Adam, I had to chime in here because I hear from you some of the same thoughts I have been digging into. To looks to me the phase of a probability wave is very much like what I would expect rotations in 3d time to look like.
Interference patterns can produce locations where there is a zero chance of an object showing up, how can this be? Can time somehow progress normal to our time in this location?
There seems to be a conclusion in the RS that you can only have 3 dimensions in either space or time. Multiple spatial dimensions seem to only be compatible with a scalar time, while multiple temporal dimensions only seem to be compatible with scalar space. Something to do with the direction reversals if I remember correctly. But I don't buy into that. We should be able to incorporate 3 dimensions of space coincidentally with 3 dimensions of time.
My thought is that three dimensional time is all around us but we only see it as a scalar because it is moving so fast. A small displacement at a right angle has an incredibly small impact. However, at the quantum level, or natural unit level, the ratios of space to time are closer to unity and the addition of just one unit of time has a measurable impact.
The cosmic sector is also just as real and present in our universe as the material sector. There is no parallel universe that we can only reach by passing through some magic gate. The material and cosmic sectors are really one in the same: only one universe. Our everyday experiences are so accustomed to accounting for displacements in space that we are not skilled in speaking about vectorial temporal displacements.
As you can probably tell I am not a well trained physicist and my thoughts are not well developed, but the way I see it, this forum is for people that have new thoughts about our physical universe. I see the post from the member asking what is motion in 3d time and the answers posted by the regular members. There is a feeling of circular explanations that I have run into in the past. I applaud your attempt at an alternate approach to an explanation.
I don't know if this is any help to RS theory but......
Simple Set Game Proof Stuns Mathematicians this is the part that caught my eye
could this help with your projective geometry?
Game, Set, Match
To find an upper bound on the size of cap sets, mathematicians translate the game into geometry. For the traditional Set game, each card can be encoded as a point with four coordinates, where each coordinate can take one of three values (traditionally written as 0, 1 and 2). For instance, the card with two striped red ovals might correspond to the point (0, 2, 1, 0), where the 0 in the first spot tells us that the design is red, the 2 in the second spot tells us that the shape is oval, and so on. There are similar encodings for versions of Set with n attributes, in which the points have n coordinates instead of four.
The rules of the Set game translate neatly into the geometry of the resultingn-dimensional space: Every line in the space contains exactly three points, and three points form a set precisely when they lie on the same line. A cap set, therefore, is a collection of points that contains no complete lines.