be s=et' i think, because the derivative of s(t'), the instant s/t' ratio, will be s(t'), since t'=s(t')=ds/dt' unit of t, and natural unit of t is eqeal to natural unit of s.
The real electron will still be s=2t, constant s/t ratio.
RS2-107:
counter-rotations of a birotation as expressed in Euler’s formula, eix + e-ix = 2 cos(x).
What's the relationship between eix and s/t ratio?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Time measurement problem

Post by bperet » Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:29 am

Sun wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:40 am
I think the result of direction reversal is ok, both bi-rotation and direction reversal produce a 1D vibration except the square wave problem. But there's another problem in Larson's model. In Larson's model, one cycle of a photon vibration include two unit of progression, two unit of time, and this logic is used for the caculation of unit time. How could Laron get frequencies other than 1/2?
Larson's photon model has been debated for decades... what Nehru and I found was that it just does not work, as described. What he did with the 1/3 sequence was to take a cosine wave at 180° "units," to get the result: 0=+1, 180=-1, 360=+1, while using a constant in the other aspect: +1, +1, +1. Both ends start and stop at the progression speed. This comes from Larson's statement that the resulting vibration is the projection of the circumference on the diameter. It is basically a "hack job" to stick to a linear, "Euclidean" system, rather than introduce rotation as a primary motion.
Sun wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:40 am
I think we can't calculate frequencies by time but the reverse. In SI system, one second is defined by 9 192 631 770 oscillations of the light emitted by a cesium-133 atom, but obviously this duration of one second is vared by time dilation effect. How could Larson caculate unit time via a frequency since we define time by a frequency?
If you notice, the charged pattern is similar to a toroidal orbital path--much like Katarai's "samsarah" (electromoon), though in the RS, it is just a compound motion.
Larson defined unit time by the Rydberg constant for Hydrogen (RH). See my old paper, Updated Values for Unit Space and Unit Time, where I updated it to the Rydberg constant at infinity, with better results.
Sun wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:40 am
Quoted above doesn't provide an explanation to the time dilation by measurement. Time dilation is caused by measurement but not time itself, should be an observer effect i think. In fact what we measured is a number of oscillations but not time itself. Since only space can be measured directly, i doubt it is the measurement of time by fixed space unit and oscillations bringing π into the system, bending a square wave into sin/cos, observer dependent.
The "measurement" of time dilation is by Doppler shift; there are a number of bad assumptions going in to the measurement, that Larson documented in Quasars & Pulsars. What it comes down to is that they are only counting "units of space" and ignoring the associated "units of time" in the dimensions of motion, always using "1" for time. This causes a "time dilation" when they try to mathematically correct the problem.

The astronomical situation is even worse, as they now have fudged redshifts to prevent objects like quasars from moving faster than the speed of light. If the data defies the theory, change the data! After all, too much money spent on developing the theory!
Sun wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:40 am
If so, electron, magnetism, atoms should all be waveform. Frequency is just an observer effect.
Yes, frequency is just a speed of rotation, so they all have waveforms.

I did a polar plot of the uncharged electron (circle, constant frequency) and the charged electron (flower), which shows the basic waveforms:
Charged-Uncharged Electron Rotation.gif
Charged-Uncharged Electron Rotation.gif (31.39 KiB) Viewed 634 times
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Time measurement problem

Post by bperet » Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:41 am

Sun wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:30 am
RS2-107:
counter-rotations of a birotation as expressed in Euler’s formula, eix + e-ix = 2 cos(x).
What's the relationship between eix and s/t ratio?
eix = (∠s,⇀t), electron
e-ix = (∠t,⇀s), positron

But, since it is only a unit displacement, there is a spin direction "reciprocal":
↻t = ↺s

therefore:
eix = (∠↻s,⇀t), CW spin electron
e-ix = (∠↺s,⇀t), CCW spin electron

This is the same situation that arose with Larson's positive and negative "reference points" in Basic Properties of Matter, where space and time can be substituted for positive and negative.
Every dogma has its day...

Sun
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Re: Time measurement problem

Post by Sun » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:43 am

Thank you Bruce. Have you find a way to solve the "charge problem"? Like Searl or
The charging method Thomas Trawöger uses to charge the "generator" in his pyramid system (using RF energy to cause crystal alignment in quartz sand)

You had done something similar years ago, an explosion during charging electrons, which can't be explained by conventional science. Why not repeat it?
Since atoms are waves, so does the expansion split by atoms. I think this is the one should be charged, but there must be something wrong about the frequency caculating. Will a mechanical watch have the time dilation effect?
but it turned out it was NOT the frequency, but the phase relationship between frequencies--the harmonic ratio--that actually did the work. This is the bit that everybody misses.

http://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/viewto ... ency#p2645
Then there will not be any time measurement issue. Problem solved :) .

