conventional scientific constants are always changing

Time, timelines, the 3D temporal landscape... research into the physics involved, how to understand it and make use of it to improve the quality of our lives, and all the life on Earth.

Moderator: daniel

User avatar
daniel
Professor
Professor
Posts: 826
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:33 pm
Location: P3X-774
Contact:

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by daniel » Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:35 pm

Infinity is at the lead here, since the first thing you do with any bit of research or inquiry is to define what is being measured/observed, and how. I did love Sheldrake's comment about how science has "fixed" the speed of light at 299,792,458 m/s, so it remains constant... so now the rest of the Universe fluctuates, instead--including the equipment used to do the measurements! Understanding your reference point is vital to understanding anything, as that is where your consciousness "grabs a hold" of something to make an observation or measurement.

In the RS, Larson uses "unit speed" has his "natural datum" to measure the inanimate realm. Most people miss what this natural datum means, conceptually... it is one tick of the clock (step of the progression) in BOTH space and time. This differs in conventional measurement, because the temporal aspect, clock space, "stands still" so you end up with paradoxes, such as Larson described with two spaceships moving away from each other at 0.75c -- doing the math, that means the ships should separate at 1.5c (.75/1+.75/1 = 1.5/1), but according to relativity, they only separate at "c", hence a paradox and a bunch of fancy math to fix the problem. When you include the clock space aspect, you are dealing with "change from the natural datum," what Larson calls a displacement. And the math works differently... .75/1 + .75/1 = 1.5/2 = .75c. Not only are the ships moving relative to the spatial aspect of the datum, they are ALSO moving relative to the temporal aspect of the datum.

Now consider again the concept of the "clock"... what do our clocks ACTUALLY MEASURE? Are they actually measuring "time?" And what is our consciousness doing with those measurements?

Take a moment and consider these questions--watch a clock tick for a bit. Take a look at what is going on inside your mind, and find the assumptions you are using to reach these conclusions about clocks and time. If you do it right, that little bit of introspection will bring your point of consciousness very close to the "reference point" it is using to evaluate the Universe being relayed to it, through your body and soul, and you may just get a glimpse of what is on the other side of that datum.
Power out? Let's see if many hands can make the lights work.
Facebook: daniel.phoenixiii

SpaceMan
Inquirer
Inquirer
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:47 pm
Location: AL, USA

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by SpaceMan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:34 pm

I was thinking along the same lines as Infinity's in terms of his first point that the reference point would have shifted, and the mention of light as a fundamental constant reminded me of some points in Gopi's paper Preparing For the Reciprocal System of Theory.

To begin we need to take into account that the measuring of the constants necessitates and inclusion of a ratio of space to time in the measurements themselves. "Part of the key perception is the fact that all measurable quantities are expressed in terms of speeds, and therefore so are space and time." (Preparing For the Reciprocal System of Theory.) In a universe of motion everything is just different ratios of space to time and time to space so what is being measured is comprised of that which it is being measured by making the measurement somewhat difficult if you aren't aware of the reciprocal nature of space and time.
Therefore its easier to use a reference that accounts for the variables of space and time and create a new definition of 'speed' which is a more accurate depiction of movement. In investigating this, I believe that eventually we'll come to understand Larson's explanation of movement or "motion" - which is something entirely different than our understanding of speed. But if 'speed' is actually an 'illusion' of REAL motion, why would we want to keep using that concept? Its flawed and less accurate.
Its my understanding that the "more accurate depiction of motion" and speed as "something entirely different than our understanding of speed" is exactly what the RS is. Its a universe whose primary is scalar motion that "REAL motion". What we normally consider as motion of vectorial motion is just a result of a reference system being placed on a scalar motion enabling a direction to be perceived.

My current understanding of the nature of light and gravity in the RS is that they are outward and inward scalar motions respectively. Light is supposed to BE motion and that motion is what is termed the motion of the natural reference system. The revolutions of Tiamat on its axis, its orbit around Sol, motion of Sol's system through the galaxy ect. are all rotational vectorial motions. Using Larson's terms for "location" and "absolute location" the location of the reference point (where the measurement is made) with regard to an absolute location (motion of the natural reference system) is constantly fluctuating because of the nature of all the combinations of motions involved in the motion of the reference point in relation to the natural frame of reference. The natural frame of reference just so happens to be what they are measuring in the case of "light speed" so that is the source of the fluctuations. Those same causes of the fluctuations in "light speed" account for the other fundamental constants' fluctuations as well when we consider that the natural reference system is the most basic ratio of space to time and we make measurements in units of space and time. Sloppy and incomplete presentation, but that's my take.

