Resting Light Theory

[AntonioLao]

I will call the added dimension tempth

I will call it fractal dimension. The math is simply the fractal path math that I invented instead of Feynman's path integral of quantum field theory.

[Wick]

I will call it fractal dimension. The math is simply the fractal path math that I invented instead of Feynman's path integral of quantum field theory.

Can you tell me in layman's terms how it works, Antonio? Fractal path math, I mean.

Wick

[AntonioLao]

Fractal path math

For a simple description is the arrangement of even numbers and odd numbers in an infinite order matrix. These numbers are arranged in such a way that if we take a 2 by 2 square matrix, its inverse is always a scalar multiple of Hadamard matrices. In layman terms, we are supposing that the entire space-time is arranged with same size contiguous baskets. These are filled with apples and oranges. The numbers of apples and oranges for each basket is a multiple of one fundamental basket with a fixed number of apples and oranges.

[Wick]

"In layman terms, we are supposing that the entire space-time is arranged with same size contiguous baskets."

I can't seem to escape from space-time with you Antonio. I keep asking if you can envision modeling a space moving through a four-space and you keep holding up the structure of space-time which is static and unmoving. If you can't envision modeling a space moving through a four-space, just say so. My feelings won't be hurt. Maybe 3-spaces can't move through 4-spaces, but I don't see why they couldn't.

In this thread, the 3d + 1d universe proposed by Einstein--space-time--is dead.

In Resting Light Theory, we have to replaced Einstein's block universe of space-time with a universe of 4 spatial dimensions. As our 3-space moves through 4-space it reconfigures, but it does not store its past configurations in some imaginary fabric in the ord direction of 4-space. Everything we see exists on the 3-d surface of the present, which reconfigures as it moves in the entrop direction.

So the elegant equation E=mc(squared) must change in a universe of 4 spatial dimensions. Why? Because we can no longer assume that c is synonymous with the speed of light. Indeed, c no longer defines a velocity associated with light (which is at rest), but is rather related to the velocity of objects in 3-space moving through 4-space. So at the very least, we have to change the c in the equation to something indicative of this universal momentum. Perhaps we could pick the little used letter q (for quick).

Likewise mass is defined in Resting Light Theory by the inertia associated with a particles drag through 4-space. So we might change the m (mass) (which we can't explain) to d (drag) (which we can explain). So we come up with E=dq and we square it because we have to account for one greater dimension than we can see. So E=dq(squared)!

Now I'm sure this is all very stupid to a scientist or mathematician!! (See how much I need you Antonio!) But I can't find a scientist or mathematician who will throw space-time in the waste bin for a few hours and try to imagine a universe that moves.

And so my liberal arts mind comes up with hair-brained equations like E=dq(squared). Which makes perfect sense to me. A particle's energy is determined by its drag through 4-space multiplied by the speed at which the 3d universe falls along the tempth axis. It certainly makes sense that a particles speed of descent along any axis would provide that particle with energy.

I fear I'll hurt myself if I go any farther. So I'll stop now until tomorrow. Please don't make fun of me, Dave, I've admitted I'm stupid. Let's leave it at that!

Wick

[Max™]

Again, your idea shows an interesting intuition, I can readily convert my worldview around to yours, which interestingly, is um... if ideas had shapes, this idea is shaped a lot like Farsights.

Have you read his theory and mine yet?

If you applied your concept to either of our descriptions of the universe (in my case, your description rather well correlates with the Rate = 1/Planck Mass point in my theory), I suspect you would see what I'm talking about... with the shape of ideas, and such.

Basically that the picture I get in my head is very similar, surely a liberal arts mind will relate to that!

[Wick]

Have you read his theory and mine yet?

I have read parts of both your theories in various threads, but I have not yet read a cohesive whole from either of you. Point me in the right direction and I'll try to comprehend it. I'll warn you though that I really have a problem with any theory based on space-time.

I have been slow to want to read Farsight's theory because his self-assuredness and salesmanship scared me off. This is not a criticism Farsight (if you are reading), its just a my perception. I, as Farsight, am very convinced that I am on the right track. I see many parallels between our two theories, but I don't know how to collaborate with Farsight because he would rather convert...and I'm not ready to be converted. I don't think I will ever be ready.

Its not every day a person with my artistic background comes to conclusions like the ones I have. I for the life of me can't figure out why I have come to care about these things. If you had told me three years ago that I would be in this forum talking about a theory of everything, I would have told you that you had been drinking too much.

The theory came to me as an inspiration. It came all at once, in a flash. It contained information that I cannot attribute to my own understanding, information I'm still trying to comprehend. That's why I come here. I'm trying to learn how to express what I learned when the inspiration came in late February of 2006. The inspiration in a nutshell is that light is at rest and the universe moves--that what Copernicus said of the Dome of Fixed Stars is also true of the phenomenon we call light.

There were no angels, no voices from heaven, just a clear flow of intelligence into my mind. Since that moment, I have not been able to doubt what I learned then. It was my clearest and most lucid thought. Every day, I ask why such information found its way into my feeble brain. That is a mystery I haven't been able to discover. But I'm still trying to find out everything it means.

Wick

[Max™]

lol, you'd have issues with mine then, as I posit that the only things that exist are space and time.

Yeah, Farsight is a little... unhumble, to be polite about it.

Again though, while I very explicitly disagree with some of his assumptions, he and I described eerily similar concepts, and your description sort of forms a strange triangle with his and mine.

I find it comforting to see those relations pop up, myself.

He started from Light, I started from Time, you started from Motion, and as I said, we all produced ideas that at least from the right angle, have the same shape.

[Wick]

Thanks, Max. I hope you will stick with me here as I value your voice. I also value the questions you ask and your own perspective (the space-time perspective). I, too, have puzzled over the similarities I see in yours, Farsights, and my theories. I gain important insights in trying to see the universe from each of your perspectives.

Two questions: What do you make of Einstein's time dilation and an observer's shrinkage in the direction of relativistic travel? Also, would you mind sharing your ideas on what an electron is? If you would like to point me to another thread or doc, that's ok, too.

Wick

[AntonioLao]

I can't seem to escape from space-time

It's just a poor choice of words similar to the words chosen for color charges of QCD as red, green, and blue. Time and space are simply orthogonal coordinates where and when every theory needs to describe physical reality. Moreover, the differential ratio between them is the constant c (aka light speed). The transformations used between them is called Lorentz transformations and all valid theories are required to be Lorentz invariance unless they are working with classical speeds much less than c. Light is just a form of electromagnetic radiation and if you pointed a laser light at the moon it will take one or few seconds to get there and if the sun become darkness then it will take about 8 minutes for anyone on earth to notice. It takes light to get to the minor planet Pluto in an hour. Galileo was the first to notice the finite speed of light where and when he observed the moons of Jupiter transiting the planet. These transits occurs later when the planet is farther away and occurs sooner when the planet is closer. The exact times of transit can be calculated accurately using Newton's laws of motion and classical gravitation.

[Max™]

Time dilation is the basis of my entire theory, it's just the motion of a body through the time direction, which is determined by it's mass and velocity through space.

Length contraction relates to how I describe quantum particles being extended temporally at lower masses, and less so as you move towards our familiar mass/energy range, and on into traditional time dilation.

An electron is a tightly twisted looped over on itself light wave, with an important to remember extended nature in time. The direction of the twists determine the interaction we describe as charge/magnetic force.

Just as I model them, at least.