Programming

I understand the concerns that have been posted regarding computer language, hardware and OS. Right now, we're concentrating on the theory aspects--getting the system accurately represented, rather than speed issues. I have put together a number of simulations so far, including a globular cluster simulation, Lineland (one scalar dimension, which is easy to graph) and a chemical/aggregate behavior simulation with adjustable thermal properties. The running speed of Java has not been a problem--if anything, it is going too fast and I have to put variables in to slow it down to be observed properly (using a good NVIDIA card). The Java apps DO run on any OS that supports Java and OpenGL, including Mac.

However, some disturbing things have come out of it...

• When you put a universe of motion into motion using Larson's equations, it doesn't actually work! Looked really good in the books, but all sorts of unexpected problems have cropped up.
• Apparently the "Force" equation between two charges or masses is incomplete--in a dynamic system, it GAINS energy over clock time. Gopi may have found the answer for it by adding 2 additional terms to the equation. The problem seems to originate in the "discrete" system of motion--though it is discrete in space, it is continuous in time. As such, you cannot just calculate from the "end points" of the units, but have to integrate over the interior of the unit as well. (Three body problem.)
• Nehru's birotation looked really great, until we ran the simulation... the birotation produces HEAT, not a photon of light! I reviewed the simulation with Nehru, and we may have a better interpretation that not only creates heat, but a proper photon where EM radiation is accounted for (totally missing in Larson's model).
• Discovered that magnetism is actually 1-dimensional, but it is an imaginary dimension that APPEARS 2-dimensional when viewed from space.
• At unit magnitude, the inverse (time region) and conjugate (cosmic sector) are IDENTICAL. Because of this... the next point arises...
• The "time region" is a counterspace projection, not an entity unto itself. If you take a plane of space and punch holes in it, those holes are the time region--each with a unique point at infinity at its center, giving the appearance of a unique, coordinate time realm for each region. The set of points at infinity form a plane at infinity--the cosmic sector infinity. The time region is a conic projection within the cosmic sector.
• Globular clusters don't settle into a static structure using Larson's/Satz's equations--the stars fly all over. There appear to be components missing (currently speculating that electric and magnetic fields play a large part in the stability of stellar aggregates, which is not included in the simulation).
• On the positive side, the use of complex numbers to represent space (real) and time (imaginary) has been tremendously successful, and opened the door to a much clearer interpretation of the RS.
• Also discovered that "clock time" is nothing more than "resistance" to the progression of the natural reference system. When at unit speed, there is no concept of clock time. It only shows up when you deviate from unity.
• As to the question of "what is moving" in a universe of motion... I have an answer! "Motion" doesn't move... motion TRANSFORMS LOCATIONS into new locations, therefore changing the way we see structure. Namely, the reference points we use to measure are the "things" that are moving.

All-in-all, the virtual universe of motion has been quite the learning experience. Larson appears to have overlooked quite a bit in his first draft of the RS. Hopefully, using the simulations, we can correct those omissions and get a system that accurately represents the observed universe.

Do you already have something that a beginner can download?

I did all the development with Netbeans, so I should be able to produce both web applets (windows on the web screen) and "webstart" applications, where it is run directly on your computer, rather than in the browser.

Gopi is over here in America for the summer, and he came up for a visit last week and we went over a lot of stuff (he is a physics major). I think we have an idea of what is going on now, at least at the atomic level. In the process of recoding the logic and still have to deal with the idiosyncrasies of Java OOP integration with OpenGL. I'll make both the source code and executable programs available on the web site once we get to the point where the program is clearly demonstrating RS2 concepts.

The initial releases will basically be "proof of concept" type programs, not any time of generic library for development.

Would you agree if I write that motion TRANSFORMS LOCATIONS into new locations for other motions ?

Yes, but I am finding that there appear to be "layered" transformations. Nehru came up with the concept of primary and secondary motions some time ago, and that is showing up in the simulations. For example, every location can contain a "motion" (transform). But the aspect of motion then comes into play... the net temporal motion (imaginary half of a complex quantity) transforms the "space" between coordinate spatial locations, resulting in the effects we call a "field". But the net spatial motion (real half) acts directly upon the locations, themselves. And vice-versa for coordinate time.

From a material observer, the temporal motion is "primary", and the spatial aspect is "secondary" (hence we see birotation in time as vibration in space). But that is reversed for a cosmic observer. Which leads to your next comment...

...including observers which are just a set of other motions

the "observer" or camera transform. Right now, I have the camera transform fixed in the material sector. Phil was asking if I could create an observer-free simulation, and that seems a bit challenging, because the observer defines the units and operators--a material camera sees space as real with linear operations, yet a cosmic camera under the same transforms would see space as imaginary with polar operations. Makes it a bit hard to code! And it does not appear to be an either-or situation, that could be handled with an "if" statement... the camera transform also defines the perspective and scale, so it is technically "infinitely variable".

If you have any thoughts on how to integrate the observer/camera into a generic transform that can be applied to the other transforms outside the observer, I'd love to hear them. Bit stumped on that at the moment.

Did you also try to simulate the single and doubly oscillating photons as they are described by Jan Sammer?

No, I am still working in the 1D "Lineland" motif and the natural consequences of that dimensional construct did not produce a doubly oscillating photon. Also, I don't think that Larson's "vibration 2" is going to show up, either. That always seemed like a device to me, so he could get the observed half-units in certain properties.

As it stands now, when the birotation is all in time (imaginary axis), the net motion is an oscillating speed change in space--thermal motion--adding and detracting from the progression of space. When the birotation is all in space (real axis), the net motion is an oscillating speed change in time--photon. But it isn't an either-or situation... there is a full range in between, where there are both fluxuations in space and time (real AND imaginary axes) which give all the characteristics of EM radiation.

So the interesting conclusion is that "light" is actually temporal "heat" (and vice versa)--just the other perspective.

I think this should be theoreticaly impossible, because the motion of the observer is always afeects the observee, making these two inseparable.

From what I have found, it is not that the observer changes the observee, but that the observer limits the interpretation of the observee. I CAN create an observer-free simulation, but it is rather pointless because no useful information can be obtained from the simulation. It's just a bunch of integers in the computer memory.

Take the Doppler effect for example. Without relating the frequency of light to the motion of the observer, its frequency is indeterminate.

Exactly... in some cases, the "observer" is actually the environment--the reference system. In the RS, the unit speed (speed of light) of the progression forms the "observer" reference frame from which other motions are measured.

What I am doing with the simulations is to explicitly define the characteristics and attributes of the observation process, so the limiting factors are known variables (not assumed, as in conventional science). That is where projective geometry comes in handy.

For me, an "environment" is a frame of reference with a defined behavior; the concept of the "stage" against which things can be measured. Measurement can only be made if it is in reference to something else. That "set of motions sharing similar characteristics" becomes a transformation matrix--a constant rate of change that is used as the reference point of measurement.

In the natural reference system (scalar), that rate of change is for everything to move apart at the speed of light--what Larson calls the "natural datum" of unit speed. So motion, and hence manifestation, is anything that differs from the background environment of the speed of light.

I find I use several environments... scalar, linear, polar and "complex" in the simulations, where I can represent multiple environments aligned on axes. A bit more confusing--but a lot more revealing!