Coincidence & Touch

Actually, that's what distinguishes bosons, which CAN occupy the same space without interaction (think of lasers), from fermions (electrons, protons, etc)
which can't even occupy the same energy level in an atom, (Pauli exclusion principle).

But I do agree about fields and time. More and more recent papers I read are leaning towards the idea of "time density" being the cause of "action at a distance".

If there is, we'll never know about it because it will be progressing in both space and time and totally outside our realm of perception.

To put it in space/time terms, when you have "motion" you have interaction. Some net motion in space passing through some net motion in time, or vice versa. "Touch" occurs when you don't have motion: space to space or time to time (which is why atoms don't pass through each other, both being temporal rotations).

You can force "touch" into "interaction" through fusion, in which case the net displacements will combine.

But each photon of light is at its own absolute location in the natural reference system, so they technically aren't occupying the same spatial position, they only appear to.

Different reason there. Recall that particles and atoms are motion, each atomic rotation has a counterspatial field of a specific speed. When an electron gets trapped in that speed zone, the net motion becomes zero (for example 2-2=0). Hence, any other electron passing by will keep passing by, because it WILL have a net speed (0+2=+2) and keep moving. Only when the electron vacates the position in the "energy level", does the net motion become non-zero and thus allows another electron to get stuck there.

They will eventually have to concede the existence of the cosmic sector and time, because there is really no other place they can go.

Bosons are at the same TIME, not the same SPACE. You will notice that the boson condensation occurs at a single point in momentum space, which is the quantum mechanical equivalent of equivalent space, or time. So it is like seeing a queue of people from the the front instead of from the side... they are all on different positions in the queue (absolute locations in the natural reference system) but if you look from the front, there is only one massive guy standing in front of you. Bosons are sitting on the 'real axis' of the Argand diagram.

As far as light interacting with light goes, that never happens, laser or otherwise, I think. Each photon is still moving away from every other photon, but our assumptions fold the map in such a way that we can manipulate them to "beam". The coherence in time, having the same frequency, is what makes it easier to beam them, so it appears they are close in space without interacting, and don't scatter much.

Fermions are sitting on the Argand Plane, and at a particular inverse speed (energy) of the atomic level, either the clockwise turn or the anticlockwise turn is open to them, to make the displacement zero. This gives the "up and down" spin states available. This is tentative, would like some feedback.

I wonder along the same lines, we have seen the "pairing up" of rotations:

1 material + 1 cosmic = photon
1 cosmic + 1 cosmic = cooper pair
1 material + 1 material = ?? (Brad Wright pair? :D )

If two positrons can be made to "touch" and reduce themselves to a line, would they run through insulators and give us super-resistivity?

I think you are contemplating the geometric duality... touch in space is points, touch in time are planes. Planes can rotate through each other, whereas points cannot.

Yes, I would think so. For example, if you have planes rotating about a point, the intersections would form the radial lines of a dielectric field, which would be quantized.

Just remember that time has no direction in space, so we cannot measure the temporal collisions directly. We can only measure the effect they have on objects in space (as "forces"). What is seen as an EM gradient is that force on a measuring instrument.

It would probably look very much like it's material counterpart; atoms spherically distributed and interacting. One other thing to consider is that "magnitude" has no direction in either time or space, so all directions are equally probable. This results in concepts like Larson's Inter-regional ratio to account for the distribution of magnitude of motion. My gravitation plots do this to a degree; basically spheres with a density gradient, and the density indicates the probability level of a "collision".

Anything interacting in time will have two attributes (defined in UOM): first, it will have a distribution geometry depending upon speed range (2-x planar, 3-x linear). Second, emission is viewed as quantized. This should hold true even with atomic fields.

But that's the rub... "clock time" ISN'T an aspect of motion, it is a scaling factor to location. If I want to scale a measurement down by half, I divide the spatial coordinates by 2--but that ratio is not a speed. Like speed, it has a numerator and denominator, but the interpretation is different. From what I have been able to deduce from geometry, logic and math, is that "clock time" is a scale factor our consciousness applies to get uniform measure of spatial distances in all dimensions and orientations.

Time, as an aspect of motion, is just a magnitude which can be represented in a 3D temporal reference frame. Kind of a double entendre.

