Space Time and the Progression

Forum for the sharing and discussion of various research projects going on.
Post Reply
Spaceman
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:36 pm

Space Time and the Progression

Post by Spaceman » Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:41 pm

I am wondering if this is a correct interpretation.

What modern astronomy refers to as the hubble expansion or the recession of distant galaxies, is the effect of clock space as seen from coordinate space. The effect of clock time inversely would then be seen as the recession of galaxies in coordinate time. In essence we are talking about the progression of the natural reference system, a relation of one unit of space to one unit of time, and how the effect of this progression from a coordinate space perspective is perceived as clock time for a unit of time and the recession of distant galaxies (3D space effect of clock space) for a unit of space and time. A coordinate time perspective would have the natural progression perceived as a combination of clock space for a unit of space and the recession of distant galaxies (3D time effect of clock time) for a unit of time and space. The recession requires both a unit of space and time because space to space is not motion and time to time is not motion. The the progression of a clock and recession of distant galaxies are both scalar in nature.

Sorry about the wordiness, but I was trying to be precise.

In relation to this I was also wondering what the RS2 take on the perception of the recession of these distant “galaxies” is, considering we shouldn’t be able so see light from galaxies.
"To resist the influence of others, knowledge of ones self is most important." Teal'c

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: Space Time and the Progression

Post by LoneBear » Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:57 am

Spaceman wrote:What modern astronomy refers to as the hubble expansion or the recession of distant galaxies, is the effect of clock space as seen from coordinate space. The effect of clock time inversely would then be seen as the recession of galaxies in coordinate time. In essence we are talking about the progression of the natural reference system, a relation of one unit of space to one unit of time, and how the effect of this progression from a coordinate space perspective is perceived as clock time for a unit of time and the recession of distant galaxies (3D space effect of clock space) for a unit of space and time. A coordinate time perspective would have the natural progression perceived as a combination of clock space for a unit of space and the recession of distant galaxies (3D time effect of clock time) for a unit of time and space. The recession requires both a unit of space and time because space to space is not motion and time to time is not motion. The the progression of a clock and recession of distant galaxies are both scalar in nature.
Essentially correct. One of the things you have to keep in mind is that the progression IS the clock, it is not motion relative to some external clock. All the units of motion are relative to the progression "clock." It is a cross-ratio, with the ratio of 1:1::s/t. Of course, the 1:1 ratio is chosen because in Nature, the smallest quantity you can have OF anything, is one. So 1:1 that forms the datum of reference that we refer to as "clock speed" with the aspects of "clock space" and "clock time."

If you look at the speed of the progression as sc/tc, the tc (clock time) relates to the units of space, whereas the sc half relates to the units of time.
Spaceman wrote:In relation to this I was also wondering what the RS2 take on the perception of the recession of these distant “galaxies” is, considering we shouldn’t be able so see light from galaxies.
There was a long discussion on this problem on the RS2 forum: Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem).

What was eventually concluded was that anything outside the gravitational limit of the solar system could not be seen, because light travels along with the progression, and therefore cannot cross the progression unless light is moving faster than light. And it doesn't do that, by definition.

Since we DO see stars and galaxies in the sky, then the stars MUST be within the gravitational limit of the solar system, much like the ancient astronomers said, most likely stuck at the limit like a bubble around our sun in a thick band.
alchemy.jpg
Beyond the gravitational limit
alchemy.jpg (32.92 KiB) Viewed 581 times
Two astronomical events support this model, documented by Prof. KVK Nehru.

The first is Distribution of the Masses of Protostars in Globular Clusters, where Nehru determines that globular clusters are hollow, and the star distribution seen is basically a thick band around an empty center.
globular.jpg
Globular cluster
globular.jpg (28.8 KiB) Viewed 581 times
Second, is the phenomenon known as "cosmic bubbles," documented by Nehru in his paper: The Large-Scale Structure of the Physical Universe, where he shows that Quasars are exploding in time, pushing galaxies away from them into a similar bubble shape--but this time with galaxies, not stars.

It appears that this bubble structure is very common in the Universe, from atoms to astronomy.

Now consider the scale problem. We can see the Andromeda galaxy with the un-aided eye, purportedly 2.5 million light years away. That means it ISN'T that far away--it is really close. But it does not necessarily have to be WITHIN the gravitational limit, totally encased--it can be adjacent to the gravitational limit, thus providing that 3D coordinate zone for light to move through between there and here. Think of two soap bubbles stuck together, where our sun is at the center of one, and Andromeda is at the center of the other. The overlap zone allows light to be transferred between.

Of course, when you scale the distance down, Andromeda becomes the size of our own solar system, so therefore, "galaxies are solar systems" and carrying the scale larger, quasars are the real "stars" and the "stars" we see are just rocks and gas giant planets reflecting our own sunlight. (Behram Katiari's book, Revolution in Astronomy, discusses this, as well as the optic problems of our telescopes not being able to see more than 357 light years).

By fixing the scale problem and viewing astronomical objects as a bunch of bubbles making a foam of 3D coordinate zones, the problem fixes itself.

Gopi had mentioned that astrology, the influence of planets and stars on behavior, is always line-of-sight. In order for these things to be line-of-sight, photons must be able to travel between them, so they have to be adjacent bubbles. Anything that isn't adjacent, simply cannot be seen. So we only see things that ARE "line of sight," which explains that.
4 8 15 16 23 42

Post Reply