## General Discussion > WHAT'S MOVING?

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE THEORY AT A SIMPLE Level;
I can't figure out what's moving? if it's NOT matter that's moving and No thing is moving, then IS .space and time moving? What are they?
I wish there was an animation video.

how can I find out?

sorry dumb

July 29, 2011 | DUMB CHEMIST

This is the most difficult concept for beginners. Nothing has to move, since the definition of motion is a change of space and time. We are used to a change in an object's location to indicate the change of space, in the equation of motion. However, we are conscious of a change in time without requiring something to move.

Think of a space clock marking the increase of space, as a time clock marks the increase of time.We refer to this as the space/time progression: One unit of space increase for each unit of time increase.

As for the definition of space and time, the only definition we have is that they are the reciprocal aspects of motion. If this seems to beg the question, it does. I don't know how to get around that. One of the most fundamental facts of nature is that if two things exist, one greater than the other, then we can be sure that there is a third, greater than them both.

The good news is that the concept of increasing space and an increasing reciprocal of time, is perfectly reflected in the system of numbers and the structure of geometry.

When we begin with space and time, we begin with magnitude, dimension and "direction," where "direction" are the two "directions" inherent in a given dimension. As these dimensions are compounded into one three-dimensional construct, the two "directions" grow to a maximum of eight "dimensions" that enable us to define an infinitude of directions in terms of them.

I hope this helps.

Update: The word "dimensions" in the last sentence, should read "directions" instead. The mainstream mathematicians confuse "directions" with "dimensions" and this may explain why I used the wrong word.

July 29, 2011 | Doug

Let me add Larson's favorite answer to this question: The equation of motion, v = deltaS/deltaT is strictly a reciprocal relation between two changing quantities, s/t. The equation does not require an object.

I've found that it's best to forget objects and reference frames altogether, when beginning to study the RST. In the case of the two clocks, mentioned above, we can imagine running them for a length of time (space of time -LOL) and then taking their quotient. If they started and stopped at the same time, and were clocking at the same rate, the quotient would always be xs/yt = 1/1.

This number is the reference frame that we use, only instead of counting x^0 and y^0 clicks of 0D space and time, we are counting x^3 and y^3 clicks of 3D space and time. The fun starts when one or the other of the clocks goes haywire and starts to oscillate between 2 numbers, instead of continuously counting up: i.e. it goes from n to n+1 and back to n and repeats this pattern forever after.

As far as the number of clicks goes, both x and y count the same, but the haywire clock always shows one or the other of the two numbers, n or n+1.

When we follow the mathematical and geometrical consequences of this, we end up with a simplified version of the standard model of particle physics. Right now, we are trying to extend this to the periodic table of elements and the atomic spectra.

July 30, 2011 | Doug

Dear Chemist,

Doug is right - nothing is moving.

Note that in the common eguation v=s/t, there is no trace of an "object"

No object is needed to define motion. In fact it is the other way around - motion defines objects, or in other words: objects are comprised of motions.

The fallacy o objects moving in the background container of space is the main limitation of contemporary science.

For the sake of an argument: if there were an object not composed of other motions and not capable of independent motion, then two such objects dropped into the universe would move away from each other at the speed of light. This is what galaxies do beyond their gravitational limit.

Another way of looking at the space and time in unit speed is stating that it is impossible to move in space by one unit without also moving in time by one unit. However the direction of this movement can be arbitrary. All objects - even you - are composed of motions that are moving 1 unit of space per 1 unit of time (the speed of light) on ONE UNIT BASIS.

When averaging the speed over more than one unit, the speed can deviate from the speed of light, because of the directional reversals that Doug mentioned. This is the reason why some objects have speeds different than light and appear as solid (e.g. atoms) while others are ephemeral (e.g. photons, electrons...)

August 5, 2011 | Horace

All motion needs a center and a force(s). An atom has a center and so does a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, a universe. A rhythmic balance of expansion and contraction and the eternal curve of the ellipse. Where is the hand of the uncaused cause? I submit that IT resides in the 'center'. Light proceeds from this center and returns to its sourse. We are left to extrapolate from what is observable within the range of our senses and conclude that the universe is orderly and follows the principle of patterns, from the atom to the master universe. We are specs of dust but we can reason. I suspect that light is what is moving. Is 'light' the no thing of what you speak? Just some philosophical rants.

