Yes, I would agree. When the absolute location of a photon becomes coincident with the absolute location of a proton, then depending on the motions involved, it can either: aggregate (remain stuck in the time region of the proton--a charged neutrino does this to make hydrogen), compound (add motion to existing motion, like vibration on rotation to get rotational vibration) or combine (add to the magnitude of an aspect).
How would a code to detect cuch collisions loook like in your simulation ?
IF .... THEN
it would mena clock space is "not moving" but instead is constantly "aging"? and moving in time means i travel in past - present - and future but just "moving"? and how do i do that in 3 dimensions?
Movement in time would look like moving in the past, present, and future, from the perspective of the material sector. The difference is the reference point of the observing consciousness. If your consciousness is "in the Cosmic sector", movement will seem the very same as movement here in the material sector seems. The words space and time have so much associated with them that it might be hard to divorce from the idea that they are different or separate. Time "in there" is what we call space "out here". Reciprocally, space "in there" is what we call time "out here". Another thing worth pointing out for discussion with regards to motion... let's consider the photon and radiation of it. In the RS, photons do not have independent motion from the natural reference system. That means that the natural state of 'movement' is a steady progression/expansion outwards. This happens in both sectors so you get a situation where the expansions of each sector acts as contraction in the inverse sector. A photon is a birotation. Light does not move in the way that we perceive it to move. From our perspective within the conventional reference system of coordinate space, it does appear that light starts out at point A, let's say the sun, and flies away at the speed of light. This perception is a product of our sensory perception within only half of the physical universe, the material sector. The photon, itself, isn't moving, the position that it occupies does.
Objects have space between them. No theory can change that. Time is how we post changes and mark before and after. no theory can change that.
I'm going to reiterate what has been relayed already, but perhaps my presenting it again in different words might help. To do that, it seems necessary to tackle this statement bit by bit. You said that objects have space between them. I would suggest that objects have what we perceive and call space between them. The vacuum/distance between two points or objects is seen as a separation of units. That separation is a product of perception. Our physical sense perceptions, predominantly the sight sense, dictate to us where an object is in reference to where "I" am. "I" am here and "You" are there. I think the question you're asking is more of an esoteric one in nature. One of the most effective illusions that is used by consciousness to help consciousness learn/evolve, is the illusion of separation and identity. We are separate people, yes, but imagine the situation at an atomic level. Each atom exists in coincidence with the very next atom. We are, together, aspects of the Motion, that is the totality of our universe. We are units of motion ourselves, and that's where the separation comes into play, when considering that we are each, discrete units of motion, in a reference frame of motion.
When you point out that time is how we mark change and before and after, I will have to defer you back to Bruce's comment about there being a difference between change in position in a given reference system and causality. You are right, in that time, as it is usually defined and used, is the reference of duration between events. In the RS, time is defined a little differently. It is one of the two aspects that constitute motion. Clock time is the standard that we are used to. It is the 1d rotational progression that we use to divide moments from and within other moments.
How does soemthign move in the Cosmic sector in 3d time? In fact how does anythign move in tiem vs. space? Is it because there is NOTHING of substance [matter? atoms?] to move? is the Cosmic sector really ubiquitous energy or waves?
It takes the incidence of a unit of time interacting with a unit of space in order for there to be motion. There are three types of motion that are imporant to understand a difference between: scalar motion, rotational motion and vectoral motion. Vectoral motion is what we're most familiar with in our conventional, coordinate space reference frame. It's tossing a ball and it leaving point A and arriving at point B. Rotational motion is the spin of the ball around the 3 axes, (x,y, z). Scalar motion has to do with scale and proportion. It is analogous to the pitcher's perception of the reduction of the size of the ball as it leaves the hand at point A and moves out/away, and the catcher's perception of the increase of the size of the ball as it approaches, or moves in/towards the catcher's mitt at point B. Out and In are two words that can effectively describe scalar motion.
You may also find it useful to imagine a scale model of something you're familiar with. For me, the idea of a model naval ship comes to mind. You can have a scale replica of something that is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the original object, but scaled down to a smaller proportion by a certain ratio. That scaling, that is... contraction of size (or inversely the expansion of size when thinking in the other direction) is scalar motion. It can be thought of as zooming IN or zooming OUT. These motions are, effectively, the same in both sectors. Vectoral motion out here and vectoral motion in there are the same. Rotational motion is the same out here in the Material sector as rotational motion in there in the Cosmic sector. Scalar motion here and scalar motion there are the same thing where you have aspects of one sector interacting with aspects of the other, as given in the RS, the ratio of motion (t:s or t/s) that has as its two defining aspects, time (t) and space (s). I'm wondering if the difficulty is in trying to visualize how something 'here' moving (vectorially or rotationally), would look 'there'. or vice versa?
Motion means change of positon in 3d space as I observer an object.
[Vectoral] Motion [in 3d space] means change of position in 3d space.
In the cosmic realm I am not sure who is there to observe anything?
To answer that question, you'll have to dig into some mythology. There are lots of references about entities from the 'Other Realm' that might satisfy your mind with regards to this question. If you want, shoot me an email @ email@example.com and I'll link you to some things that you might find useful in your attempt to understand this.
form our perspective looking into 3d time I believe - if I understand correctly - I can't! All I see is what the effect of the 3d time motion bleeds into our 3d space?
You're partially correct. We cannot look into the Cosmic sector with our physical senses. We CAN however, look into the Cosmic sector with our temporal senses.
Would you agree that collisions are superpositions of motions ? e.g. when a photon collides with a proton...
Good job with your explanations. Yes, I would agree. When the absolute location of a photon becomes coincident with the absolute location of a proton, then depending on the motions involved, it can either: aggregate (remain stuck in the time region of the proton--a charged neutrino does this to make hydrogen), compound (add motion to existing motion, like vibration on rotation to get rotational vibration) or combine (add to the magnitude of an aspect).