It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Discussing the recently appeared science underground papers of "Daniel"

page: 10
74
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by DJW001

That is in fact a very good answer of Dr Satz to the Rational Wiki article.

Perhaps you can explain how motion exists independently of bodies that can move relative to one another?

I can quote from what I have read the last couple of days. But I am far from understanding it.

Larson's First Fundamental Postulate stated in Chapter I of his book The Structure of the Physical Universe is this:

FIRST FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE

The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, space-time, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and in two reciprocal forms, space and time.

In Chapter II he goes on saying:

In beginning an examination of the consequences of the two Fundamental Postulates we note first that they involve a progression of space-time which is similar to the progression of time as it is ordinarily visualized. Let us consider a location A somewhere in space-time. During the next unit of time this location progresses to A + 1 in time and since one unit of time, on the basis of the First Fundamental Postulate, is equivalent to one unit of space the location also progresses to A + 1 in space. When n units of time have elapsed the location has progressed to A + n both in space and in time.

It should be emphasized that this statement does not refer to some object that might happen to occupy the location A; it refers to the location itself. If the hypothetical object has no independent motion of its own it will also be found at location A + n after n units of time, but this does not involve any motion of the object. It remains stationary at the same location in space-time but the location itself moves.

We thus arrive at a concept of the physical universe as being characterized by a continuous process of expansion. Although this idea of the fundamental nature of space-time is new and unfamiliar it should not be difficult to visualize since it is merely an extension of the universally recognized progression of time, and it is also entirely in harmony with the large-scale picture of the universe which has been reached through astronomical observations. As will be brought out in the subsequent discussion, the expansion of the universe deduced by the astronomers from the motions of the distant galaxies is a direct consequence of the progression of space-time itself.

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by jheherrin

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Science has already proven the existence of soul

Source? I see this claim a lot these days and I have no idea where it comes from because there has never been any definitive evidence outside of personal experiences and the completely bogus "soul-weight".

Maybe "proven" goes a little too far? There is the orchestrated objective reduction theory by quantum scientists Hameroff and Penrose that has gotten a considerable media coverage recently:

Huffington Post

edit on 13-11-2012 by consolution because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2012 by consolution because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:51 PM
Some of this material from Danial may be called fourth dimensional material , we may find it difficult to understand if we view it from a third dimensional stand point, lsol

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by consolution

The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, space-time, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and in two reciprocal forms, space and time.

Is it really accpeted that time is a 'thing' or property of the universe, and not a subjective observer measurement? Because that's a fundamental block to my following of anything that follows from that assumption. Time is what we've invented to put things in order, like metric systems or musical notes. Time really just means motion, which is space, it's not an extra to it and can't be claimed as an inherent property, it's OUR reference only.
I'm willing to be wrong through.
Has physics ever isolated time, not just used it as part of its tool-set for looking at things?

Originally posted by Aianawa13
Some of this material from Danial may be called fourth dimensional material , we may find it difficult to understand if we view it from a third dimensional stand point, lsol

What's a fourth-dimensional viewpoint? Where do I go to get there?

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by consolution
I can quote from what I have read the last couple of days. But I am far from understanding it.

The problem is that regardless of whether anyone understands what he says or not, he doesn't back it up with theoretical math or tests. In the end it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
edit on 13-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:27 PM

It should be emphasized that this statement does not refer to some object that might happen to occupy the location A; it refers to the location itself. If the hypothetical object has no independent motion of its own it will also be found at location A + n after n units of time, but this does not involve any motion of the object. It remains stationary at the same location in space-time but the location itself moves.

What if you do not have a fixed frame of reference and you see two objects moving apart? How can you tell whether one of them is really stationary?

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by consolution
I can quote from what I have read the last couple of days. But I am far from understanding it.

The problem is that regardless of whether anyone understands what he says or not, he doesn't back it up with theoretical math or tests. In the end it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
edit on 13-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Well, it is a theory, and as such a very elaborate one. His followers like Dr. Satz provide the maths and as far as I understand Larson has also not been disproven until today.

I think we can wrap up the excurse into Larson's Universe pretty soon. I guess we will not be able to judge if Larson's concept is right or wrong in course of this thread.

All we can say is that is a very interesting theory that may be able to explain many things in a different way, one being the question that Daniel's papers bring up: if it is theoretically possible to travel with Faster-Than-Light speed. According to Larson that is the case.

edit on 13-11-2012 by consolution because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by DJW001

It should be emphasized that this statement does not refer to some object that might happen to occupy the location A; it refers to the location itself. If the hypothetical object has no independent motion of its own it will also be found at location A + n after n units of time, but this does not involve any motion of the object. It remains stationary at the same location in space-time but the location itself moves.

