Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
Billy
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:00 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by Billy » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:03 pm

I am reading through Larson's text 'Nothing But Motion', and have come across this in Chapter 9: Rotational Combinations:
"This present chapter will initiate a demonstration that the very complex mathematical relations that are encountered in many physical areas are the result of permutations and combinations of simple basic elements, rather than a reflection of a complex fundamental reality. The process whereby the compound unit of motion that we call an atom is produced by applying a rotational motion to a previously existing vibrational motion, the photon, is typical of the manner in which the complex phenomena of the universe are built up from simple foundations. We start with a uniform linear, or translational, motion at unit speed. Then by directional reversals we produce a simple harmonic motion, or vibration. Next the vibrating unit is caused to rotate. The addition of this motion of a different type alters the behavior of the unit-gives it different properties, as we say-and puts it into a new physical category. All of the more complex physical entities with which we will deal in the subsequent pages are similarly built up by compounding the simpler motions." Bold and underline are mine.


One of the things over which I have been musing is: How can it be that the interactions/compounding of motions, be they linear, vibrational, rotational; existing in one, two, three dimensions, or what have you; cause physical matter to come into existence? All that Larson gives us here is the phrase "gives it different properties". What is the nature of these "different properties"? Motion is simply...motion, no? Does motion itself have any physical 'structure'? If not then, again, I wonder how the interactions of such phenomena can lead to the creation of physical matter, be it in the spatial or the temporal realms.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3951
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by LoneBear » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:31 pm

Billy wrote:What is the nature of these "different properties"? Motion is simply...motion, no? Does motion itself have any physical 'structure'? If not then, again, I wonder how the interactions of such phenomena can lead to the creation of physical matter, be it in the spatial or the temporal realms.
The interaction of motions give the illusion of "physical matter." It is the pushes and pulls between different types of motions that creates the boundary of structure.

Have you ever run your finger over a jet of forced are, like from a compressor nozzle? Get close enough, and it feels like there is a solid ball pushing against your skin--but it is nothing more than blowing air.
Keeper of the Troth of Ásgarðr, Moriar prius quam dedecorer.

Billy
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:00 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by Billy » Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:30 am

The interaction of motions give the illusion of "physical matter." It is the pushes and pulls between different types of motions that creates the boundary of structure.
Here is where things become a bit hazy. So, physical matter is an 'illusion'. Is it an 'outgrowth' of underlying motions? Would I be correct in defining illusion as "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses"? I understand, in an abstract sense, how the interactions/compounding of different motions, the pushes and pulls, could create boundaries for structure; but where does the structure itself come from? The 'wanderer' in me wants to say that it is the outgrowth of some vast universal consciousness expressing itself/figuring itself out, but I have feeling that this is not quite it, either. But perhaps it is, because my psyche speaks to me in a language of symbols; projected images within my mind's eye. I also still fail to understand just how it is that reciprocity between space and time operates. Reading back through old legends, from the American Indians as well as the folks of the Celtic Isles, a common theme seems to keep popping up: When crossing over to the other side, physical reality as we perceive it in space does shift/dissipate, as if it is in fact an illusion; but an illusion on both sides of the coin. Hence the many tales of humans traveling between the realms, consuming 'fairy food' that it not quite so beautiful as it appears to be; diving down into bodies of water, only to be transported into a field at the bottom of the lake, without getting wet. Illusions.

It reminds me of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJfbSPZ9wu4 Particularly what is said by Lennier. The wall is not the 'source' of the beam of light. It comes through from somewhere else, i.e. 'non-localized'. Ok, got it. But then, how does the 'soul', being a projection, not exist inside of me? Am I not an outgrowth of the soul, and is the soul not an inversion of my body? Are they not both connected consciousness, each wanting to assume the form of the other, like the Taijitu? Is everything that I am -- a projection somehow manifested by the interactions/compounding/pushes/pulls of underlying motions?
Have you ever run your finger over a jet of forced air, like from a compressor nozzle? Get close enough, and it feels like there is a solid ball pushing against your skin--but it is nothing more than blowing air.
Yes I have, a number of times. And I understand what it is that you are getting at here. Still, the air itself does not change its form, does not become more dense. It still remains in its current material state. Again, it's the manifestation/outgrowth of matter from motion that has me a bit perplexed.

