Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Wick,
I was referring to Lemaitre's and Guth's big-bang and inflationary model, and as I interpret it and the new research being done by Hau and gravitomagnetism, I don't find anything that conflicts with your theory. Aside from how I interpret motion, I agree with your flatland analogies as they seem to imply the 3-d universe is the result of frame dragging due to a 4th-d time/motion. |
As far as I'm aware neither Lemaitre, Guth, nor Hau would permit light to have a frame of reference in spacetime. Light is only permitted a resting frame of reference in one very special case--time. When I talk about 4 spatial dimensions, I completely discount the dimension of time. That said, my reading of Lemaitre, Guth and Hau is very slight. My background is in languages. Yes, I'm a Humanities major, I'm afraid. Most of what I have read on these three I have read about them. If I tried to read them directly, my head would likely do a triple twist and fall on the floor. As for your reference to the "4th-d time/motion, I include no time dimension in my theory. There are only 4 spatial dimensions. Time is a property associated with the way fundamental matter of 4 spatial dimensions interacts on the surface of the 3-dimensional hyperplane. Let me reiterate: this theory does not make room for a special temporal dimension. Time is not a dimension, it is a property of motion through 4-space.
Quote:
|
Even the "out-on-the-limb" decay as light interacts throughout the plane I agree with, but I don't understand this, though:
|
While I'll admit that this appears to be decay, I will stand with Fritz Popp in saying that the nearly coherent biophotonic field is not decay, but in fact is the very instrumentality that constructs each conscious life form. When we listen to the CD of a symphony and the symphony ends we do not say that we just listened to something decay. On the contrary, we listened to something being created and that creation came to an end. Yet, the pattern is still there. In a sense, the same pattern can be played again.
Quote:
"When light directly strikes a particle of matter (somehow the fine structure constant fits in here), it enters the plane (it is not emitted) using the particle as a "door", and begins moving through the surface of the plane until it finds a "door" out (it is not absorbed). In both cases the light energizes the matter it interacts with."
Perhaps when you get a minute you can elaborate on it. It appears that emission and absorption are reversed for some known reason.
|
Because the particle has four spatial dimensions (I'm still trying to understand this part. Perhaps Carey can help me on this one), it exists primarily outside of the hyperplane. The hyperplane holds a few cross-sections of each particle (perhaps many more than a few cross-sections if a particle is sufficiently complex), but the vast majority of the particle lies outside of the hyperplane. When the light in 4-space strikes the 4d particle it slides into the hyperplane and in the process energizes the whole particle. Observers in 4-space would be able to see how that portion of the particle outside of the hyperplane is energized, but observers inside the hyperplane (the observable universe) perceive this event as a loss of energy as the electron (for example) sinks to a "lower energy level." The photon then moves through the space of the hyperplane and strikes another electron. Once again, the whole particle is energized. In this case both, those in the hyperplane and in 4-space can detect the way the particle is energized as the photon escapes back into for space.
Perhaps a way to envision this from a flatlander perspective would be to use a loop of thread that appears as an ellipse. This is oriented in the same way i described in my earlier post, such that it appears to observers in the plane to be two particles. It is also moving as I described earlier in the three ways mentioned. Most importantly for this illustration, the loop is revolving through the plane upon an axis located at the point where there "positive point particle" intersects the plane. The negative particle is tracing a circle upon the plane. Initially the ellipse is oriented on the plane along its major axis. When the light interacts with the particle, and enters the plane (what we now call emission), the ellipse tips through the plane so that it is now oriented on the plane along its minor axis. The photon then strikes another "negative point particle" associated with a loop oriented along its minor axis, and as the photon escapes into 4-space (what we now call absorption) it lends enough energy for the loop to tip through the plane along its major axis (quantum leap). I'm sure this is an over simplification, but its the best my simple humanities background can deliver at midnight.
Thanks for your question, Nobody. Please help me to continue refining my idea and let me know if you see ways to improve upon it. I'm grateful for any insights. I have been struggling with this theory since February of 2006 when I had a revelation of sorts. I suddenly had a firm conviction that light, for the most part, was a phenomenon at rest. This crackpot idea went against everything I believed at the time. Nevertheless, I have not gone back to thinking that light moves. I am hopelessly convinced that light doesn't move as we think it does. Generally speaking, light is the standard of rest. Its a fools errand to say so, but I'll keep saying it. That's a fool's prerogative!
Now I must go to bed!