Dear Nehru,
I think I’m starting to understand your system. Questions follow.
Possible Motions in TR and TSRs
Rotation Max
Min
Linear Max
Min
TR

1 RNAT
1 LNAT
0
TSR
1 RNAT
0

1 LNAT
1. Since the maximum linear motion in the Time Region is 1 unit, how can you have a bilinear motion, as shown in your Photon PPT attachment, which has 2 units in the same
dimension? (I may be confusing one scalar unit being represented as a bi-vector in
coordinate time.) If the max linear motion applies per dimension, I assume the sequence
follows 1d=2, 2d=4, 3d=8 (not 6), 4d=16? Can you have linear motion in all 4
dimensions within the Time Region?
2. For the photon, does the rotation of a1-b1 and a2-b2 constitute the two “halves” of the
bi-rotation concept you presented (with resultant phenomena)?
3. When reading your article on wave mechanics, I inferred from the section “The Region
of One-Dimensional Motion” that the “c” rotation was too large to exist in the Nuclear
Zone (4.45x10-9 cm), and therefore must have its motion in the Atomic Zone (“…as far
as the one-dimensional type of rotation is concerned, to be part of the atomic
structure…”), but your “Tentative Identification” spreadsheet shows it in the Nuclear
Zone.
This confuses me… I would think that the “c” rotation would be in the atomic zone,
where passing electrons/c-positrons could then interact more directly with the nuclear
zone thru the “c” rotation, accounting for observed energy levels.
4. In your original email, you stated:
“(6) … The Photon is a line element of two LNAT length: appearing as a point
particle since the length is in the direction of travel.”
From Larson’s material, I understood that the photon was fixed at an absolute location
and did not “travel” in any direction; it was just carried by the progression of the natural
reference system. Also, since only the net motion of the Time Region is manifest in the
Time-Space region as a scalar magnitude only, how can there be any correlation between
the temporal axes of the Time Region with the direction of travel that the NRS carries the
photon? Wouldn’t the mere fact that the rotations have zero radii be enough to define it as
a point particle?
Time Region Speeds – 2
Larson’s notational system has been a big problem with my attempts to develop a
computer model because of the difficulties you site. What I ended up doing was to
remove all the “negative” (spatial) displacements, and just use the positive values for all
the elements, hence Fluorine, 2-2-(1) was represented in the computer as 2-1-7. I created
a function to convert these to Larson’s notational system for display purposes only.
I’ve been aware of the secret that a-b-c represents inverse speed for some time… that was
one of the first things that came out when I tried to model the motion, and everything
came out the inverse of what it was supposed to be. I agree with your assumption that
Larson picked the representation to account for the low speed range.
I agree we need a more representative notational system.
On to more questions…
5. Concerning the underscore notation, for the “c” rotation it would make sense that the
rotation is NOT spatial or temporal, but rotational direction or polarity. This would clear
up a lot of the conceptual difficulties in the electrical phenomena area. But I do not
follow this conclusion:
“Similarly the RB and the cosmic RB are respectively 1-0-0 and 1-0-0.”
Since you kept the parenthesis concept in your example of c-Cobalt, I was assuming that
this might represent the concepts of “north” and “south”, in regards to the magnetic
rotational direction – both temporal, and not the difference between temporal and spatial
motion. I would think that the cosmic rotational base would be (1)-0-0 and (1)-0-0.
Time Region Speeds – 3
I think I am clear on the spin and angular momentum now. If I understand the atomic and
nuclear zone concept, it would be graphically depicted thus:
Unit Boundary
Atomic Zone
Nuclear Zone
Time Region Zones
6. Based on the scattering experiments, would not this be the “equivalent space” view of
the Time Region, and the actual view look more like the picture of the Anu (ultimate
physical atom) you presented on ISUS-Discuss, where the atomic zone would be in the
center, and the nuclear zone near the unit boundary (the inverse of the “nuclear atom”
image)?
It would seem to me that since motion in the Time-Space Region starts with 1 and
proceeds outwards towards infinity, that motion in the Time Region would start with 1
(unit boundary) and proceed inwards towards infinity, thus having the nuclear zone look
more like a hollow sphere, than a small, solid sphere at the center.
7. I am assuming that the interaction of particles (electrons, electron neutrinos, etc.)
“passing thru” the atom with net spatial motion all take place in the atomic zone, and that
particles with a net temporal motion interact in the nuclear zone, and add to the
compound rotation?
8. Consider that in the Time-Space Region, “rotation” does not really exist on its own,
but only occurs thru interaction with other motions. I think you brought this out in your
chart of min/max motion. If this is the case, then the natural conclusion of: “in the Time
Region, linear motion does not exist on its own, but only occurs thru interaction with
other motions.” Would you agree with this?
9. Since speed in the Time Region is defined as 1/t2, then would not all linear motion in
the Time Region be observed as accelerated motion?
10. Are the rotations and linear motion in the Time Region “imaginary” numbers, as we
would view it from the Time-Space Region? This would seem to be the case, both with
the quaternion representation, and the electrical concepts of inductance and capacitance.
I have also run up a rough computer model of possible rotational combinations, based on
your ideas. I have added the output to “Sheet 2” of your Excel spreadsheet for you to
examine, with more tentative identifications and some notes.
I think you are really on to something here. It is starting to make a lot more sense than
Larson’s original model.
Bruce