November 2, 2011 | Louis Collazo

Some additional thoughts... I cannot disagree that it's all motion, but I would contend that it is all accelerated motion. It then follows that the motion is rotational, even that motion described as expanding space. Granted, that radius of rotation could very well be billions of light years, but rotational nonetheless. Therefore I will make the argument that we could define this motion as s/t^2 rather than s/t. Unity defined as 1/1^2. This is an inverse squared relationship.. I have been reading this blog and Larson's work for almost a month now and I seem to have the same problems as other beginners in trying to visualize/conceptualize coordinate time. I guess that I'm still stuck on one demensional time, although I will easily concede that this one dem can consist of two directions (backwards and forwards). In other words, clockwise and counter clockwise. Has anyone explored this relationship between space and time? Is it even logical given these assumptions? I thank you for your indulgence. I am not a physicist, but a practicing physician; although my undergrad degree is in mechanical engineering and I have always been fascinated by the subject.
Regards, Louis.

November 3, 2011 | Louis Collazo

Louis wrote: "All motion needs a center and a force(s)."

The ancient Greeks believed that all magnitudes have a center. So, a length is divided in half by its center, an area by its center and also a volume by its center.

This idea of the middle comes from a philosophical view of numbers. The number 1 is the father of all (n/n = 1, where n --> infinity); The number 2 is duality, since it divides 1 into two, reciprocal, parts (n/2n = 1/2, the two opposite ends of a line); The number 3 is unity, since it re-unifies duality (n/3n = 1/3, the third side of an isosceles triangle joins the two ends of the line); The number 4 is perfection, since it completes the square (n/4n = 1/4).

We see this as most profound, when it is realized that it's a philosophical concept unifying geometry with numbers (point = 2^0 = 1, line = 2^1 = 2, area = 2^2 = 4 and volume = 2^3 = 8) in the sacred tetraktys:

+
++
+++
++++

Hamilton criticized the science of modern algebra, because, unlike geometry, it was not founded on intuitive principles of sound philosophy, but on what he called the practical and philological considerations of art.

What we have found here at the LRC is that this lack of a true philosophical foundation for algebra has led to the modern structure of mathematics, which fails to recognize the ancient concept of middle as crucial and thereby corrupts the union of geometry and mathematics in the tetraktys.

This is a result of just what Hamilton feared: Mathematicians pressed ahead with the square root of -1, just because it was useful, and not because they had a "possible and real meaning" for it.

As a result, the higher dimensional algebras are built up from the scalars (2^0 = 1), by adding imaginary numbers to them: The 1D complex numbers (2^1 = 2) use the imaginary number "i", while the 2D quaternions (2^2 = 4) add two more imaginaries to this, "j" and "k", and the 3D octonions (2^3 = 8) add a total of seven imaginary numbers to the scalars.

To add even more to the confusion, mathematicians call each of these additions "dimensions," so that the three-dimensional octonions are referred to as an "eight dimensional" algebra, when in fact, it is a three-dimensional algebra with eight "directions."

The concept that both the magnitudes of geometry and the numbers of algebra have dimension, magnitude and "direction," clarifies the whole picture. Geometry limits the number of dimensions in the universe and algebra limits the number of "directions" in each dimension of the universe. When the mathematicians ignored the "directional" limit of algebra, they got off course, just as they have when they ignored the "dimensional" limit of geometry.

The result is confusion, and they are left to wade through the molasses of of unending complexity, but what led them into it in the first place was the concept of rotation that imaginary numbers make possible. Thus, modern physicists can use the infinitude of 1D numbers (complex numbers of size 1) in the complex plane of rotation, to do their magic, even though they lose the algebraic property of order in doing so.

They can use the quaternions to great advantage also, if they are willing to give up commutativity and order.

They haven't found much use for the octonions, but if they are willing to give up order, commutativity and associativity, they can use them for 10 dimensional string theory.

All of this trouble with theoretical mathematics and physics stems from the failure to recognize the crucial role of the middle. Had they not abandoned that philosophical tenet of the ancients, they no doubt would have realized that there are 1D, 2D and 3D scalars and that motion (i.e. reciprocal relation of space and time) in these higher dimensions is possible, without anything moving or rotating.

