KHTK AXIOM #3: Space-time

motion2

January 1, 2014: This essay is superseded by KHTK Axioms

.

[Reference: KHTK AXIOM #2: Awareness]

.

KHTK Axiom #3: Awareness of motion is composed of space and time.

  1. Motion comes into awareness with an object appearing at a distance, approaching, passing, and then moving away to disappear in the distance.

  2. The varying distance defines the dimension of this motion.

  3. The motion stays in awareness from the moment the object appears till the moment it disappears.

  4. The continuation of motion defines its duration.

  5. Dimension of motion, such as, the varying distance brings about the experience of space.

  6. Duration of motion, such as, the period of varying distance brings about the experience of time.

.

[For further details, please see: KHTK Research]

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On October 6, 2013 at 6:31 AM

    The fundamental of life is uniform motion. Uniform motion is awareness changing at a uniform rate.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 6, 2013 at 6:33 AM

    Could the electromagnetic wave be the fundamental form of communicating awareness?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM

      That seems quite plausible to me. EM so far seems to be the basic form of disturbance in space-time. But wait! Wait for a deeper look into space-time and we will begin to understand more.

  • vinaire  On October 8, 2013 at 6:16 PM

    There are individual beings and I am not denying individuality, but I don’t think that individuality is the ultimate truth as believed in Scientology. Scientology is an American phenonemon that has gained traction in the western world, and in other parts of the world where western culture has taken hold.

    I question this premise of Scientology and of the western culture that individuality is the highest value and that individualism is the way to go. In my opinion extreme individualism is the road to disaster, the same way that extreme socialism is a road to disaster. America is almost crossing the line toward extreme individualism.

    Anyway, I am looking scientifically at the basis of awareness. Sooner or later it will lead me to an unserstanding of individuality and individualism.

    It appears that awareness is directly related to motion. When there is no motion there is no awareness. A person may feel internal awareness even when there is no motion apparently. But if there is internal awareness then there would always be internal motion there.

    What is the nature of internal motion? We may sense it in terms of confusion and racing of the mind. So this internal motion is real. How can it be worked out in terms of nerves, elctrical impulses, molecules, atoms, electrons, photons and electromagnetic waves, etc. is a good question. There is also the reality of patterns, which are not concrete but are abstract. Here we can have motion of patterns. This we see in computer programming.

    The future is going to be in terms of the understanding of awareness. Motion is the vital link here. I see motion being a more fundamental reality than space and time. It is motion that is being expressed in terms of space and time.

    Here’s to a better understanding of awareness on a more scientific basis!
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 8, 2013 at 9:01 PM

      Vin: When there is no motion there is no awareness.

      Chris: And we are learning that since there is motion everywhere, there is awareness everywhere. Where there is uniform motion, there is uniform awareness. Possibly uniform awareness needs the counterpoint of a disturbance in order for consciousness to arise.

  • vinaire  On October 11, 2013 at 7:34 AM

    Motion is made up of a concatenation of changes. Maybe the Planck time and length refers to an “atom” of change.

    This atom of change is also the atom of space-time.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 8:56 AM

    (1) It is impossible to have a frame of reference attached to nothing in space and call it absolute.

    (2) Such an absolute frame of reference would be of an “intellectual” type. It would essentially be an arbitrary frame of reference.

    (3) A natural frame of reference may be situated at the center of a field of awareness.

    (4) The natural center of awareness for a distribution of awareness in space may be determined in the same manner that the center of mass is determined for a distribution of mass in space.

    (5) The center of awareness would be a unique point where the weighted relative position of the distributed awareness sums to zero.

    (6) The distribution of awareness is balanced around the center of awareness and the average of the weighted position coordinates of the distributed awareness defines its coordinates.

    (7) Awareness at a location in space may be defined in terms of the degree of attention fixed there.

    (8) When studying astronomy, the degree of attention is fixed the most on earth, then on the sun and moon, then on the planets, and then on the background of the cosmos.

