## General Discussion > unit of space, unit of time

Dear All,

Could you please explain why and how Larson arrives from the postulated existence of unit speed to the existence of unique "unit space" and "unit time"?

Inasmuch as the quantity of space involved in one unit of motion is the minimum quantity that takes part in any physical activity, because less than one unit of motion does not exist, this is the unit of space. Similarly, the quantity of time involved in the one unit of motion is the unit of time. Each unit of motion, then, consists of one unit of space in association with one unit of time; that is, the basic motion of the universe is motion at unit speed.

-- NBM, Chapter 3

I believe we could double both the "space unit" and the "time unit" and still arrive to the same unit speed. So neither "space unit" nor "time unit" should be uniquely identifiable.

So I thought he didn't mean that both aspects of motions have to have their own unique units, however in chapter 13 of the same book he not only repeats it, but actually comes up with specific values for "unit space" (4.558816×10e-6 cm) and "unit time" (1.520655×10e-16 sec) !

Doesn't this mean that in addition to the postulates an ad-hoc assumption has creeped into the System?

Leo.

February 21, 2012 | Leo

Hi Leo.
I also share the same question. But even more basically, I question the phenomenal realty of 'speed' itself. Philosophically, speed such as in the expression, 100 miles per hour, is a concept. It is an idea with no manifestation in the physical world. It is neither an event nor an individual. We cannot 'sense' speed and therefore it is one derivative short of realty. We ,on the other hand, can sense acceleration. The idea is useful, however, to allow us to understand acceleration and conclude that the idea of speed can be made 'real' by setting it in 'motion'. This is done by applying a force in order to 'create' an acceleration. I've long since concluded that nature starts with motion of the second derivative. We cannot escape the inverse square law. Newton dumped this little unreality of speed and position on our lap hundreds of years ago and progress in physics has suffered greatly since. Now we must contend with other concepts mistaken for phenomena, such as momentum, moment of inertia, and the concept of position. This is an unfortunate oversight because his own Calculus tells us that velocity or speed is a slope (ratio) tangent to the acceleration curve. The tangent point represents a moment in time, another concept. Space is unquestionably curved. Therefore, nothing can exist in nature that is not in acceleration, not even light itself!
The over controlling force is gravity. Gravity is the SOLE control of energy-matter. You may consider it the third derivative. In a curved universe, linear concepts must remain just that, concepts. Useful but not existent in space-time (not necessarily Einsteinian).
Look at the mess we find ourselves in just because of this colossal blunder. One must conclude that all motion is accelerated and that this motion must have a center; a center of gravity. I hope that there is someone out there that can follow this argument and provide some feedback. It just seems so simple to me that I feel it must be wrong; but I don't think so.
Regards, Louis.

February 21, 2012 | Louis

The primary postulates contain the discreteness of space in time in them.

The concrete values of space and time units are calculated from the observed speed of light and Rydberg frequency.

February 27, 2012 | Horace

Sorry for my long absence, everyone. The reality is, I have dropped out of the work for a season, in order to fulfill a mission for my church. I don't know yet how long this will take, but it might be quite a while.

In the meantime, please feel free to continue with the comments and questions. There should be someone able and willing to help among the readers, until I get back.

My position on Leo's question is simply this: Larson postulated the existence of a universal motion, which is an inverse relation between space and time, as the basis for everything. His assumption is based on the only known relationship between space and time, so philosophically speaking, it is on a very firm foundation.

Indeed, it not only leads to objects of matter, but also what he called extension space, or coordinate space and coordinate time, which is the separation of space and time between objects that gives rise to the set of concepts we call points, lines, areas and volumes.

These are concepts that satisfy the postulates of geometry, but the universal motion that gives rise to them is assumed to be real. It is true that n/n = 1/1. Indeed, that mathematical fact is key to many important aspects in mathematics. However, in order for mathematics to exist at all, one has to have the concept of unit, even if it has to be chosen arbitrarily.

The members of the LST community believe that the best way to do this, with some hope of finding nature's unit, is to combine their physical constants into what they call "the Planck length." Nevertheless, the concept of the Planck length depends ultimately on their idea of space and time, which they have combined into an unnatural concept of spacetime, by unifying these two aspects of motion, not as motion, but as an object.

This approach works up to a point (pun intended), but then it introduces inescapable contradictions in their definitions, because a point, by definition, has no extent! Thus, they have concluded that space and time are doomed. That space is emergent, and if space is emergent then time must be also.

Larson, on the other hand, chooses the physical unit, as Horace indicates, by taking his clue from the most firmly established physical constant known, the Rydberg constant of Hydrogen. This may or may not lead to the unit of nature, but it is very consistent with his basic assumption and introduces no inconsistencies.

Again, while it is true that this choice of unit represents an ad hoc assumption, it is clearly a mathematical necessity, not a logical one, and therefore does not adversely affect the deductive process of his theoretical development of the RST.

February 27, 2012 | Doug

Hi Doug: You'll be missed but God comes first, as He should. Now, getting back to what Horace wrote. I have never seen a 'constant' be used as anything but an ad hoc fudge factor. We must never knowingly contradict ourselves and here is a plain contradiction. In a universe of motion, which by definition is change, how can we permit constants to creep into our reality of nothing but change. This may be viewed as a semantic argument but words have meaning or else we cannot communicate. I must then logically reject all constants as an attempt to explain something we don't rightfully understand, and this includes the so called constant speed of light.

February 27, 2012 | Louis

Yes, the speed of light and Rydberg frequencies are assumptions albeit educated ones.

However, the speed of light concerns the fundamental postulate, and this is one place where such assumption is tolerable because motion is a fundamental concept in RST and the measurement of this motion is some speed. Most likely it is the speed of light, but the only evidence of it is in the pudding.

If the aspects of this basic motion are miscalculated, then all of the phenomena that depend on space and time units will not correspond to the observed reality, e.g. interatomic distances in chemical compounds, spectra frequencies, electron's charge, etc...

March 1, 2012 | Louis

This last post must have been misassigned as per authorship. Possibly Horace?

Well, anyway, I think this discussion about the fundamental postulates is very crucial. I have great concerns about giving the mantle of fundamental motion to speed. I truly believe this description of fundamental motion should be given to acceleration. The physical world exhibits only accelerated motion and all of that motion is rotational. You might say, light is speed and we have evidence of other motions that 'appears' linear. We must be careful with these kinds of assumptions. Sure, motions can appear to be velocities, in fact they are acceleration with quite large curvatures. All motions must be generic because the same forces of the same universe born them. Our senses can only detect changes in velocity, ie, accelaeration. Only fluctuation in pressures tickle the senses. These can only be produced by fluctuating waveforms. Einsteins energy equation, E = mc^2, is misunderstood. In, English, it actually states that CHANGES in energy, increases or decreases, equal CHANGES, increases or decreases, respectfully, in mass, times the speed of light squared. The important thing I'm saying here is that this is no static equation, it is in actuality a partial differential question. It should more properly expressed as dE/dt = dm/dt * c^2. This little appreciated fact has serious implication for Larson's theory. When Larson postulates speed as unity equaling a unit of space over a unit of time, he is making their reciprocal relationship also unity. This because speed is linear. This is a problem as you shall see. In other words, he is allowing time to be a measure of space, and conversely, space to be a measure of time. Space and time are inseparable and reciprocally related but are not linearly related. Space does NOT measure time, time measures space, and not recognizing this is a fundamental ontiological error. The inverse square law is fundamental and the fundamental relationship between space and time is s/t^2, acceleration. This cannot be unity as Larson defines it because this relationship is nonlinear (curved)and the inverse of this relationship is not phenomenal. You cannot flip a curve and end up with the same relationship. Acceleration can be positive or negative but both curve in the same fashion. If you insert Larson's units for The energy equation you can immediately see the fatal error. The partial differential equation is self referential (dt/dt). This is called identity. Change in time over change in time is nonsense. It is not change. It is not motion. No motion , no universe of motion to speak of. What is needed is a reworking of the theory starting with a redefinition of motion. I truly believe that the assumption that light exhibits a constant speed must be rethought. The motion of light is so great that we can only measure an extremely small distance over that interval of time. We are nearly measuring it instantaneously, misinterpreting it as velocity and therefore we cannot discern its acceleration. Einstein made this unfortunate assumption and others followed suit. He, like Larson after him, perpetuated the error and gave speed the dignity to define motion. Einsteins equations are therefore similarly riddled with self references (dt/dt). What I think we are seeing at CERN is evidence for the acceleration of light and not a 'breaking' of the speed limit. The speed limit has simply been increased.

I believe we are needing to redefine motion exclusively rotational, inertial, and therefore accelerated. This motion must have a center of rotation, therefore directional and NOT scalar. And rotational motion is ABSOLUTE. It's reference is the center of motion. It is not self referential. To prove my point, imagine spinning in a swivel chair. Are you rotating or are the stars of the galaxy spinning around you? To the relativist, you can take your pick. But the later is a violation of there speed limits for stars cannot turn around the galaxy in seconds. Can't we just reevaluate things a bit with much more care?

March 1, 2012 | Louis

No, maybe another Louis.

You are correct that rotational motion with sufficiently large radius is indistinguishable from linear motion. It is true that rotational motion is an accelerated motion in Euclidean geometry.

I cannot be certain (and neither can you) that the physical world exhibits only linear (or accelerated) motion. Human senses can detect linear motion directly, e.g. ears can detect the Doppler effect and stereoscopic vision can see spatial distance via triangulation and perceive the changes in this distance. Human senses can also directly detect accelerated motion via proprioception and the vestibular system. So noting is decided by referring to the senses.

I see no reason why space cannot measure time and time measures space.
That's a very symmetrical concept. Why should time be superior to space? Other independent thinkers do not share this view either, see:
http://milesmathis.com/time.html

I do not see how the definition of motion as s/t makes Eintein's E=mc^2 self referential.

Also what is your evidence that light moves (not the material observer) and that light accelerates ?
There is no evidence of that happening in CERN.

If acceleration was primary we would be observing spontaneous acceleration at every scale, yet we do not. We observe inward acceleration at nanoscale (e.g. chemical bonds) and outward acceleration at macroscale (e.g. escaping far galaxies) but not in the middle scale - the domain of our daily lives. Newton's First law is based on this lack of acceleration.

Also s/t^2 is more complicated expression than s/t and as such it fails the Ockham's razor principle - but that's not a good scientific argument.

Rotational motion requires centripetal force - linear does not. What would cause this force?
Rotational motion is primary in projective counterspace. The latter is the result of the reciprocal s/t relation, see:
http://forum.rs2theory.org/sites/rs2theory.org/files/rs_space_counterspace_720.ppt

March 2, 2012 | Horace

Louis,

I can make just a few observations. First, the argument of the RST is that, if we assume that space and time (a speed by definition), are reciprocal quantities, then, with very few additional assumptions (none ad hoc), we can develop a set of logical consequences from these assumptions that lead to physical phenomena, which can be observed.

If we change the fundamental assumptions, as you have suggested, it could only be warranted by the development of new consequences that lead to physical phenomena that can be observed.

For instance, since, the RST's current assumptions lead to the observed particles of the standard model and the periodic table of the elements of matter, any change in them would have to be shown to lead to these same consequences in a more straightforward fashion, and solve some of the current challenges that we are facing, like deriving the atomic spectra.

From what you have written, I don't see any evidence of this character that would persuade me to consider the proposal.

March 2, 2012 | Doug

I did not say that the physical world only exhibits linear motion which, by difinition is not accelerated. Linear motion is linear and accelerated motion is curved. Doppler effects are not linear, the cochlea is a phi spiral like a snail and therefore curved. It is designed to 'feel' curved signals like sine waves. We would be absolutely deaf to anything linear. Fortunately nothing is linear in nature. If we cannot see or hear something it is because the sinewave wavelength is too long or too short. We have instruments to detect those octives EM energies out of our range of perception.

I say that all motion is accelerated because I postulate that all motion is rotational, although I qualify that by adding that the motion is more complex by the addition of expansion and contaction that is simultaneous to the rational aspects.

The rods and cones of the retina likewise respond only to wave phenomena, sine waves. Triangulation is a process that does not occur at this level. Trianglation is 'processed' at the level of the brain, a much more complicated level than the one of mere detection. A detector can have a sophisticated microprocessor but it lacks consciousness, the necessary ingredient that reasons the information by integrating and synthesising it.