Here is what I am able to make of it thus far, from direct observation of the natural world: When assuming physical form, these underlying motions assume geometric patterns, i.e. life 'geometrizing'. Makes sense. I had mentioned this to Gopi, and he told me to think in terms of air and water: both forms of matter, but with differing densities. Still, though, it doesn't clear up the 'how' in terms of motion assuming a more dense form. Or perhaps I am still not envisioning this in the proper sense. I think that I'm still too stuck in the 'conventional' manner of thinking, i.e. my mind is still searching for that smallest unit of matter, that 'God particle'; the outgrowth from which matter itself stems. I also think that I'm mixing up the concepts of matter and mass. I also am attempting to understand how matter/mass aggregates on one side of the coin, yet is spread wide on the other. At the Root Gathering, I remember being told that this applies only to 'inanimate' objects.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3951
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by LoneBear » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:40 am

Billy wrote:Here is where things become a bit hazy. So, physical matter is an 'illusion'. Is it an 'outgrowth' of underlying motions?
I read over your post a couple of times to see if I could pin down the assumption that is preventing you from comprehending the system. I believe it comes down to the way you "abstract" by using the intellect, which is a "bottom-up" approach of finding common denominators in the physical to create the "underlying" scalar motions. This is what people are trained to do in our education system.

To understand the Reciprocal System, you need more of the artistic, "top-down" approach where you start with something abstract then refine it into structure and form--much like writing music. I'm not a musician, but from what I've heard of Gopi describing it, music starts with a feeling and that feeling is given form by finding the instruments to express the feeling, then notes on the instruments to make a song, then words to fit the song.

After 30 years, Larson concluded, "What we're dealing with is simply abstract change in three dimensions." The RS starts with an abstract concept called "motion," from which "instruments" (rotation, translation, vibration) give it form, then that form is refined by magnitudes of those motions (notes) to make the song of atoms, then coordinate physicality, structure, (words) to fit the song.

But the big difference is that an abstract is a "complete picture" and the resulting music is only a single perspective of that picture, as many songs could be written to describe the same feeling. So when you start at the bottom and work up, for example, starting with words, putting notes to the words, finding instruments to play the notes, then creating a feeling from those instruments, you believe that that "abstraction" is the whole--not just one facet of it.

It works the same in math. If you start with a high-level abstraction, you differentiate to get to a coordinate view--each step of that differentiation looses a bit of data from the original equation, so the result is an equation that represents just one facet of the original--but the original is intact. When you start with the facet and integrate back up, each stage requires the addition of a "constant of integration," an assumption concerning the abstraction that may, or may not be, correct. Thus you arrive somewhere near the high-level equation, but seldom exactly on it.

So, perhaps you can think of motion "artistically," rather than intellectually?
Keeper of the Troth of Ásgarðr, Moriar prius quam dedecorer.

Billy
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:00 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by Billy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:34 am

I read over your post a couple of times to see if I could pin down the assumption that is preventing you from comprehending the system. I believe it comes down to the way you "abstract" by using the intellect, which is a "bottom-up" approach of finding common denominators in the physical to create the "underlying" scalar motions. This is what people are trained to do in our education system.
Actually, I am abstracting by using the "top down" approach, but keep getting pulled back to the 'underlying' way of thinking. Larson does touch on this idea on pages 215-16 of 'Nothing But Motion', when he states,
...in adding to the neutrino to produce the proton, a unit of mass must be provided. The question that must be answered before this hypothetical hydrogen building process can be considered a reality is: Where does the required mass come from?


