# Talk:Sacred geometry

Hi Nassim,

I really loved your Event Horizon documentary! it really helped me to understand how the sacred geometry principles logically tie in with the modern physics way of viewing the universe.

I recently heard David Wilcock talking about these things and he also mentioned the fundamental nature of the star tetrahedron and cubeoctahedron structures, but he also mentioned something else which I found really interesting and wondered if you had any insights about that you could share.

He said that the only viable dimensionalities of the universe are 3 space + 1 time dimension or 1 space + 3 time and that all others are unstable and can't support any kind of life or perception.

I looked this up and there seems to be a fair bit of support for this for example: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

David also said that both 3 + 1 and 1 + 3 exist and they're called space-time and time-space respectively. He said that going through a wormhole from spacetime takes you into timespace, and that timespace is the inside of the spacetime manifold, that things in particle form are in spacetime, but when in wave-form they're in timespace.

Anyway I don't know if this is maybe a bit far out, but if you have any info regarding this I'd love to hear from you about it.

Thanks a lot :-) Aran

## Reciprocal System of Theory

Ra was pleased that Dr. Elkins was familiar with the work of physicist Dewey Larson, who proposed that space and time were in a reciprocal relationship - meaning that for every dimension of space, there was a corresponding dimension of time. They also mentioned that there was a lot more to understand than what Larson had come up with, but that it was a good start.

Aran, you'll find the answer to this enigma in Dewey Larson's books. There are sister sites but this is a good place to start.

RS-101: Space, Time and Motion (video presentation by Gopi Krishna)

I would start with one of the following books, which are available online:

• New Light on Space and Time
• The Neglected Facts of Science
• The Structure of The Physical Universe

The essential ideas come in the form of his fundamental postulates (summarized):

1. the universe is composed entirely of motion, in three euclidean dimensions, and in two aspects - space and time.
2. space and time have no independent existence and are merely two reciprocal, discrete, geometric aspects of motion - that is, one is the three-dimensional inverse of the other, however only one aspect is observable as 3D, while the other is observed as a scalar, i.e. it has only magnitude in our frame of reference; it is only contraction and expansion.

What I believe is missing from RST is the notion of fractality, which wasn't discovered when he expressed his postulates. Few members of the RST group have seriously considered its implications (leading to an impasse in developing the theory IMHO). Also in debate is the nature of the "fundamental motion" - linear vibration, sine wave, or rotation. I believe the answer is helical - or more precisely, helicola (fractal helix).

Also, I believe Larson's denial of curved space, and thus, black holes, is not contradictory to Nassim's concept of singularity - it seems to me the nexus between spacetime and timespace IS that singularity.

The discrete unit displacement of the spacial or temporal aspects of motion are hard to grasp until one gets familiar with the notion of a system of only rational numbers in which zero does not exist, and in which the natural datum is unity - the speed of light. It might at first seem that this discrete nature of the geometry contradicts the notion of singularity but I believe that when fractality is introduced, reciprocity opens an infinity within the infinitesimal unity.

I have long wished to unify Nassim's and Larson's ideas as I see them as complementary. If you have contact with Nassim, I hope it can be impressed upon him to check out Larson's books.

PS. One of my favorite researchers in the RST group, Douglas Bundy, has observed that higher-dimensional spaces must collapse into a stable 3D space in obedience to what is known as the Bott Periodicity. It's too difficult for me to access via my android, but you'll find it in the forum.

Thanks a lot those book sounds excellent, I'll start reading them now :-)

http://rs2theory.org/research/postulates is a good place to get some clarification of areas of difficulty vis-a-vis the fundamental postulates. I have not read the entire site, but I am familliar with Bruce Peret's thoughts on RST, and he is one of the great innovative thinkers on the topic.

### Speed of Gravity

I'll try to expound on this a bit, as best I can.

According to Relativity, there is no absolute rest - which is equivalent to saying there is no absolute velocity. Thus, there is also no absolute position (which would require a central reference point, or origin). The big bang theory, imposes a frame of reference that presumes a center of the universe. But we do not observe galaxies receding from a central point. Each is moving away from every other, or equivalently, every other is moving away from each. This is inherently a 3D scalar motion. From our point of view, it appears that all galaxies beyond a certain distance (I exclude Saggitarius, which is merging with the Milky Way and thus, within that "certain distance") - are receding from us. We can assume that we are at the center of the universe, or we can discard the necessity for a center and accept that this observable is the result of our imposing a frame of reference with us at the center of that FoR.

My favorite thought experiment makes this simple to understand.

Suppose I look to the east and observe a distant Galaxy A, and by the usual means, determine that we are mutually receding at a velocity of 80% the speed of light (this would make it a radio galaxy from our POV). It makes no difference whether I say that we, M, (in the MWG) are receding from A at .8c, or that A is receding from M at .8c. The two statements are equivalent; Einstein would agree so far. And everyone agrees that there is no violation of the presumed speed limit.

Now supose that I look to the west and observe another distant Galaxy B, in the opposite direction, and receding at 70% the speed of light. So far, there is no violation of logic or the presumed speed limit. But what is the the velocity of A relative to B? Logically, according to the Galilean Theorem of Addition of Velocities, it must be 150% the speed of light, from the perspecive of A or equivalently, B. Neither A nor B are violating the speed of light, because this judgement depends entirely upon what frame of reference with respect to which you measure the relative velocity. (See: Ardeshir Mehta's Einstein's Twin Paradox Revisited)

But because the relative speed of recession exceeds the speed of light, A is invisible to B (and vice-versa) because the radio waves of A will never reach the other observer, B. This is due to the culmulative effect of the expansion of space (the progression). It is not really much different than the idea of inflation, which had to be invented because it as been observed that the expansion of the universe is measured to be accelerating, but the math is complicated if you insist on there being a central point of origin by imposing a frame of reference. But by definition, any galaxy that is more distant from us must be receding at a faster rate than those nearer to us.

Einstein's genious was dismissing certain absolutes. We must also dismiss the idea of absolute location, i.e. a center. The fact that there appears to be a size limit to the observable universe is for the same reason that A and B cannot see each other. Accordingly, this limitation of the visible part of the universe does not necessarily imply there is a center. We are in the center of our point of observation. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that there was a big bang, or point of origin.

Thus, Larson's model is better described as a version of the steady state theory, but this model is one of an universe of inifinite size, having no beginning, no big bang. Also, his explanation for the CMB also presents an alternative to the presumption that it is evidence of the big bang.

In the RST space expands in all directions at the speed of light, which carries with it, certain particles (photons) that have no component of motion that can resist this expansion. We measure them escape our point of observation at the speed of light. But with respect to the 'unit' of space a photon occupies, it is at rest (not zero, but unity). However, particles with the property of mass, have a scalar component of motion that opposes this expansion, thus producing the effect we call gravity. In RST, gravity is not a force - there are no gravitons, and no gravity waves. Thus, the inward accelleration we call gravity has no absolute speed; it is relative to the two bodies of mass we choose as a reference. It is not transmitted; it is simply a property of matter that resists the outward scalar expansion (progression) of space.

The cumulative effect of this inward motion is counterbalanced by the progression at a certain radius. This is at the galactic scale. Thus, what matter is within that radius contracts toward a center of mass. That mass outside of the galactic radius has an escape velocity, and we observe the inverse of gravitation - the recession of galaxies.

When I was 14 I wracked my brains reading all about non-euclidean geometry, hypercubes, flatland and so on. While it is possible to treat the idea of curved space mathematically, it is impossible to visualize. I think the reason for this, is that it is, simply, impossibly illogical. We are not familiar with the idea of scalar motion simply because we do not experience it in our daily lives. But astronomers have been telling us about it for decades. It's easy to visualize because we do find it in our expanded view of reality, and thus it is not nearly as hard to accept as curved space.

HTH.--Infomaniac 08:18, 6 September 2010 (NZST)

Thanks that helps, but there's something I'm just not getting still, for me curved space is very simple; the idea of our 3D space being a manifold on a 4-sphere is the only way I can comprehend the scalar expansion that doesn't also imply a centre. If the 3D space is flat, then expansion reversed in time would lead all matter to a single point. I'll keep at it until I get where he's coming from though as I can see he's definitely got something here, thanks for the intro to it :-) --nad 13:11, 6 September 2010 (NZST)
p.s. what I mean by "simple" is not that I can visualise in higher than 3-space, I mean that I could easily program and render a 3-space which was the surface of a 4-sphere, the radius of which is the scalar expansion and would cause all the points in the 3-surface to move apart from all others without any location in that 3-space being more special than any other. But I'm very far from understanding the situation of scalar expansion in flat 3-space such that I could program it (in a way that did not yield a special central point when reversing the expansion). --nad 13:48, 6 September 2010 (NZST)

### Scalar Motion

I'll try to expand on this. Pun intendended.

First of all, I'll have to repeat one of Larson's postulates: the universe is composed entirely of MOTION. The necessary consequence of this is that, space, as such, does not exist in RST, nor does time. The concept of space arises when we impose a 3D geometry upon an object in motion as a reference. But it is only a mental construct, and not a real entity. The direction an object is moving is completely dependent on what other object we use as a reference. The Earth does not travel in an elliptical orbit around the sun unless we only consider the Sun. But it is clear our solar system is orbiting another distant mass, possibly a neutron star. So the Earth is moving in a spiral. But this stellar group is moving around the galaxy, so the Earth is moving in a spiral within a spiral. But our galaxy is moving around some greater center of mass, so the earth is moving in a spiral within a spiral within a spiral.

The classical equation for velocity,

v = s/t - or more precisely: $v = \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t}$

defines motion as a change of distance per change of time. Therefore, one cannot speak of motion in space, or motion in time. Nothing moves without a change of position of both space and time.

From high school physics, we also learn the principle of conservation of units and, consequently, conservation of dimension (of units).

The type of velocity we are most familiar with is a linear vector in 3D geometry. When doing so, we treat s, the spacial aspect of the motion, as a linear (1D) magnitude with a direction in the 3D geometry, imposing an arbitrary frame of reference with an arbitrary orgin. And we treat t, the temporal aspect as one-dimensional as well. But it is not one-dimensional, as we will see.

A scalar motion has no vectorial direction in 3-space, other than inward or outward with respect to its own center. This center is also imposed when we project the scalar motion into a 3D spacial geometry. The center of the scalar motion only exists with respect to the scalar motion. But any other scalar motion has its own center independent of all others. Not one makes a center of the universe, and when it does, it is only because we arbitrarily choose it as such when we impose our 3D geometry upon it - in effect, nailing it down in our minds.

In RST, a unit of scalar motion is represented as s/t, or better (as the numerator/denominator notation implies a hierarchy that is not desirable in this system), s:t as the natural progression, 1:1 - representing the natural progression as follows:

1:1, 2:2, 3:3 ... (0:0 is undefined, as it represents no motion, or absolute rest, which do not exist)

As Larson explains, the conservation of unit and dimension requires us to observe when considering the two geometric aspects of motion, that, as we know the spacial aspect is three-dimensional, s/t implies that the temporal aspect is also three-dimensional, and, as we know that time progresses (expands), s/t implies that space also progresses. However, they naturally offset one another, one being the inverse of the other.

But s and t here are 3-dimensional, so a better notation might be:

$s^3 : t^3$

This is a system of geometry of space and inverse-space, which we call space-time, but as this notation brings with it certain baggage, I prefer to use the notation space:time, to differentiate two very different concepts. Symmetry of dimension requires that the two aspects are congruent. It makes no difference whether we call this system time:space or space:time, as the two aspects of this geometry are equivalent, except that each is the inverse, or geometric complement of the other. (I believe the proper term is dual, but this is usually used in the context of more familliar geometries.) Since we think of ourselves as exising in space, our point of view is in space:time, which Larson terms the material sector. The inverse of the material sector in the universe of motion, time:space, is not easily observable to us, but necessarily exists (I like to call it the Underverse - from Dune). Larson calls it the cosmic sector.

It is necessary to notice that in any arbitrary unit of the progression, the increments of s^3 and t^3 offset each other and reduce to 1:1. We percieve these as empty space, but the only thing observable is the offset in distace between two objects considered (galaxies, or photons). The empty space does not exist; it is only a mental construct of our invention.

I have heard this explained by someone (Doug Bundy, I believe) that when we observe a distance between two objects, we are really only observing the historical motion of each with respect to the other. It's kind of a Zen thing, but it helps me get a grip on it.

### the conveyor belt

A model that also helps me with the idea of the progression is the notion of an infinite conveyer belt. This model simplifies the 3D space into a convenient 1D space. The conveyer belt is elastic, and expands away (at a speed of 1, the velocity of light) from my location in front of me. It is not very unlike the expanding balloon model.

An observer not, on my location on this belt sees me move away as the belt progresses. If I dribble a basketball, from my point of view, it remains with me, moving up and down - a simple linear vibration. But the obsverver sees the ball differently - it moves away in a sine wave. This exemplifies a photon being carried away by the progression of space - that is, radiation at the speed of light. However, it is at rest with respect to its location, or unit of space. I use the term location very loosely, bearing in mind, that absolute space does not exist in this model.

#### gravitation

If, however, I impart a rotational component to the ball's motion - put some english on it, the behavior is different. A reverse spin causes it to oppose the progression, displacing its motion with respect to the progression. This illustrates ordinary matter, having the additional property of mass, and the motion is gravitation - the inverse of radiation. This displacement results in motion at sub-luminal velocities.

A third possible state, is the case where I impart a forward spin on the ball. This offsets the object's velocity in such a way that from my point of view, it is moving at a superluminal speed, thus ceasing to be observable in the material sector. In fact, such an object is not even stable in the material sector, and naturally exists in the cosmic sector, and being the inverse counterpart to matter, is not violating the speed of light with respect to the cosmic sector. In our sector, we call this anti-matter, but in that sector, it is ordinary matter - but the inverse of our matter in terms of s:t. Only when antimatter interacts with our sector does it degrade into a stable form of matter, resulting in the neutralization of those components of its motion that cannot exist here. When antimatter enters the material sector, The destruction of its previous form appears to us to come from all directions - seemingly out of nowhere; we call this cosmic radiation, and this is, according to RST, the phenomenon we observe as the CBR.

### Nassim's singularity

A point that helps illustrate the absence of a center, is even Nassim's concept in which everything, has at its center a singularity. Within each singularity is an inverse space that is infinite. In his model as well, our ordinary concept of space does not apply, but where I believe he visualizes space as curved, Larson visualizes it as an inverse space. Every singularity is the center of an infinite universe. But the boundary, or event-horizon, is the nexus between two inverse spaces. In RST, this boundary is crossed as a function of velocity; it has no definition in terms of space.

### fractal geometry

In fractal geometry, also there is no center. Distance is only defined as a construction process (progression) between two objects. The angles involved define the fractional 'dimension' of the construction, but the very nature of the construction process only concerns the immediate antecedents of the process... 3D coordinates play no part other than our representation of the construction on a cartisian coordinate system. The notion of cartesion space does not apply in fractal space, nor even the concept of integral dimensions. I think there is something very important to be learned here. Perhaps it is time for us to free ourselves from the constraint of thinking only in terms of 1D, 2D, 3D, etc. when thinking about space and time.

I believe that I read in B. Fuller's books that a soap bubble does not calulate pi. The construction process of the bubble does not consider a radius or circumference. The only thing that is involved is the spatial relationship between two or three molecules. If the primary objects of a soap bubble are triangles and each facet or vertex of the geodesic is a holon of the whole system, what does that say about the nature of a soap bubble? It is a fractal polyhedron, not a sphere. But is is a polyhedron that has no natural center or origin. I think this helps when trying to fathom ideas of curved space, or universal centers.