What if you do not have a fixed frame of reference and you see two objects moving apart? How can you tell whether one of them is really stationary?

Again, I am not sure if that answers your question and I can't do much more than quoting Larson. I have no personal experience with physics at that level nor do I understand fully what he says.

But in the already mentioned second chapter of his book which can be read here he states:

A simple explanation is also provided for the observed fact that the velocity of radiation remains constant regardless of the reference system.

Larson then gives an example where the Newtonian system fails:

Let us consider two photons originating at the same point and traveling in opposite directions. Each moves one unit of space in one unit of time. When the first unit of motion is complete the photons are separated by two units of space, and in the Newtonian system the relative velocity is obtained by dividing the increase in separation, two units, by the elapsed time, one unit. The result is a relative velocity of two units. But experiments indicate that if this velocity were measured it would be found to be unit velocity, not two units. The Newtonian system therefore fails at these high velocities.

He explains how Einstein solved the problem by introducing a hypothesis introduced by Lorentz and Fitzgerald, stating that

The highly artificial character of this solution of the problem aroused strong opposition when it was first proposed but it has won general acceptance by default, no reasonable alternative having heretofore appeared to challenge it.

He makes the point by drawing the Reciprocal System conclusion:

But the Postulates of this work specify that each unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time and since the motion involves two different units of space the equivalent units of time are also two separate and distinct units. Therefore when the photons increase their separation by two units of space they also increase their separation by two units of time; that is it takes two units of time to move the photons apart two units in space. The relative velocity is then 2/2 = 1, which is completely in agreement with the observed facts.

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:23 PM

Time really just means motion, which is space

If I am correct then I guess Larson, Satz and all other followers of the Reciprocal Theory would applaud that sentence and sign it, exclaiming that probably no one ever stated it in such easily understandable terms before.

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by consolution
Well, it is a theory, and as such a very elaborate one. His followers like Dr. Satz provide the maths and as far as I understand Larson has also not been disproven until today.

I think we can wrap up the excurse into Larson's Universe pretty soon. I guess we will not be able to judge if Larson's concept is right or wrong in course of this thread.

All we can say is that is a very interesting theory that may be able to explain many things in a different way, one being the question that Daniel's papers bring up: if it is theoretically possible to travel with Faster-Than-Light speed. According to Larson that is the case.

Actually when someone put the theory to the test it failed. You yourself posted that info.

While entertaining the theory is fine, your making it sound like there is truth to the theory before anyone has gotten anything to back it up.

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:39 PM

Where ? , ones mind. Stop thinking for twenty minutes then you will have experienced an aspect of the fourth dimension, another would be when one is madly in love with another , working with ones pineal gland may produce fourth dimensional states, definately certain meditational work may bring fourth dimensional states, Jose Arguelles put it time wise , as ten times less dense that the current framework we work - this dimension, that feels about right , feels is a big part of the fourth dimension and thats sometimes difficult for a logical mind , lsol

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:24 AM

Actually when someone put the theory to the test it failed. You yourself posted that info.

Rational Wiki said that and Dr. Satz refuted it.

While entertaining the theory is fine, your making it sound like there is truth to the theory before anyone has gotten anything to back it up.

It is a vital theory with scientists working on and developing it. It is the nature of theories to be around for a while, being tested and modified. I don't say Faster-Than-Light-Travel is possible or impossible. I am saying accoding to Larson it is possible and I can't judge if Larson theory stands or not.
edit on 14-11-2012 by consolution because: typo

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by consolution

Time really just means motion, which is space

If I am correct then I guess Larson, Satz and all other followers of the Reciprocal Theory would applaud that sentence and sign it, exclaiming that probably no one ever stated it in such easily understandable terms before.

well that was unexpected...

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Aianawa13

Where ? , ones mind. Stop thinking for twenty minutes then you will have experienced an aspect of the fourth dimension, another would be when one is madly in love with another , working with ones pineal gland may produce fourth dimensional states, definately certain meditational work may bring fourth dimensional states, Jose Arguelles put it time wise , as ten times less dense that the current framework we work - this dimension, that feels about right , feels is a big part of the fourth dimension and thats sometimes difficult for a logical mind , lsol

*slightly skeptical hmmm* You mean meditative/altered mind states? I've some experience with those, both internally and externally induced. The thing is, they are rarely functional in any normal, moving around in the world way, they take place within, but don't tranlsate into more functionality in the world of physics or any ability to manipulate anything other than one's internal response to the world.
I can see one being in a 'functioning' meditative state, but it wouldn't necessarily change the laws of nature, just the laws of your mental world.
I dont see why one would call it a fourth dimension, rather than just another way of operating your consciousness?