He then spends the next several paragraphs explaining this, particularly as it concerns the massless neutron, concluding that,
Here, then, is what appears, on initial consideration at least, to be a complete and consistent theoretical explanation of the transition from decay product to material atom.
Up to this point, I have been thinking that, due to the reciprocal relationship existing between the two frames of reference, the 'leftover' matter (if you will) from one sector acts as the contributor to the 'new' matter in the other (though I have a feeling that 'leftover' is not the proper terminology here). Larson seems to acknowledge this when he concludes,
...the inflow of cosmic matter into the material sector is counterbalanced by an ejection of matter from the material sector into the cosmic sector in the form of high speed explosion products. These are the two crucial phases of the great cycle which constitutes the continuing activity of the universe.
While reading Larson's text, I am taking detailed notes, yet I'm thinking that it is best for me to wait until arriving in SLC before diving into this. I am a very hands-on, visual type of learner, and I have several geometric shapes floating around in my head; those which I need to put onto paper while sitting next to others who can help to answer the questions that I have. However, there is one thing that seems to be a stumbling block: Within the spatial realm, we experience space in three dimensions, and time in one dimension. Reciprocally, in the temporal realm, time is experienced in three dimensions, space in one dimension. However, space, by its very definition, is 'an area or expanse'. Thus, three dimensional space is 'an area or expanse laid out in three dimensions.' So, how can you have a frame of reference, in this case the cosmic/temporal sector, in which space presents itself in a manner analogous to time in the spatial sector, i.e. in one dimension? How can a three dimensional sector/frame of reference have only one dimension of space? If there is a tree (or fleeble) in the cosmic sector, that tree (or fleeble), by its very nature, and regardless as to whether or not it is moving through time in three dimensions, is also occupying three dimensions of space, is it not?
To understand the Reciprocal System, you need more of the artistic, "top-down" approach where you start with something abstract then refine it into structure and form--much like writing music. I'm not a musician, but from what I've heard of Gopi describing it, music starts with a feeling and that feeling is given form by finding the instruments to express the feeling, then notes on the instruments to make a song, then words to fit the song.
Actually, it works both ways: Sometimes, you start with the music, weaving the words into this, and other times, you begin with carefully crafted words, weaving the music around this. I've taken a unique approach in that I apply the rules of poetry writing to lyric writing. My lyric sheets would be nonsensical to many, as they contain pages full of poetic scansion, dashes, underlines, rhythmic symbols representing grammatical pauses/substitutions, etc. But I take the flow of the words very seriously. Today, the only musician types who focus so closely on the proper flow of language within a musical piece are those folks within the 'Art Music' scene. Even contemporary opera doesn't so much anymore focus upon this. I wish that folks would stop belting out 'the' on the first beat of a measure, for four beats within said measure :(
After 30 years, Larson concluded, "What we're dealing with is simply abstract change in three dimensions." The RS starts with an abstract concept called "motion," from which "instruments" (rotation, translation, vibration) give it form, then that form is refined by magnitudes of those motions (notes) to make the song of atoms, then coordinate physicality, structure, (words) to fit the song.

But the big difference is that an abstract is a "complete picture" and the resulting music is only a single perspective of that picture, as many songs could be written to describe the same feeling. So when you start at the bottom and work up, for example, starting with words, putting notes to the words, finding instruments to play the notes, then creating a feeling from those instruments, you believe that that "abstraction" is the whole--not just one facet of it.

It works the same in math. If you start with a high-level abstraction, you differentiate to get to a coordinate view--each step of that differentiation looses a bit of data from the original equation, so the result is an equation that represents just one facet of the original--but the original is intact. When you start with the facet and integrate back up, each stage requires the addition of a "constant of integration," an assumption concerning the abstraction that may, or may not be, correct. Thus you arrive somewhere near the high-level equation, but seldom exactly on it.

So, perhaps you can think of motion "artistically," rather than intellectually?
I get the feeling that somewhere within the following quote lies the understanding that I seek. Why do I get the feeling this is 'staring' me right in the face?:
A poem, by the very fact of its existence in time rather than in space, has duration and pace. Since it does not move throughout at exactly the same pace (there must be some acceleration or impedance, no matter how slight), the poem must also have change of pace; one part moves more rapidly or more slowly than another. All such changes of pace, it must be noted, are relative to one another: an anapest introduced into an iambic line accelerates that part of the line; an anapest in an anapestic line sustains the already established pace, but does not accelerate it. All the rhythms of poetry achieve their effect by the way they play against one another. They exist in countermotion.

Similarly, all the elements of a poem are engaged in a series of countermotions. Meter and rhythm are only two of the elements that may be involved. Diction, imagery, rhyme, line length, vowel quantities, consonant sequences, and grammatical structure are some of the other principal elements. From these elements the poem builds complxes of poetic structures, each related to all the others. The motion of these poetic structures, each against the others, is what ultimately determines the poem's performance. One simple rule seems to apply to the play of all such countermotions: Whenever in the course of a poem the poet changes either his tone or his attitude, some change will occur in the handling of the technical elements. That change in the technical handling of the poem may be slight or it may be marked, but some change mus occur. Conversely, any change in the handling of the technical elements in the course of the poem will indicate that a change has taken place in the author's tone or attitude. Attitude, in Robert Frost's phrase, may be taken to signify "the way the poet takes his subject; tone, "the way he takes himself." John Ciardi - The Silences of Poetry


This was a piece written in reference to Frost's work "The Span of Life", a two-line poem that is said to have taken Frost several years to write. I first learned of it while studying poetry in college. There is something here about what is said concerning a poem existing in time rather in space that leaves me wondering.