November 5, 2011 | Doug

I agree with those things you said that I understand but mostly with the comment on the confusion. Please permit me to expound on my view of the universe and see where common ground exists. In the cosmology I subscribe to, space and time are also inseparably linked but I'm not sure that their relationship is necessaryly inverses of one another. Certainly I recognize that many thing in the physical world are inversely related such as current-resistance, gravity-space, charge-space, just to name a few. Let me define some terms. Space cannot be absolute. It may approach it but it is necesarily bounded. Space is 'contained' even though that container may 'appear' to be infinitely large. Therefore, space that is now uniformly expanding MUST eventually reverse and begin the contraction phase of its cycle because its motion cannot stop, but it cannot go on expanding forever because it is not absolute and is linked to time which IS absolute. The absolute of time is eternity. I must conclude that space cycles, (expanding/contracting) yet it is directly linked to time, one to one, as Larson proposes. But yet, time does not reverse. That would be illogical in my view. Also, if space is now expanding, then there must be space contracting somewhere( I believe Larson makes some mention of this).
Space is not absolute, not infinite, or else energy would also have to be infinite as well, which I believe is not the case. Well nigh infinite, but not infinite when contrasted with infinity as we conceive of it.

One way that I might illustrate how time and space are related where space cycles and time inexorably progresses forward (yet linked on to one) is by making a few assumptions about the topology of the universe. First, that it has a center. Two, that All things revolve around this center, in one direction or another(clockwise-counterclockwise). Third that everything is in motion in the universe except that CENTER. That center is motionless therefore timeless and spaceless. So now we have a geometry that can can best be illustrated as a 'donut' (a torus) that containes space, is rotating about its center and is presently expanding. The donuts volume is increasing with time. Now imagine the volume of an hourglass with its pinch point at the center (hole) of the donut, with the upper half above and the lower half below. If you could conceive of this hourglass as a reservoir of space that has an INVERSE volume/space relationship to the volume/space of the donut, then you could imagine an oscillating, cycling expansion/contraction of the torus while the hourglass 'reservoirs' correspondingly contract/expand. Then space can expand without having to create more space.

We can actually observe these kind of geometries in nature. Two good examples are the p-orbitals of hydrogen wave funtions and certain galaxies that show gamma emissions shooting above and below from the galactic center.

Now getting back to how see space-time being related I will use a sphere to illustrate my point. This, of course, will relate to the torus since they are both spheriods and Pi governs their geometry. A perfect sphere is simpler to deal with so I will proceed with it. Let's assume our space is contained within this sphere. We can then equate volume with space and take the case where the volume is presently expanding. The radius of this expanding sphere is also increasing. How many radii does this sphere have? Obviously and infinite amount, all pointing in infinite directions (scaler,right?). Space is also progressing in all directions as well. I believe Larson's theory is in agreement here. Here is the crucial assumption. I equate time with the radii in this expanding sphere. Now

Conclusions:
Space and time are related by Pi. S/T = 4/3 Pi (ratio is transcendental )
Space and Time are both 3 dimensional
Rotational motion adds another dimension which they 'share'
Seven total dimension to define the physical universe
Time is circular (sinusoidal) as it progresses with the motions of Space and this sine wave must exhibit the Phi ratio, 1.618... , in wave-length/frequency
Pi is related to both and to the Phi ratio (1.618...) by this equation
Phi = 7 x Pi/5/e. (e is Euler's number)
e is related to Pi and i (sq. root of minus 1) by Euler's equation
e^iPi = -1 or e^iPi + 1 = 0
This equation contains the basic units of mathematics (e, i, Pi, 1, 0,-1)
e is related to the prime number sequence
phi is related to the Fibonacci progression
Fractal geometry fits in here also
All universal constants are Trancendental
Reservior Space is imaginary (i) space
The universe topology is hyperboloid (inverse numbers 1/X are plotedon a two dimensional graph is a hyperbola!
Take a hyperbola plotted on XY and the corresponding -X-Y and the center (0,0) is the geographic center of infinity
Toroids, spheres, hyperboliods, eliptiods can all be transformed into one another geometrically.
In this universe Pi, Phi, e, i, space-time (motion), 1, 0, -1, primes, are all related.
E = mc^2 is better stated in our 7 dimensional universe of motion as (change in energy)^2 ~ (change in mass)^2 x c^4.