User avatar
daniel
Professor
Professor
Posts: 826
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:33 pm
Location: P3X-774
Contact:

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by daniel » Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:13 pm

Infinity wrote:(the more time-efficient something is, the less time is required for it to manifest motion. Just like space-efficient storage means you can store more of something in less space)
I like this concept of "time-efficiency" to describe the effect that temporal density has upon spatial relationships. It's very accurate... and if you ever get involved in "free energy" experimentation, you'll run into this. Many of these devices become less efficient the longer they are active, which is a puzzle to the experimenters. The machines are not altering space, but ARE altering 3D time--perhaps increasing the density of cosmic matter present in the local environment, "adding time" to the experiment and reducing the efficiency. I'm going to pass that idea on to Bruce on RS2, as I think it will help people understand better.
SpaceMan wrote:Light is supposed to BE motion and that motion is what is termed the motion of the natural reference system.
The progression of the natural reference system (the ratio of clock time to clock space) is not the photon, per se. According to Larson, the photon is a displacement in one of the three, scalar dimensions available to progress (a direction reversal). When you map a coordinate reference system on to the photon, we see the direction reversals in that one dimension as frequency, and the linear translation of the photon as motion in one of the "unoccupied" dimensions that is still progressing.

Gopi uses the term pulsation to describe light in the natural reference system, which is probably more accurate on a conceptual basis (scalar motion has no geometry, therefore you cannot have a "wave" -- just a varying intensity). Once that pulse gets mapped to a coordinate system with an observer, then you can have a waveform.
Power out? Let's see if many hands can make the lights work.
Facebook: daniel.phoenixiii

User avatar
MrTwig
Mage
Mage
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 8:29 pm

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by MrTwig » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:17 pm

daniel wrote:Let me interject with some questions for consideration... again, thinking in RS terms:

What is the purpose of a clock?

How does our consciousness interact with a clock?
Let's try this again. The purpose of a clock is to give us a reading of time. By using a clock to measure time we describe a fundamental quantity like length or mass which are scalar quantities.

Our consciousness interact with a clock by using it as a parameter subject to an interpretation of what is going on around us. Einstein's theory of relativity uses time to explain relative motion of space and time with coordinates. We use the the clock to create a point of reference in our space-time world.
All that glitter is not GOLD!

Ilkka
Adept
Adept
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by Ilkka » Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:52 am

daniel wrote:I like this concept of "time-efficiency" to describe the effect that temporal density has upon spatial relationships. It's very accurate... and if you ever get involved in "free energy" experimentation, you'll run into this. Many of these devices become less efficient the longer they are active, which is a puzzle to the experimenters. The machines are not altering space, but ARE altering 3D time--perhaps increasing the density of cosmic matter present in the local environment, "adding time" to the experiment and reducing the efficiency. I'm going to pass that idea on to Bruce on RS2, as I think it will help people understand better.
So basically the "free energy" devices are like non-rechargeable batteries I gets build and generates energy and gets thrown away. Although building it requires energy and matter and using it may yield energy more than it was needed to build. However I think that energy transfer from material sector to cosmic sector and vice versa, must come to equilibrium at some point, its the only way the two sectors remain "constantly" balanced or atleast oscillating from side to side. I base my thoughts on the "natural law" base. You get more space in less time or something like that and less space in more time. Just think writing here dunno if I'm onto something here, but gotta think intelligently among other smart people. Like I said it before "the only way to get smarter is to play against smarter opponents". I think this goes like scales also like person 1 and 2 "plays" and person 1 is smarter than person 2, the "play" is done and person 2 is now sligthly smarter than person 1 and it goes like that for around and around many people getting smarter and smarter eventually person 1 gets the smartest title again.

User avatar
infinity
Mage
Mage
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by infinity » Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:34 am

What is the purpose of a clock?

How does our consciousness interact with a clock?
Took your advice and thought a bit about what would go through my head if I stared at a ticking clock (although I cheated and didn't actually do it). Here's what I came up with:

1. Purpose of a clock is for us to measure "change". What was, and how does it differ from what "is now". The only "link" between the "what was" and "what is now" is the fact that we are referencing two different measures on the clock. Basically, we're telling ourselves "I didn't imagine what was, it really was. I know this because the clock showed me a different number than now. So I know I'm not hallucinating that what is now is not the same.".

We're convincing ourselves that we're not insane when what we "thought" the state of something was (e.g. the position of the sun) and what it really is (now that we look at it again) is two different things and that's ok. We "explain it away" with the reasoning that time progressed and thats "why" it changed (e.g. the position of the sun).

2. How does our consciousness interact with a clock? Well I think I touched on that in point 1, but in a sense what we "think" is happening is an illusion. "Time" didn't cause the "change" (e.g. position of the sun). Time has nothing to do with it. Not in the sense that we think it does. Our consciousness just uses that concept to try and make sense of change so we don't go nuts and think we're hallucinating since what we're seeing keeps being different from what we thought it was. (i.e. keeps changing)

This was quite a fun mental experiment. :)

If we look at the above, its pretty scary. Our unconscious/subconscious by design will keep telling us what we already think "how things are". If we are confronted with something we don't comprehend, we SHOULD be like little children - overwhelmed with curiosity and excitement, wanting to experience this new unknown thing! But we allow ourselves (and our reinforcing unconscious/subconscious) to keep falling back into "learned" habits instead of our "natural" abilities and habits. I call it habits because its more than just behaviour. Its BELIEF as well. We keep repeating it because we believe it benefits us (e.g. our unconscious/subconscious reinforces the idea that to be in control is safer than to be out of control, and facing the unknown is the opposite of that - its unsafe, and so defensive mechanisms kick in emotionally, physically, etc. and we literally "stop thinking" because all the blood gets pushed out of the parts of us designed for reasoning and growth and the blood gets pushed into areas designed for survival e.g. organs and muscles - like run from the lion).