User avatar
joeyv23
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by joeyv23 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:22 am

Billy wrote:However, space, by its very definition, is 'an area or expanse'. Thus, three dimensional space is 'an area or expanse laid out in three dimensions.
Legacy definitions being applied to the RS probably won't yield a working understanding. Space is one aspect of a ratio of motion where time is the other aspect that constitutes the complete picture of the thing trying to be understood, motion.
How can a three dimensional sector/frame of reference have only one dimension of space?
How can our spatial, three dimensional sector/frame of reference have only one dimension of time?
If there is a tree (or fleeble) in the cosmic sector, that tree (or fleeble), by its very nature, and regardless as to whether or not it is moving through time in three dimensions, is also occupying three dimensions of space, is it not?
No, because it's moving through space and occupies three dimensions of time. I think the legacy definitions might be getting you caught up here. The tree WILL appear to have the three familiar dimensions that constitute physical structure that we are familiar with but the atomic construction of the thing will be rotations of space in time (c-atoms) rather than rotations of time in space (atoms). It's possible that an intelligent existence living in the cosmic sector will see a certain quantity of what we here in the spatial frame of reference call an hour, but call it a mile. This doesn't mean that s/he is measuring 'space' relative to their position and the tree. It means that the flipping of perspective could require for ease of understanding an inversion/flipping between the terms, space and time. Time to us may be said to be space to/by them, but it's not space to us/as we perceive it from our side of unity, it's the inverse unit to space that constitutes the motion.
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

User avatar
joeyv23
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by joeyv23 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:52 pm

I realized another way to express what I was trying to relay immediately preceding this post.
IMG_20160823_154721.jpg
The square on the left, we'll call space. The circle on the right--time. This, we do from a spatial perspective. Now if we were to invert to the cosmic sector, the square would be 'time' and the circle, 'space' as an appropriate measure of inversion but observe the situation without the labels. The square is still square and the circle is still circle. Two negative images of a central 'thing': motion.
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

User avatar
joeyv23
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by joeyv23 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:49 pm

Addendum:

Upon inverting to the cosmic sector, given the image above, flip the colors around. So where you have blue square and yellow circle as seen from the material sector, an inversion will give you a yellow square and a blue circle in the cosmic sector. The colors, not the shapes in this example would represent the labels of space and time as we understand their characteristics so we'll say that blue equates to 'spatial' as we understand it and yellow as 'temporal'. The shapes, unchanging, would represent the form of the aspects of the ratio that aren't changing as seen from one sector and the other. Time=time and space=space.

From the material sector, the square is space and the circle is time. When you invert sectors/(colors) your circle becomes the blue (spatial) aspect but as a circle, it is still 'time'. The square 'space' becomes yellow (temporal).
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

Billy
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:00 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by Billy » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:01 pm

Hi Joey,

Thanks so much for the response. This is very helpful. Again, though, I'm going to have to wait until I get there in mid-October, as there are a number of different things running through my mind; most of which require me to be sitting beside someone to 'map out' what it is that I am perceiving here. I also want to point out certain things that I am seeing in natural objects, such as plants (there should be plenty of plantain underfoot in the area around the apartment.) :-)

Here is one question that I have, based upon something that Larson said in Nothing But Motion when referring to "the time inside unit space": Let's say that I am standing in a field in the spatial frame of reference. I 'invert' my consciousness, and thus find myself in the temporal frame of reference (for simplicity's sake, let's say for now that my physical body comes along with me on the journey). I begin walking around in the temporal frame of reference, wandering from the spot in which I first found myself when 'flipping over' to the other side of the coin. After staying for a time, I 'invert' my consciousness again, and find myself back in the spatial frame of reference. Might I be correct in saying that, under such circumstances, I would find myself back in the same exact spatial location, but at a different point in time, i.e. what was once a field might now be a lake, and I may find myself splashing down into water upon my return. Following this same train of thought: Were I to follow the same path back in the temporal frame of reference, then I assume that I would be returning to the spatial frame of reference at the same spatial location and at the same point in time, as if I had never left. Conversely: Were I to begin this journey in the temporal frame of reference, and journey in a similar fashion, I would find myself back at the same point in time, but at a different spatial location.

