Reference Systems

[bperet]

Mike and I have been having a detailed discussion about reference systems and their applicability to RS2 with its various geometric strata. One of the many interesting details that has come out is that due to the projective nature of "reality", any of the concepts that have been discovered in RS2 can be transformed into a Larsonian, Eucildean system, since the reference system of the discovery is known -- along with all the assumptions that go in to it.

Take, for example, the counterspatial "turn" of the Time Region. Because of the properties of polar geometry, the outward progression of the natural reference system is interpreted as a rotation; from this we get the "rotational base" upon which to build the particles and atoms in RS2.

When we transform that concept into a linear, Euclidean view as Larson postulates, it is like Plato's Cave--the subjects of counterspace become objects within its projection--shadows on the x-y-z graph of an orthagonal coordinate system. When those project objects are re-attached to the linear, Euclidean reference system, they become "subjects" again, subject to the rules, laws and assumptions of that reference system.

But there is a problem--not all of the concepts that were directly represented in the polar counterspace can be directly represented in the linear reference system. Larson ran across this same problem when he tried to project scalar motion into coordinate space, concluding that only ONE of the three scalar dimensions could have a coordinate representation, and the other two dimensions would somehow have to modify that represented motion.

The way the problem is resolved is that the un-representable concept subdivides--the portions of the concept that CAN be represented within the assumptions of the reference system become represented there, and the portions that cannot become directly associated with the "object" (the shadow on the wall), giving the appearance that the object has a property that in actually doesn't--it was just a left-over from the process of projective transformation.

In the case of the counterspace turn, a simple translation in polar space, that translation must now be represented in linear terms only. Think of it in terms of imaginary numbers. "i", the square root of "-1", cannot be represented in linear, Euclidean terms. That is why they created complex numbers. The "real" portion of the complex number CAN be represented, but the rotational component of the imaginary number CANNOT--it can only modify the "real" component of the complex interaction. And this is exactly what happens...

The real projection of a counterspace "turn" manifests in linear space as a "shear", linear motion in TWO dimensions that is viewed as the common "rotation". BUT, since there is no "real" component in counterspace, the rotation can ONLY appear as a modification of an existing, linear-type "real" motion (just as the 2nd and 3rd scalar dimensions can only modify an existing, coordinate representation of the 1st dimension).

And that is why in Larson's Euclidean projection, linear vibration CAN exist without "something to vibrate" (since it is "real"), whereas rotation CANNOT exist unless there IS something to rotate, since it has no direct representation and can only modify a "real" motion.

(But just remember this is the observed behavior of the shadows on the wall...)

[Horace]

Is there a way to distinguish an inward/inward unit of motion from outward/outward unit of motion, without resorting to another "observing unit" ?

[bperet]

Horace wrote:

Is there a way to distinguish an inward/inward unit of motion from outward/outward unit of motion, without resorting to another "observing unit" ?

I was just reading something about this in NBM yesterday... Larson was saying that you can't have an in/in motion, only a combination of in/out or out/in. out/out only occurs at the unit datum; once you deviate from unity it has to be a mixed pairing.

His example was the 1/3 photon: in-out-in / out-out-out (count "outs" to get the magnitudes).

RS2 doesn't need "direction reversals", because "inward in space" is the same as "outward in time", so once you increase the magnitude of the temporal aspect, it generates the equivalent motion of "inward" in space. That way you just need a simple speed, like 1/2. Since "2" is in the polar geometry of the time region, the result is a uniform change of angle (linear vibration).

Nice images, BTW.

[Horace]

Another way to look at it is that in/in is equvalent to out/out. A doughboy trapped in an in/in unit could not tell the difference if it was trapped in an out/out unit. It's just a different datum.

Of course flipping the datum also flips all the other "ins" into "outs", and vice versa.

I bet that if we viewed the Feynman-Stueckelberg relation from a perspective of a cosmic observer, we'd get a perfect T-symmetry for all the antiparticles.

The funny thing is that the cosmic observer would claim that he "travels" through time outward, just like we material guys claim the same thing for our time, even when observing the same particles.

For example: Take an electron and positron - the vibrating aspect becomes the steady outward aspect when observed by the cosmic observer. Thus it seems that the concepts of inward and outward are not absolute.

This is consistent with RSt because no property of an aspect stands on its own (without involving the other aspect). The concepts of "inward" and "outward" are no exception...

Forgive me for reiterating the basics, but I recently talked with some people and got the impression that few of them think of such things.

[bperet]

I didn't realize that you wanted to discuss the projective geometry aspects with relation to the RS2 (Larson does not account for this in his RS). The basic idea of PG is that what you see (inward, outward, rectangular, polar, linear, rotational, etc.) depends on where you stand and what you look at.

There are several factors you must consider when accounting for the observer principle in RS2:

1. The "scene" or background reference system; what you are measuring against.
2. The objects in the scene that are under observation.
3. The location of eye of the observer (the "camera").
4. The reference system of the observer/camera (our eyes interpret a stereoscopic, vanishing point perspective which is translated into rectangular geometry by our mind).
5. The "look at" point, which may or may not be coincident with the objects under observation.

Also, each of these include various other transforms, such as translation, rotation (roll, pitch, yaw) and scaling. Plus, being a system of motions, it is not static... the transforms are also subject to ds (changing space) and dt (changing time).

Horace wrote:

Another way to look at it is that in/in is equvalent to out/out. A doughboy trapped in an in/in unit could not tell the difference if it was trapped in an out/out unit. It's just a different datum.

Point of clarification... ins and outs are not containers; they are directions relative to the "scene" (background of the progression of the natural reference system; unit datum). In PG, an "affine" transform that is scale variant, possessing a zero-infinity assumption to create a direction. Your doughboy, having his eyes (camera) and the look-at point in the same reference frame would not observe any motion at all, because there is no scene/background to measure change from. He could not tell the difference because there would be no apparent motion to him.

Horace wrote:

For example: Take an electron and positron - the vibrating aspect becomes the steady outward aspect when observed by the cosmic observer. Thus it seems that the concepts of inward and outward are not absolute.

I think you'll find that nothing is "absolute", since it is technically all an illusion. What we see, taste, hear, smell and touch is just an interpretation by the mind over a very limited sensory range.

Horace wrote:

This is consistent with RSt because no property of an aspect stands on its own (without involving the other aspect). The concepts of "inward" and "outward" are no exception...

Not sure I agree with this; or maybe just the way I am interpreting what you are saying.

Larson's RS is based on absolutes; it starts quite literally with "absolute locations" in the natural reference system (unit speed datum). Absolute concepts are independent. His only reciprocal relationship is that of the aspects of motion: space and time.

Horace wrote:

Forgive me for reiterating the basics, but I recently talked with some people and got the impression that few of them think of such things.

I can certainly understand that. When I was working with Frank Meyer, who was with Larson from the beginning, it came to light that Frank never realized that Larson had 2 electrons, a material and cosmic one. And that is from someone working with the RS for 50 years! Of course, Frank may have been right... the cosmic positron and material electron are indistinguishable, both being rotating units of space, so why would the Universe need two, where one would do?[/]

[Horace]

All of this is a good explanation why the high frequency photons appear almost identical to the low frequency photons, despite that according to classical RST the reversals happen in time for the former and in space for the latter.