Your statement that nothing could be concluded by referring to the senses. Well, that has been the philosophical debate across the millennia. My personal opinion as far as this goes boils down to the way we view ourselves. I you view myself as a sentient being; to be non-sentient would negate my being. To not be able to make reference to your senses is to ignore the reality of your very being. I prefer not to do that.

Space cannot measure time because time is the measure of all things. And, in that sense, it lords over space. Time cannot be the measure of all and then have space be the measure of what is the measure of all. This is what is known in philolosophy as an ontological absurdity. The relationship between space and time is NOT symmetrical. Symmetry implies balance, and a balanced system exhibits no motion. This is so important to understand. There is motion in the universe because space and time are not balanced. Let me provide a tangible example. A battery can produce motion (current) because the poles are positive and negative, separating the charges and creating the potential (voltage) for motion (current). When the poles depolarize we then have symmetry. The poles are no longer poles, they have unified and balance has been achieve. We have a dead battery with no more motion (current). Recall Ohm's Law: current = voltage / resistance. Notice the reciprocal relationships. If one variable is set to one, the other two must be reciprocals. If you set speed to unity (1) as Larson did, then space and time must be reciprocals also. But can you then say that current is symmetrical to resistance? NO. Can you say the voltage is symmetrical to resistance? NO. Niether are space and time symmetrical, and they have the exact same relationship as the variables in Ohm's Law. If Miles said space and time are symmetrical, and I don't think that he did, then he would be wrong.

The expression dt/dt is self referent. The change in time as that same time changes ( for there is no other time) is by definite ONE. One does not change. Unity is Unity is Unity. You can multiply it to infinity and it remains one. Now, devide one (unity) by any number other than one and you have a reciprocal relation; you have some fraction of one. You now have a velocity. To get to actual motion in time you have to 'power' the numerator or the denominator. If you choose the numerator you are out of luck. One to any power is still one; you have no motion. But if you power the denominator you're in business. Now you're moving! That is why space and time cannot be symmetrical. To be symmetrical is to expect the same result by applying identical operations to each.

My argument for light accelerating is axiomatic. It follows the axiom, 'all motion is accelerated motion', light is motion, ergo light is accelerated. There is nothing to prove that light is a special kind of motion other than, Einstein says so. That' not good enough for me.
There is no escaping acceleration. Our daily lives are not any exception.
We have our very existence in an acclerated field. My bathroom scale reminds me of this fact every day. Newton was wrong. That apple that fell on his head made him tell us that there is gravity but you have to ignore it. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. You can get used to gravity, right? Well you ignore it at your peril especially ifbyou trip at the top of the stairs. Believe instead in velocity. And by the way, I have some snake oil in the back at a discount.

You are right that Ockham's Razor is not Scientific but I will use it anyway. s/t is simpler but since it does not exist in nature, s/t^2 is the simplest.
As to your question , what causes the centripetal force, my reply is that it is the same force that causes planets to revolve around the sun. The very same force that cause the galaxies to rotate. The very same force or forces that allow the earth to rotate on its axis. In order to remain scientific
I will call thatbforce the 'Uncaused Cause' and leave it at that. I would ask you a question on you're final statement. How can can any linear relationship result in any motion? A slope without an additional time element is not motion of any kind. The expression s/t = Unity is a slope on the graph at 45 degrees. How can that slope be motion or be the cause of any motion? You may say that it represents motion, but representations are not those thing they represent.
Thank for your comments and questions. It helps me greatly to think these things through.

Regards, Louis.

March 2, 2012 | Louis

A correction to my Feb 21 post. I said "Space is unquestionably curved.". What I meant to say is that space-time is unquestionably curved. To clarify , I content that time is the aspect of space-time that is curved, not space itself,as Einstein GR proposes. I think this an important distinction in light of what I've been proposing here.
Regards, Louis

March 3, 2012 | Louis

Hi Horace:
Let me refer you to a very good paper by Miles Mathis on this symmetry question.

Paper #17a. "Why the Transform of Special Relativity are Not Symmetrical"

March 3, 2012 | Louis