I was working on my scalar motion model, updating it to include time and the cosmic sector and ran across another problem regarding the nature of "coordinate time" in the time region. Namely, is structure (3D coordinates) in the time region:
Larson tends to use the former (#1), treating the time region as sheet of graph paper to place rotations and orientations (the time region has geometry) to create atomic structure. He does allow other motions to enter and exit the time region. Spatial displacements (like the electron) just pass through as a conductor; temporal displacements get stuck and add to the existing motions like a chemical combination. But I have found no indication in Larson's works of any connection between the 3D time of the time region and the 3D time of the cosmic sector. (Rainer Huck indicated that Larson had to admit the existence of the cosmic sector, but did not like to think about it much, preferring to stay in the conventional reference system.)
While trying to design the structures for computer code, one cannot help but notice the similarities between the coordinate time of the time region and the coordinate time of the cosmic sector--they both work the same way. No sense in creating two copies of computer functions that do precisely the same thing, so I started factoring out the commonalities, which gave rise to this question.
When you DO factor out the pieces, you find a yin-yang interpretation of the two aspects of motion:
I am using 1D to represent space, because all spatial relationships are 1-dimensional--push or pull (similar to the Electric Universe theory), which can be assigned to an arbitrary 3D coordinate system. No matter how you move, dX, dY, dZ--it can still be reduced to a single, 1D vector. Equivalent space is 2D because you are dealing with planes instead of lines, more like an impeller creating a vortex.
For the conventional perspective of the material sector, we have "locations" in extension space (coordinates), where each location can contain outward motion in the time region (displacements manifest as photons, particles or atoms) that is expressed through equivalent space (rotationally inward motion in space). This results in spatial aggregates and physical structure. The cosmic sector is the inverse: extension time locations holding equivalent time structures--antimatter.
With this interpretation, what the program code comes down to is a choice: create an independent, micro-universe for each and every photon, particle and atom (which contains an infinite amount of time), or just place those temporal displacements at a unique, absolute location in the cosmic sector--one universe with distributed motion.
If the time region IS a "window" into the cosmic sector, then some interesting consequences arise:
Though I have not found a way to represent this relation graphically, computer logic has no problem "abstracting" it into a useable structure that can be projected into the conventional reference systems. The only difference is the resulting behavior and consequences: a universe made up of micro-Universes at the atomic level is very mechanistic (like Larson preferred)--you don't have concepts like "free energy" or "Sacred Geometry" to worry about.
But, when you structure the Universe in a manner analogous to the situation Doctor Who (Jon Pertwee) encountered in "The Time Monster," landing his TARDIS inside the Master's TARDIS--to discover the Master's TARDIS also landed inside of his--you only need a single Universe with two aspects, existing as a scalar inversion... or should I say a "Reciprocal System."
I know the multiverse theory is quite popular--people love their parallel realities. But my tendency is towards #2, one universe with two aspects, each inside each other. As to why, well I've seen the effects of Sacred Geometry and Feng Shui on my own life and power coming out of "nowhere." This situation could readily explain those phenomenon, whereas the multiverse of mini-Universes could not, because all connection would be purely localized and mechanical.
I'd like to get some opinions, pro or con, before I delve further into the coding. Thanks.Forums:
Tabla Elementos Quimicos
Tripletes de Larson
Atomic Number Equation Based on Larson’s Triplets
Where Z represents the Atomic Number, and (a, b, c) is the number triplet representing the atoms:
If a = b then this reduces to
14 to 27
Z+2=(2b (2b2+1))/3+c (2)
If a = b + 1 then it reduces to
Equation (1) is exactly representative of Dewey’s algorithm.
Equations (2) and (3) are just simplifications of Equation (1) when a = b and a = b + 1 respectively.
Some specific examples:
5-4-(1) substituted into Equation (3) gives Z = 117 as expected, however there is an
interesting aside to consider, despite its counter-intuitive appearance and it requires some interpretation
within RS too.
* Not an “official” name for the element; also identified as Farnsium in Futurama episode, “Near-Death Wish.”