Pretty scary that we do that to ourselves.

Explains a lot of the conventional scientific community. Essentially they're self-preserving cowards. Oops did I say that out loud? Ok back to topic... ahem!

The only thing "real" about our experience of time is the experience of "change". This naturally translates to "motion" which is by definition "change". So in the way that we THOUGHT of time, it never existed and never will. Time is fake. Its a lie. Like cake. (epic rhyming pun!). We need to CHANGE the way we think of time (another pun. get it? :D). We need to actually call it something else because its hard to let go of how we think of time. We need to call it some fancy elven word and promote it by writing award-winning fiction books they'll make 3-hour long movies from each.

Uh oh. I just went and got myself inspired :( DAMMIT. How will I focus on my day-job now? :(

Ilkka
Adept
Adept
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by Ilkka » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:40 am

infinity wrote:its unsafe, and so defensive mechanisms kick in emotionally, physically, etc. and we literally "stop thinking" because all the blood gets pushed out of the parts of us designed for reasoning and growth and the blood gets pushed into areas designed for survival e.g. organs and muscles - like run from the lion.
This is exactly what happened to me when I did confront authorities when they searched my apartment for illegal drugs and they found it in the easy place in my fridge and had to pay fines worth 180 euros for 8 blotters of LSD, dammit I also bought them blotters for like about a 100 euros so that was extra and I didnt even get to consume them myself. I hate these laws for drugs.

Back to my point, was that I felt this emotional shock and didnt knew who much jail time there would be for me, but it turns out I spent just one night in a cell and was only one in there cuz they are "suites" :D. However didnt like my "suite" at all. This pressure or "heating" whatever it is called in slang that I felt was immense and rather not feel that again. Just have to be good "listener" for intuition and the faster to get out of those emotions and feelings.

User avatar
maeghan
Mage
Mage
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:39 pm

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by maeghan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:23 am

daniel wrote: Now consider again the concept of the "clock"... what do our clocks ACTUALLY MEASURE? Are they actually measuring "time?" And what is our consciousness doing with those measurements?

Take a moment and consider these questions--watch a clock tick for a bit. Take a look at what is going on inside your mind, and find the assumptions you are using to reach these conclusions about clocks and time. If you do it right, that little bit of introspection will bring your point of consciousness very close to the "reference point" it is using to evaluate the Universe being relayed to it, through your body and soul, and you may just get a glimpse of what is on the other side of that datum.

Those damn pesky clocks ... I've never liked them. My Mom was a time miser, always watching the time, always in a hurry ...

Hmmm, Clocks measure motion; they give a reference point of earth's rotation and where we are in relation to our sun and the universe.

What our consciousness does with those measurements is why I call them pesky. Consciousness becomes aware of self; if one stares at a clock for a couple of minutes 'meditating' on the rhythmic motion of the second hand. I think clocks are a waste of time because when you look to it, you stop the flow of living, of being.

I could argue too that it causes you to measure yourself and accomplishments or goals you set out to achieve; which once again takes time away from accomplishing your goals.
"silence is the consent to slavery" ~ Daniel

User avatar
PHIon
Mage
Mage
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:07 pm
Location: Chicago suburbs

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by PHIon » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:46 am

In an attempt to clarify the concept we are talking about on this thread, if someone is walking on a moving airport conveyor belt and the person walking wanted to know how much she alone had moved since getting on, she could subtract the movement of the belt and note what movement remains - her own, measuring from the reference point where she got on? Is this why 1/1 is subtracted from ratios of motion - to factor out scalar motion (Hubble expansion) and locate a coordinate in space?

The conveyor belt analogy is given by Jameela M. Boardman but there is no one walking on the belt in the example.

This reminds me a little of how an image of a fish is distorted in water (refraction?) and a fisher needs to offset the aim of the spear to catch the fish. The bent image needs to be compensated for.

In the J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" movie, Scotty realizes that his equation for transporting a person onto a ship moving at warp speed (in 3D time) requires space to be moving. I thought that was pretty Larsonian.
"just down the road a little way, turn left, cross the drawbridge, and you will be my guest tonight."
-- directions to the grail castle

User avatar
JohnConner
Seeker
Seeker
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: either 2029 A.D. or 2018 A.D., can't remember anymore

Re: conventional scientific constants are always changing

Post by JohnConner » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:39 pm

Clock time (in my ignorant opinion) is a comparative mechanism to measure changes 3d space. The two ways I see us really measuring time is in the atomic clock via 'electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region'(wiki), and the rotation of our planet and its revolution around the sun. I've heard people say that we lose a second off of the atomic clock every year, but it seems like it would be impossible to tell if the fluctuation was in the earths journey, or in the atomic particle itself.

When we're talking about the saturation of time through objects varying we're talking about fluctuations in gravitation in reference to the 'fixed constant'.

Post Reply