In a "projective" stratum (scalar), there are only magnitudes, so magnitudes cannot "collide" as there is no direction or position.

Once you get the affine concept of "direction", then you can have interaction. As yet, there is no position, so an interaction is a change in magnitude.

Adding the dual conic of metric, so you can have dimensions and relations between axes, then you can get superposition since you now have location and hence position.

Then scaling all the measurements to Unity for an absolute frame of reference and measure gives you the Euclidean perspective.

Coordinate time/space exist at the lower 2 levels (metric and Euclidean), so that is where you would have to look to define a superposition.

The clock time "scale factor" can give the APPEARANCE of coincidence, but it may not actually be the case. Because magnitude has no direction in either space or time, the field effects can look like a superposition with an altered magnitude. Where to draw the line between the actual "interaction" and the illusion of observation is the tricky bit. (Working on it now, but it is a real mind-bender).

I'm in a 4-day class right now for a really cool software package called ANSYS CFD...

http://www.ansys.com/solutions/cfd-primer.htm

I learned that in convective acceleration, particles approaching a pipe restriction experience a decrease in pressure as they accelerate, which is sort of counter-intuitive. This reminded me of how shrinking the space of an electron causes it to bounce around faster, so I remarked to a coworker that the Navier-Stokes equation seems to be similar to the Schroedinger equation, but for the classical scale. I think the N-S equations are deeply linked to Larson's ideas. Then the instructor blew me away. He started talking about how if you accepted the idea that time could be transported, in addition to energy, momentum, mass, you could drastically simplify the equations. His paper was initially rejected but is under re-review at Journal of Fluid Dynamics right now. I had just been think about the meaning of t/s the previous night! velocity is space per unit time, but energy is time per unit space, so is this an actual transport of time per unit space (albeit rotationally when dealing with atoms)?

So I googled "navier-stokes" & schroedinger and found this paper...

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-07.PDF

...man I wish I could make sense of this stuff. Oh well, guess I better get on the ball learning.

Anyway, I'm hoping to do some modeling of RS concepts when I get good at it, since I control the input variables.

thanks for post, Dave.

pressure, if i recall correctly, is a sum of static pressure and dynamic pressure. I think that in a pipe constriction, static pressure decreases, but dynamic pressure increases, and the latter's rate of increase with
the degree of constriction outstrips the former's rate of decrease with
constriction, resulting in higher overall pressure.

Kind of related to how "lift" on an airfoil works. dynamic pressure
higher over the wing, static pressure lower, airfoil "floats".

davelook (email removed) wrote:

You're right, the top of the wing acts as a constriction, with higher dyn. press., which redirects the velocity vector more toward the rear of the wing (due to conservation of momentum) instead of normal to it, which also means the force vector is redirected toward the rear.

I've been thinking of the "continuity equations" lately, which are equations in which some quantity is conserved (energy, charge, momentum, mass, even probability). Earlier today I had a flash of intuition: Time is a conserved quantity.

Just now I read at http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/why-global-regularity-for-navier-stokes-is-hard...

Notice that most of the conserved quantities have time as the numerator, which goes completely unrecognized in current thought.

Horace wrote:

Have you advanced on this mind-bending puzzle ?

Yes, I've made a lot of progress in that "direction", so to speak. There are two subsets of "motion" that Larson does not distinguish from one another, which I believe is why he never addressed the conversion from scalar motion to coordinate motion.

• Motion as ratio: space/time or time/space, defining a SCALAR proportion of magnitudes.
• Motion as speed: space/clock-time or time/clock-space, defining a SCALED speed or velocity.

It is a subtle difference. The ratio is like looking at an actual object, whereas the speed is like viewing a scaled drawing of an object. Now that may seem backwards, but what we define as our local environment is technically a "scaled" drawing, with the scale fixed at unity. It is the Universe that runs on non-unity scales (hence the concept of scalar motion).

Most mechanical or geometric observations are measuring speed. Atomic configuration space and the interactions between atoms and particles are measuring ratio.

Motion as ratio: space/time or time/space, defining a SCALAR proportion of magnitudes.

Motion as speed: space/clock-time or time/clock-space, defining a SCALED speed or velocity.

The first would be the scalar regime, with space taking only natural number values, while the second would take Real number values. We also have to include "complex" motion... space/imaginary time!