Non-spatial movement

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

The non-spatial moves relative to the spatial. Let me explain how, first in equation and secondly in a manner anyone can grasp. If not it’s because I’m not finding the suitable words.

The spacetime interval is given as-
(x1)^2+(x1)^2+(x1)^2-(x4)^2=s^2 where x4=ct
Take the derivative of both sided with respect to time and we get-
d(x4)/dt = d(ct)/dt=c
Therefore d(x4)/dt =c

The only way to stay stationary in the spatial is to travel at the velocity c through the non-spatial. The only way to stay stationary in the non-spatial is to travel at the velocity of c in the spatial.
The rotation into the non-spatial is always accompanied by an increased velocity in the spatial.

All moving objects appear shortened in the direction they are moving because in order to propagate in the spatial the object must be be partially rotated in the non-spatial.
Rotate an object out of the spatial and into the non-spatial and it will gain velocity. Pure energy, moving at c, is trapped in the non-spatial.
So e=mc^2 means the non-spatial is moving relative to the spatial.

This ‘unfreezes’ time, where GR ‘freezes’ it. The main difference between quantum mechanics and GR is that quantum mechanics see time as a dynamic variable, a result of the non-spatials movement relative to the spatial. This also solves spooky-action-at-a-distance.

The environment we exist in is due to the separation of us and the non-spatial, speed-wise. The non-spatial is connected to us, it’s our source. The motion it imparts is why we are what we are. It’s why we have the environment we do. All matter has it’s ideal environment because all matter is a speed and such speed requires such an environment.
As our speed changes, so does our environment.

This dual motion provides an environment that is without paradox, without limits, without shape and perpetual.
No one will ever find the ‘edge’ of the Universe. As our matter changes we will experience the ‘speeds’ of the Universe, never reaching infinity; the unreachable speed.

2

Kind of a weak anthropic principle, eh?

Firstly, this equation:

I take it you mean:

(x1)^2+(x2)^2+(x3)^2-(x4)^2=s^2 where x4=ct

yes?

So I’ve been doing the math and found a strange way to get to your equation. I don’t understand the purpose of squaring everything…I got to:

x + y + z - ct = s

Which to me just says there’s a place in another domain (the flat Minkowski spacetime?) that corresponds to a place in real spacetime…like a transform of sorts. I don’t know because I really don’t know where ds^2 comes from in equation (6). I’d like to see that proof.

Anyway, taking the derivative of this equation leads to:

dx/dt + dy/dt + dx/dt - c = ds/dt

c = [dx + dy + dz - ds]/dt

Restricting it to a single direction in the ‘spatial’:

c = dx/dt - ds/dt

I wonder why ds/dt is negative…well anyway, I see what you’re saying about the spatial and non-spatial. The ‘spatial’ draws from the ‘non-spatial’ speed bank, so to speak, or vice versa. Is this what you mean by ‘rotation’ and if not, how does the energy of spinning particles factor in to the equation? Also, couldn’t you say E=mc^2 means the spatial is moving relative to the non-spatial?

Remaining questions:

Why does this make infinity a speed? I’m sorry, but you still haven’t explained it. It looks like a limit to me. A limit is something we can measure but can’t reach, but infinity is unmeasurable and unreachable. If you still say it’s an infinity because it’s unreachable, fine.

EGR sees time as a dynamic variable…the equation off which He’s basing his theory is the same that EGR comes from, and EGR predicts time dilation. What is time dilation if not taking time as a dynamic variable?

The paper doesn’t explicitly say why singularities are impossible. Why?

How does FGR address the cosmic background radiation?

Of what exactly is the non-spatial composed? A big bank of light?

3

thats all true except as anthem points out it shud be x1 x2 and x3. It’s just the invariant interval for SR. So theres no difference.

Are you assuming that c is not constant? If so how does it vary?

Bad maths I’m afraid anthem. I would expect better from you! you can’t just square each term and get that result.

stationary in the spatial so dx1=dx2=dx3= 0

ds^2=-(cdt)^2

ds=-cdt

dt/ds=-c

4

You’re right, but that’s not how I did it. Unfortunately I can’t remember it right now, let me try to work it out.

5

Oh, I know what I was doing wrong. I was doing something funky with double partial integrals, but you only take the integral once to get to his equation. Ok. Well, disregard most of that last post until I have time to think about it.

6

Its just pythagoras theorem in flat space time. What are you doing with double partial integrals.

s^2= x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (Ct)^2

Is the most basic equation of SR. Its not musculars equation.

oh yeah

You didn’t take the derivative of both sides at all muscular! wheres the derivative of ds^2??? oh you did the derivative of x4=ct.

I’ll do it instead

2dx/dt x + 2dy/dt y + 2 dz/dt z + 2 c^2 t = 2 ds/dt s

so
rdotv+ c^2 t = ds/dt s

blah

not sure what that shows…

but any how haven’t you assumed c to be constant when you say.

d(ct)/dt=c

I thought you said that c can vary?

so dx4/dt = c + t dc/dt ???

7

^^ Actually, now you’re wrong :laughing:

Read the He paper. He goes from:

dx/dt = c

dx^2 - cdt^2 = 0

dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 -cdt^2 = ds^2

Then Most Muscular’s is obtained by taking the partial integrals:

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 = s^2

My issue? I was thinking dx^2/dt^2 was the same thing as d^2x/dt^2 #-o [-X It’s been a while on the formal math classes for me :slight_smile:

8

I’m an insect amongst gods, so I’ll keep this short. I’m trying to wrap around this- motion is not in any single place, but it . . . spills, into space-time as it rotates?

9

Don’t worry yo, I’m still trying to wrap my head around it too!

He said something about rotation, but I don’t know if that’s a metaphor or reality or both.

Disregarding the bad math, I still have the same questions:

Why does this make infinity a speed? I’m sorry, but you still haven’t explained it. It looks like a limit to me. A limit is something we can measure but can’t reach, but infinity is unmeasurable and unreachable. If you still say it’s an infinity because it’s unreachable, fine.

EGR sees time as a dynamic variable…the equation off which He’s basing his theory is the same that EGR comes from, and EGR predicts time dilation. What is time dilation if not taking time as a dynamic variable?

The paper doesn’t explicitly say why singularities are impossible. Why?

How does FGR address the cosmic background radiation?

Of what exactly is the non-spatial composed? A big bank of light?

10

Background radiation is explained best by Lyndon Ashmore-www.lyndonashmore.com
I’m not trying to avoid the issue it’s just that Mr Ashmore has made that his premier issue.

Photon rotation is the ‘crest to crest’ jumping that we find in photographic plate tests. The photon is riding the literal waves of ‘matter’, catching the soliton crest. In other words, the photon is partially dipped in the non-spatial. Matter is waves and the waves are speed. The speed depends on how much photon interaction there is. If the photon were to catch the entire wave, it would be 100% in the spatial.

Pretend you are the electron and a table is the non-spatial. You tap your fingers to the photon (the connection to the non-spatial). The faster you tap, the more you connect with the non-spatial. The more you connect with the non-spatial, the more you are non-spatial and the faster and smaller reality (the spatial) is to you.

Einstein did not see that macroscopic objects-rests-masses- never enter the non-spatial deeper than the Planck length. This is why the past and future do not exist. The next step in this, had he known this, would to understand the non-spatial movng relative to the spatial.

Infinity is a speed because everything in the spatial is in motion and therefore has a speed. Everything is a speed. Infinity is the other end of the infinitesimal. Both are changing limits, if that makes sense, because we are changing.
The non-spatial is non-compositional but not anti-compositional.

11

Muscular,

this is just the special relativity interval. How is the non-spatial theory any different from SR? I thought that c wasn’t constant acording to your theories? Please explain…

12

It’s much different, the non-spatial itself moves. Time is not the dimension, dx4/dt=c. Time arises from the propagation of photons.
Rate of c is constant in the non-spatial.
This is how motion is increased, the rotation gets a boost by the non-spatials movment, not the spatials movement.

The difference here is defining what time is. Up to this point, perpetualty agrees SOMEWHAT with GR and SR…but the turn away is soon to come :slight_smile:

Once perpetual time is understood, the congruent cycles of reality can follow and how c is not constant in reality.