You are very correct when you said that we have forgotten the wisdom of the ancients. All is number. All is geometry

From the Hermetic Principle it follows that this topology has corresponding geometries in the microcosmos.

This brief summary of my thoughts on the matter is limited to structure. As to function, that is vastly more difficult. In medical school I always found anatomy more understandable than physiology.

Regards, Louis

November 6, 2011 | Louis Collazo

Well, I have to confess, Louis, that I'm prejudiced, so it makes it very difficult for me to be a useful critic, except to state what I already have stated: Ad hoc ideas are not what we need at this point. We need a new system of thought that incorporates a more correct understanding of the nature of space and time than that which we have had since the days of Newton.

Newton's ideas of absolute space and time have been discarded for the ideas of relativity, but the idea of an aether has been changed in name only. Now, instead of an aether that can propagate waves, we have a spacetime fabric that can propagate gravity, but that concept is incompatible with the concepts of quantum mechanics, which require a fixed background of space and time.

The great contribution that Newton made was the introduction of a SYSTEM of physical thought for investigating the structure of the physical universe, which was predicated upon the power of a mathematical formulation that encapsulates the assumption that every physical object can be represented as a composite of particles, and that the behavior of a particle is governed by interactions with other particles.

Hence, Newton's program of research reduces to finding the fewest interactions among the fewest particles. On the other hand, the new research program of Larson goes deeper still. Its power comes from the fundamentals of algebra and geometry, not just a mathematical formalism that can be used to describe variations in the motion of a particle, but a fundamental construct that rigorously defines space and time, and their empirically derived relationship as the reciprocal aspects of motion, in terms of the fundamentals of the science of algebra and geometry.

The results here at the LRC indicate that the structure of matter itself, and its basic properties, follows from the consideration of a few simple facts: 1) If two quantities exist, one greater than another, then there exists a third quantity, greater than them both. 2) There are no physical phenomena beyond the three dimensions of space and time. 3) Magnitudes have dimension, dimension has "direction," and "direction" has orientation.

Given these fundamental facts, its very clear to us that no ad hoc assumptions should ever be allowed to be introduced into the system, since to do so would be to jeopardize the integrity of the system.

Of course, to affirm that is one thing, but sticking to it is not always that easy, as Larson himself discovered.

November 8, 2011 | Doug

Hi Doug: Thanks for the feedback. I must admit that this theory of Larson's has stimulated my imagination lately, in particular the redefinition of space-time and how they relate. I certainly have my prejudices as well and am dabbling in a field outside my area of expertise. Nonetheless, my intuitions tell me that our universe is one that cycles, that space cannot continue to expand indefinitely, and that there is a center to all things. This much I can personally observe; the atom, the earth, the solar system, the galaxies. I can see indirect evidence that all things with centers pulse (expand and contract), all in their respective frequencies. This may not be scientific, but some truths start out as hunches.
I will continue to follow the success of the theory, but I have my doubts about convincing the science establishment any time soon. Although, the house of cards that is theoretical physics may not withstand the coming storm. I wish you much luck in your pursuits of instigating a new paradigm shift. Regards, Louis.

November 8, 2011 | Louis

Oh, one final food for thought,Doug. In considering expanding space, even if this expansion is 'uniform ', the expansion is neccesarily ACCELERATED.
You are growing space like with Pascal's Triangle, it expands with each successive step 'geometrically'. Therefore S/T=1 reciprocal should be dS/dT=1, right?
There is certainly empirical evidence suggesting the the universe is not only expanding but that the expansion is actually accelerating. This new relationship would maintain light speed as a constant. Regerds, Louis.

November 9, 2011 | Louis

Thanks Louis,

You are right, we get lazy, but writing ds/dt and dt/ds is also misleading when people read the letter "d" as derivative rather than delta.

I just wanted to point out that Larson's universe of motion DOES cycle. Its cycle is driven by gravity, not by entropy, however. To understand how the cycle works, where matter eventually obtains velocities in three dimensions, which send it into the Cosmic sector, where it enters that sector as "material" rays, just as its matter enters into this the material sector as cosmic rays, completing the cycle, read Larson's Volume Three of The Structure of the Physical Universe, The Universe of Motion.

November 9, 2011 | Doug