Copyright ©2002 by ISUS, Inc. All rights reserved.2 Atomic Number Equation Based on Larson’s Triplets
Atom/Particle Atomic Number Atomic Number Atom/Particle a-b-c Z 0-0-(1) -3 Electron 1-0-(1) -3 Rotational base 1-0-0 -2 Rotational base 0-0-0 -2 Rotational base 0-0-1 -1 Positron 1-0-1 -1 Neutrino 1-1-(1) -1 Neutron 1-1-0 0 Deuteron 1-1-0 0 Alpha Particle 1-1-0 0 Deuterium 1-1-1
I have been working to get Larson's Monograph on the Liquid State typeset and republished, as the original text was done on his old typewriter and is difficult to read (not to mention, OCR). If you do read the original papers, the funny character that is a slash, backspace and dash is actually a "+" sign, which Larson did not have on his typewriter.
During the proofreading, I had a chance to review the states of matter, of which there are 4 in the RS: solid, liquid, vapor and gas. These also have corresponding inverse states, as Nehru documents in his astronomy papers, where thermal motion moves into the 2nd unit of heat. The primary differences between Larson's model and conventional ones is that Larson makes "heat" a property of the atom, not the aggregate. Each atom has a temperature and corresponding "state."
The way it works is straightforward; in the solid state, all three scalar dimensions are dominated by net, inward motion (gravity). As thermal motion in the time region (inward in time, outward in space) increases, the outward motion will cancel out the inward, gravitational motion in one dimension, then two, then all three. When gravitational motion is canceled by thermal motion in a dimension, the atom is no longer "stuck" on that axis and is free to move about. The more thermally-free dimensions, the more degrees of freedom--the states of matter. (Makes me wonder about Kirchhoff's laws, which Larson accepted, because blackbody radiation would be totally dependent on the material of the container--and Kirchhoff insisted it was independent of the container. That just cannot be if thermal motion is INSIDE the time region.)
The other interesting point was that our determination of things like melting and boiling points is somewhat arbitrary; Larson indicates that only 30% of the atoms in a solid need to be in a liquid state (1 freed dimension), to be considered a "liquid." The percentage accounts for what we'd call viscosity. (The lower the percentage, the higher the viscosity). Superfluids end up being a 50/50 mix of liquid and vapor states (vapor not being recognized).
So what does this have to do with stars? Well, I've been trying to re-work a simulation of star clusters, based on substantially lower gravitational limits and the consequences thereof. What is beginning to happen is that stars are acting just like giant atoms, where the gravitational limit is the unit space boundary. All the stuff outside the limit acts much like the electron cloud around the atom, and the stars begin to link together based on the SAME thermal properties exceeding gravitational motion, per scalar dimension. So stellar aggregates (clusters, neighborhoods, etc) both look, act and have the same physical relationships as molecules and atoms in an aggregate at various temperatures.
But--it's reciprocal from atomic thermal motion, because we're dealing with spatial aggregates (localized in space) whereas atoms are temporal aggregates (localized in time). So what you end up with is a solid at the center (the sun) and a decreasing "viscosity" of motion as you get further out from the sun, going through the remaining three states of matter, ending at the gravitational limit where motion becomes equivalent to a gas (no gravitational attraction--progression only).
Larson, himself, noticed the similarity between galactic behavior and water--his whiskers going down the drain while shaving gave him the idea that galaxies were condensing and consuming stars, not creating them. Nehru commented in his dialogs that globular clusters have a structure similar to a heated solid (stars mostly in the solid state, with a few in the liquid state). The correspondence here is very high, and has some interesting consequences.
Knowing this, one can use Larson's concept of inter-atomic distances and chemical bonding to determine distances between stars and their orientation to each other, as the macrocosm is reflecting the microcosm. If you look at a photo of the center of a globular cluster, then look at a photo of atoms in a liquid state--it looks the same.
I'm only scratching the surface here right now, but thought I'd report my findings so far.Forums: