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
Aran, you'll find the answer to this enigma in Dewy Larson's books. There are sister sites but this is a good place to start.
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):
- the universe is composed entirely of motion, in three euclidean dimensions, and in two aspects - space and time.
- 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 :-)
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, 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.
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)