I am imagining the spatial frame of reference as a straight line. I walk along that straight line, pause, and 'flip over' into a completely different frame of reference, the other half of the Universe, i.e. time. Regardless as to how far I wander in time, I am still at the same 'point' in space (notwithstanding the natural 'rotations' and 'movements' of the planetary bodies in both frames of reference, that is).

Am I getting somewhat of the right idea here, or am I still way off in terms of my mental abstraction of things? I cannot help but look at this from the point of view of the old legends, i.e. humans having interacted with the Little People, and what it was like for those who were lucky enough to make it back. Most often, it seems that they either turned to dust upon taking their first steps again in space, (that is, if enough time had passed such that the spatial aspect of the life unit reached 'maximum life'), or that they found themselves being recognized by an old person in town, who was stunned to see the 'traveler' returning again after so many years of being away.

User avatar
joeyv23
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by joeyv23 » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:44 pm

To quote Kosh, "Yes."

Well done! :)
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

animus
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:18 am

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by animus » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:46 am

Billy wrote: Here is one question that I have, based upon something that Larson said in Nothing But Motion when referring to "the time inside unit space": Let's say that I am standing in a field in the spatial frame of reference. I 'invert' my consciousness, and thus find myself in the temporal frame of reference (for simplicity's sake, let's say for now that my physical body comes along with me on the journey). I begin walking around in the temporal frame of reference, wandering from the spot in which I first found myself when 'flipping over' to the other side of the coin. After staying for a time, I 'invert' my consciousness again, and find myself back in the spatial frame of reference. Might I be correct in saying that, under such circumstances, I would find myself back in the same exact spatial location, but at a different point in time, i.e. what was once a field might now be a lake, and I may find myself splashing down into water upon my return. Following this same train of thought: Were I to follow the same path back in the temporal frame of reference, then I assume that I would be returning to the spatial frame of reference at the same spatial location and at the same point in time, as if I had never left. Conversely: Were I to begin this journey in the temporal frame of reference, and journey in a similar fashion, I would find myself back at the same point in time, but at a different spatial location.

I am imagining the spatial frame of reference as a straight line. I walk along that straight line, pause, and 'flip over' into a completely different frame of reference, the other half of the Universe, i.e. time. Regardless as to how far I wander in time, I am still at the same 'point' in space (notwithstanding the natural 'rotations' and 'movements' of the planetary bodies in both frames of reference, that is).
When moving with your body into the Other Realm, then the time you spent there determines where on earth you will get back due to planetary rotation. And the distance, i.e. the duration, you have moved from the spot on which you came into the Other Realm determines when you will get back. When moving without your body and just along your silver cord then both the time and the space coordinates are fixed.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3951
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Physical matter derived from the interactions of Motions

Post by LoneBear » Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:34 am

animus wrote:When moving with your body into the Other Realm, then the time you spent there determines where on earth you will get back due to planetary rotation. And the distance, i.e. the duration, you have moved from the spot on which you came into the Other Realm determines when you will get back. When moving without your body and just along your silver cord then both the time and the space coordinates are fixed.
The "body" and "soul" of the planet are linked as a life unit, so they move in unison--planetary rotation or rotation about the sun does not play a part in the material/cosmic coordinate systems. It is all based on relative position.
Billy wrote:I 'invert' my consciousness, and thus find myself in the temporal frame of reference (for simplicity's sake, let's say for now that my physical body comes along with me on the journey). I begin walking around in the temporal frame of reference, wandering from the spot in which I first found myself when 'flipping over' to the other side of the coin. After staying for a time, I 'invert' my consciousness again, and find myself back in the spatial frame of reference.
It is analogous to going to sleep (entering the cosmic), dreaming (walking around the temporal frame), then waking back up (return to the material).

You also have to remember that the Inter-Regional Ratio has an effect on clock time... for each minute of sleeping "body time," your dream will run about 2.6 hours. An entire "dream day" passes every 9.2 minutes of body time, meaning that a good, 8-hour sleep is about 7 weeks of dream time. (Though most people actually dream for only a few minutes.) That is why I find working on my "holodeck" to be so productive.
Keeper of the Troth of Ásgarðr, Moriar prius quam dedecorer.

Post Reply