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Time measurement problem

Post by bperet » Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:54 am

Sun wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:43 am
Have you find a way to solve the "charge problem"? Like Searl or
The charging method Thomas Trawöger uses to charge the "generator" in his pyramid system (using RF energy to cause crystal alignment in quartz sand)
I understand the problem... what they are doing is causing c-magnetic (cosmic magnetic) alignment of the rotating systems of the space region, analogous to a conventional magnetic field causing paramagnetic/ferromagnetic response. This alignment takes place in the cosmic ultra-high speed range, which is what we would see as a speed past the 3-x, ultra high speed range in normal space. See Nehru's paper on Ferromagnetism, and take its conceptual reciprocal for the cosmic sector effect.

The net effect of such a c-magnetic field orders all the spatial rotations, so you have a nice, level "playing field" to work in.
Sun wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:43 am
You had done something similar years ago, an explosion during charging electrons, which can't be explained by conventional science. Why not repeat it?
It was based on RF principles similar to the Hutchinson effect, and is now impossible to duplicate with all the wireless devices and satellites bombarding the planet with radio/GPS. It would be like trying to tune a violin during a Disaster Area concert.
Sun wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:43 am
Since atoms are waves, so does the expansion split by atoms. I think this is the one should be charged, but there must be something wrong about the frequency caculating. Will a mechanical watch have the time dilation effect?
When you account for both movement in 3D space and movement in 3D time, there is no time dilation--time dilation occurs only when time is interpreted as having a single dimension, as in conventional science.
Sun wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:43 am
Then there will not be any time measurement issue. Problem solved :) .
Yep... still waiting on Gopi to come up with the equations for the three resonant frequencies of a quaternion, then "problem solved!"
Every dogma has its day...

Sun
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Re: Time measurement problem

Post by Sun » Sun May 06, 2018 11:26 am

The "measurement" of time dilation is by Doppler shift
I don't understand it until today. Of curse it is Doppler shift, because we measure time by a frequency of light. Conventional science never realizes that the measurement is serious infection of the law of physics :lol: . According to special relativity math, c2t2-x2-y2-z2=constant. If we use natural unit and find a way to normalize t, the equation become 1-x2-y2-z2=constant. 1 means constant rate of time, the progression/unit motion, it is us, the gravitate objects according to RS. Conventional science said if t=0, then c2t2=0, then distance between two location in 4D space-time must be imaginary number. But what's the difference between t=0 for a photon and t=0 for us. In RS 1 is zero. So if we can find a way to measure time by distance, normalize time to 1 in all reference system, then we can measure coordinate time in space, because in that system distance is actually imaginary numbers. Why we don't need a correction for Maxwell equation? Why we need for a t=1 system. I think this coordinate time is Euclidean and the best thing is that wave of light is a function of only distance, which means location of compression and rarefaction of "aether" is fixed in space.

Sun
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

Re: Time measurement problem

Post by Sun » Tue May 08, 2018 12:04 am

Our measurement system is actually measuring space by second. An example from feynmanlectures Fig. 15–1, supposing Moe is moving in the x-direction with a uniform velocity u, and he measures the position of a certain point. He designates the “x-distance” of the point in his coordinate system as x′. Joe is at rest, and measures the position of the same point, designating its x-coordinate in his system as x.
Let's suppose u=1/3c, and x=2 seconds for a light to travel. Now we reverse the whole system, measure distance by seconds and time by meters. Velocity of Joe is actually 1/c not 0 when the system reversed. Velocity of light is 0, since it has no displacement in time.
We find:
x'=x=2 seconds.
y'=y=0
z'=z=0
t'= ? (I use c=1 implicitly, time can still be measured by a clock, velocity would become a ratio, have no idea what t' is)

possible solution:
x'/c=x/c seconds
y'=y
z'=z
t'=γ(t-u(x/c)*1/c)*c meters

When we say the distance between two positions is 2c meters is wrong, but it is always true saying it is 2 seconds (for a light to travel), independent of a reference system, although 2 secs of Joe ≠ 2secs of Moe. Still very confusing in my head, but my point is that spacial reference system does not have the ability to represent space by space. All equations involve a distance may have serious problems.
In our measurement system, any calculation using distance to measure space would have to deal with Lorentz transformation for both space and time.

Post Reply