    (9) The attention is fixed most on earth because the relative motion of the human body in relation to the earth is the maximum .

    (10) Similarly, location of the center of awareness may be located in the human body in terms of the degree of attention fixed on various parts of the body.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM

    The amount of awareness of a system is a function of the total relative motion in a system.

    Attention would a narrower focus of that awareness on a part of that system.

    This needs to be worked out in more detail.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    Relative motion would be the velocity of one particle with respect to another particle. Relative motion of a system of particles shall be the vector sum of the velocities of all particles with respect to any one of those particles.

    The relative motion of a system of particles shall determine the awareness of that system of particles. These particles could be physical or abstract. Abstract particles shall be the patterns among physical particles. These patterns could be fixed or changing in themselves.

    The degrees of derivatives in calculus may be applied to the degrees of abstractions, where a number of abstractions may have an underlying abstraction, and so on to nth degree of abstraction.

    Awareness shall be a sum total of all these degrees of relative motions.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM

    The center of awareness of a system of particles could be that nth degree of abstraction, which is relatively unchanging.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    The fixed patterns may be fixed in themselves, but ,as a whole, they may have some relative motion with respect to the center of awareness.

    The fixed pattern itself shall have no awareness because it has no relative motion. However, by virtue of its relative motion to the center of awareness, there shall be some awareness.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 11:26 AM

    The concept of abstraction is nothing new. We perceive it through our mind as we gain more experience. As a child we saw three cups, three plates and three spoons through our physical senses. As we grew up we could then also perceive the underlying abstraction of three.

    Abstraction is the awareness of the patterns underlying concrete reality. Mathematics deals in abstraction, and so does the subject of Logic. Scientific principles are also abstractions. When we are thinking deeply, we are looking into the abstraction of concrete reality. See

    https://vinaire.me/2013/08/01/khtk-model-of-universe/

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM

    Einstein wrote: “If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c, I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing…”

    Does light have a wavefront? If one rides with light on that wavefront, would the awareness be frozen? Actually, there would be no relative motion between the observer and the light wave. In that case, there would be no awareness of the light, or the visual image that the light is carrying.

    There is something inconsistent in this thought experiment.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM

      Vin: “Actually, there would be no relative motion between the observer and the light wave.”

      Chris: It is hard to tell what 3D perception one would see. The “oscillation” that Einstein mentions seems plausible. The inconsistency to me seems to be that we cannot set up this particular experiment well enough to observe it. Beyond that, it seems we cannot see what inconsistency would arise.

      • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 8:23 PM

        We use light waves to see what it is reflected by. We never see the light wave itself. We only see the message it contains.

        I know it is a thought experiment. I can easily visualize relative motion with respect to a well-defined object. But when when it come to relative motion with respect to a light wave I am not so sure.

        But an analogy from riding along a wave on the surface of water in a pond, does seem to make it probable.

        .

    • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM

      Looks like light can have a wave front. Electric and magnetic fields may precipitate from nowehere just like clouds seem to precipitate from nowhere. One may also imagine pursuing a light beam. If one is moving with a “crest” in that wave, then the wave may simply appear as frozen (no relative motion). I don’t think that one would see electromagnetic field spatially oscillating.

      However, the theory of relativity says that no matter how fast the frame of reference is moving, the speed of light will still appear as c.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 20, 2013 at 11:39 PM

        c — Isn’t that a wondrous concept to contemplate? It is kind of a Holy Grail that contains the answers to secrets.

        • vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 5:02 AM

          I am continuing to investigate the nature of motion. The latest realization is that a frame of reference cannot be attached to nothing. It must be attached to a body in space.

          .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM

    A frame of reference that is moving at the speed of light, will stll measure light moving at the speed of light.

    This is true for a frame of reference that is moving at the same speed as a ripple in a pond. The speed of that ripple would still be the same when viewed from that frame of reference. Only difference would be that one would be riding with a crest of that wave.