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:00 AM
4th Dimension could be viewed as "timelessness", or something with no consequence of time. Being able to see and comprehend all states of matter simultaneously, as an example.

Basically, we're in a 3D construct by "default" here on Earth and it takes a bit of mind warping through things that shall not be mentioned on ATS to break through the construct.

So, as far as ATS will let us discuss, we can't.

My suggestion: IF Daniel, and pretty much every other "source" is correct about Ascension, then we won't have to wait long to find out anyway. I'm OK with chilling out for a bit, and just letting things happen or not.

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:20 AM

Originally posted by consolution
Rational Wiki said that and Dr. Satz refuted it.

Refute as in prove it wrong or refute as in had a counter argument without really proving the original claim?

It is a vital theory with scientists working on and developing it. It is the nature of theories to be around for a while, being tested and modified. I don't say Faster-Than-Light-Travel is possible or impossible. I am saying accoding to Larson it is possible and I can't judge if Larson theory stands or not.

Einstein's theory of general relativity was published in 1916 and, while it seems to be incomplete, was the base for practical applications not too long after its publication. RST on the other hand has been around for 60 years and I have not heard of anything arising from it, other than these rumored highly secret government projects. Just because most of us can't judge or do anything with it doesn't mean that there are not people who could come up with some practical application. It doesn't have to be FTL.

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by consolution
Rational Wiki said that and Dr. Satz refuted it.

Refute as in prove it wrong or refute as in had a counter argument without really proving the original claim?

It is a vital theory with scientists working on and developing it. It is the nature of theories to be around for a while, being tested and modified. I don't say Faster-Than-Light-Travel is possible or impossible. I am saying accoding to Larson it is possible and I can't judge if Larson theory stands or not.

Einstein's theory of general relativity was published in 1916 and, while it seems to be incomplete, was the base for practical applications not too long after its publication. RST on the other hand has been around for 60 years and I have not heard of anything arising from it, other than these rumored highly secret government projects. Just because most of us can't judge or do anything with it doesn't mean that there are not people who could come up with some practical application. It doesn't have to be FTL.

I'm not an expert in this field by any means but I will say that what I read regarding capacitors and the math relative to the actual test results sounds like RS has it correct. It has long been an issue, in the world of electronics, mainly for me audio electronics. The "ideal" never seems to match up to the reality. Which is why trial-and-error actually was more important. For instance, while building a crossover network for a pre-amplified signal, things like phase shift and actual frequencies attenuated are not what they should be, aoccording to the raw math. It is "ballpark". Yet from what I read, the RS tests on these subjects prove out, accurate.

It is fascinating.

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:36 PM

Yet no one has thought of applying RS to electronics design or anything else, even though it has existed for half a century. Before anyone blames mainstream science let's not forget that Tesla proposed and built an AC system in a time when DC was the norm. So, if something really works and works even better then what is in use, why would businesses opt for "ballpark" tech?

edit on 14-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:25 PM
I can't tell you why people don't use it but from what I read, it is accurate.

Electrical Engineers are a strange bunch. I know a lot of EE's, and some are real assholes who think they are the expert of every field of electronics, and can't be talked to about it. For instance, talking with them about speakers and using unique coil designs like XBL^2, or an LMS coil... or heaven forbid something else new. Yet the Klippel measuring machine proves these technologies out. Only a select few builders of speakers bother with these latest ideas, but they are proven to work.

I see RS in a similar bind. No funding, goes against traditional science, really operating like Galileo or Kozyrev on the fringe, but yet the math works out and the system resolves out just fine, and with a grace that quantum mechanics simply can't match. Tesla fought the mainstream and in some ways lost, other ways totally kicked it out of the park. Each discovery has its day though. Hell, I don't see many Tesla turbines running yet they are efficient, simple, and really great designs.

People talking about dark energy and dark mass... really? Sounds like making stuff up to me. Compare that with the simplicity and dare I say beauty of the reciprocal system, which much how every action has an equal and opposite one and how every light creates shadow, and the yin/yang system etc., they all embrace their counterpart.

Larsonian physics may get retribution once a few more secrets are spilt at the high levels of government. Might be a while but who knows. Things are changing quickly these days.
edit on 14-11-2012 by fourthmeal because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:27 PM

Drugs are not needed but may be helpfullll, if time was ten times less dense then i feel that operating fourth dimensionally includes our/this dimension also and adds a fifth dimensional aspect/connection as well, using the logical mind instead of being used by it is a great start point imo , lsol

top topics

74