    The speed of the ripple is not the same as the relative speed of the crest.. The speed of ripple shall always be measured with respect to the medium, regardless of the frame of reference.

    .

    • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM

      From another viewpoint, the moving crest of the ripple in the pond shall determine the speed of disturbance. This speed is relative to the molecules of water in the medium. The assumed frame of reference is also moving relative to the molecules of water.

      In space, if we look at light as a disturbance in space, there are no such “molecules of space” that light is moving relative to. So, the frame of reference cannot move relative to space.

      Light is a phenomenon of space. It is an error to think that a frame of reference can move relative to space.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 19, 2013 at 8:14 PM

        We have to be careful with our analogies. The ripple in the water also creates a ripple in the air above. Neither ripple is strictly analogous to the disturbance of light through space anymore than “water through a hose” is strictly analogous to electricity conducted along the exterior surface of copper wire encased inside an insulating material. Over lunch, we can discuss with a greater novice in this way, but we do not build large scale installations using this analogy. I’m only saying we have to be careful not to draw too strict a comparison and continue to look.

      • Chris Thompson  On October 19, 2013 at 8:20 PM

        Vin: “It is an error to think that a frame of reference can move relative to space.”

        Chris: Please expound your ideas about this some more. I am not sure space contains the emptiness that you state. Space-time — at least it used to — contains all there ever was or ever shall be. I say that there was a unity which stretched until it could stretch no more.

        Would you say that in the emptiness of space, that there exists no space-time?

    • Chris Thompson  On October 19, 2013 at 8:07 PM

      Vin: “The speed of the ripple is not the same as the relative speed of the crest.. The speed of ripple shall always be measured with respect to the medium, regardless of the frame of reference.”

      Chris: This relativity has become quite the problem, hasn’t it? This paradox contains a key inconsistency which will eventually help us understand. My intuition tells me that none of this is laid out quite right and therein lies the inconsistency.

      • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM

        We measure the speed of the ripple (disturbance) in water relative to water molecules that only oscillate about their mean position but do not move with the disturbance.

        We measure the speed of sound (disturbance) in air relative to air molecules that only oscillate about their mean position but do not move with the disturbance.

        For light the situation is different. The problem with speed of light is that we do not know what to compare it to. I need to study up on how the speed of light is actually determined.

        .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM

    So, Einstein could not have rode with the beam of light. That is an impossiblity.

    There is no relativity in relation to space, or in relation to a phenomenon of space. Relativity can only be among objects. And when we measure that relativity, we disregard that we see those objects because of light.

    Those objects are moving relative to each other. They are not moving relative to space.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

    A frame of reference cannot be anchored to “space”. It has to be anchored to an object.

    There is no such awareness, such as,, that of a God, soul, or thetan if they are some phenomenon beyond matter and energy. All awareness is tied to matter and energy.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM

    Light is a phenomenon of space, But the velocity of light cannot be measured relative to space itself. There is nothing in empty space.to anchor a frame of reference to. We may anchor a frame of reference only to objects in space.

    When we are measuring the distance between two heavenly bodies, the velocity of light is c relative to either body. These bodies have velocities relative to each other only, and not to any “space”.

    ..

  • vinaire  On October 13, 2013 at 3:50 PM

    I have rewritten the KHTK Axiom #3.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    Now I have to meditate on what a dimension is.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    A dimension is a system of relative values that may be presented on a scale.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 19, 2013 at 8:31 PM

      So temperature, voltage, resistance, and etc., are dimensions?

    • vinaire  On October 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM

      Dimensions are not necessarily geometrical. A dimension is essentially a characteristic.

      Awareness starts with RELATIVE MOTION.
      The primary dimensions of motion are SPACE and TIME
      The dimensions of space are LENGTH, WIDTH, and HEIGHT.
      Each dimension of space has its own time.
      My quest now is to understand the structure of MOTION. I believe that WAVE has something to do with it.

      .

  • vinaire  On October 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM

    I have revised this KHTK Axiom #3.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: