Resting Light Theory

[Wick]

Not only could they. I believe they are. If they aren't, my TOE is hog wash. Particles of matter are tiny 4 dimensional objects moving, at least at the quantum level, at the velocity c. Conscious beings clothed in matter also move at that special velocity (a kind of quantum falling), but because they are all moving at appoximately the same rate of speed with the rest of the matter around them, they do not detect their own motion. Instead, they assign the impalpable motion intrinsic to their own nature to the resting four-dimensional phenomena around them--light.

Conscious being are also only able to "perceive" a portion of the whole of fundamental matter. They describe what they perceive as point particles and judge that each particle is fundamental in nature, when in fact what they consider fundamental is only a part of a greater whole.

Lets say we had a loop that was intersecting 3-space in two places. We might see that loop and say to ourselves there are two things here. One of the things has a positive charge, the other has a negative charge. They are somehow bound. This thing must be hydrogen. This is more simplistic than reality, I know. It doesn't account for quarks. But we can work that out, too.

When this thing we call hydrogen gets caught in a place where 3-space is warped (like in the center of a star. It begins to be pulled and twisted in ways that knot it into new forms that expose more of the loop to view. This is how elements form. They are knots of fundamental matter. And all this happens as matter is dragged through a background of resting light.

Can you see why the standard model is a bit confusing for a person who looks at the universe from this perspective? And why the strong force and weak force are unnecessary. We don't need the strong or weak forces. The elements are held together because each atom is one by nature. It may knot up to become another element if conditions are extreme enough. It may unravel to become another element when removed from an extreme environment. We only see each atom as many things because we are dimensionally challenged. If we try to look at things from a higher dimension, nature becomes simpler.

If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to begin sketching out gravity and time.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Kind of like Farsight's knot of the proton, although 3D, which I think he showed in the 'Idea' thread of Profpat's. His knot showed the quarks in the topology of two over passings being as up quarks and an under crossing being the down quark, they having no real separate identity but also not needing the strong force since they were part of the knot (but better to read his description).

[Wick]

Yes. My thoughts about matter are similar to Farsight's knotted proton. The only difference is that the knot I propose is a four-dimensional structure knotted through a 3-space. And the 3-space is MOVING. Another difference is that I am assuming that the knot is elemental in nature. In other words, a 4-d loop intersecting 3-space at a single point would be either an electron or a proton. A 4-d loop intersecting at two points would be hydrogen. A knot intersecting at four points would be helium, etc. This is simplisticly stated, but you'll get the picture. Whatever the case, we need to focus not on the structure of these things so much as the way they are moving on the surface of 3-space through a 4-space.

I find that when we focus too much on structure without paying attention to the motion of the structure and its surroundings, we sometimes get onto a false track. Ptolemy's error was that he developed a structure that explained the apparent motion of the stars in a structural way. Copernicus fixed this by helping us to see that the earth moves in two ways--in its orbit around the sun and in its revolution upon its axis. But Copernicus made a similar error in building a universal structure dependent upon circular orbits and centered on the sun. Kepler and Galileo corrected this error by introducing elliptical orbits and by describing a decentralized universe with no real center.

Likewise, Newton focused on a universal structure that existed as an absolute 3 dimensional space which was governed by absolute time. Einstein, converted absolute space and time into the space-time structure with which we are now so familiar. In both cases, the focus on structure (as in Ptolemaic times) makes it difficult for us to imagine that the universe might be moving. We have become univercentric and have lost our ability to imagine that the observable universe might be moving through a space of greater dimensions than those we percieve with our eyes and instruments.

I suggest that the observable universe is moving through a stationary background of light and that those things which we currently call fields (whether they be the local fields associated with fundamental particles of matter or universal fields associated with electromagnetic energy) are not moving in the way they appear. They, like the Dome of Fixed Stars in Ptolemaic times only appear to move in certain ways. But their motion has more to do with the motion of the observable universe, than it does with themselves.

There is an interesting analog between the way Ptolemy described the motion of the stars and the way we describe the motion of light. There is a similar analog between the way Ptolemy described the motion of the planets and the way we describe the apparent motion of fundamental particles.

Ptolemy described a Dome of Fixed Stars that rotated in accordance with a constant and predicable cycle at a constant and predictable speed. In like manner, today we describe light as one of the most important constants of the universe. Ptolemy's description of the planets was a bit less predictable. The planets moved in an irregular way, sometimes moving forward along their prescribed track and sometimes appearing to move in retrograde motion. So Ptolemy was forced to apply a system of equants quadrants and epicycles to describe the motion of the planets. Today in the Standard Model we have a similar way of describing fundamental particles of matter. Feynman diagrams seem very much to me like the quadrants and epicycles of Ptolomaic times. According to those diagrams, fundamental matter can eddy forward or backward in time. It can disappear all together, a kind of eclipse, perhaps. Fundamental matter moves in a number of ways reminiscent of the supposed motion of planets in Ptolemaic times.

[austintorn@aol.com]

True, to me, Wick, that the standard model is kind of complicated, and even assumes force carriers and the strange short term strong force, but I am not really up on all this to be of any use about that model.

The Resting Light Theory as well as string theory and others may have a good direction in trying to get down to the simpler stuff.

With Resting Light Theory, unlike what String Theory can do, we have to get some predictions of it for some proof. Any ideas?

Meanwhile, and, of course, later on, we have to get to what notions made the universe so we can see if Resting Light was a likely method, plus assume what is real and what was 'potential', if the quantum world is really like that, and if we can draw a parallel on so much more that will have us thinking for a long time.

The TOE is not just a curious search, but would tell us how not to live in the many conflicting ways that spiritualists' suggest and even argue and war over among themselves. Their differing lists of what one major things one MUST do are in the hundreds.

If we find that we can't know the TOE, as now, then, of course, some large number of people will still employ their diverse and variant imaginations.

[Wick]

The resting light TOE has provided me with a very specific moral compass. I am not foolish enough to inflict it on others but it has helped me understand not only the physical world, but the unseen part of the universe that governs consciousness (light). I'll eventually get to this part, but only after I have described the physical structures associated with what we call the fundamental forces. Its in the physical structures and the ways in which they move that we will come to find ways to predict whether resting light theory is correct or not. So let me move a step further:

A brief description of gravity. Let's return to my O (the ring) which is intersectiing the surface of the water at two points. As previously described, my O, spinning in place through the surface of the water, is also rotating on an axis located at the point where the O is spinning "up" through the surface of the water (the positive charge). I know this is a flat scenario, so its going to be much simpler than the relationship of 4-d matter's relationship to 3-space, but it is much easier to visualize this way.

Now instead of the O penetrating a surface of water, please imagine that the surface through which the O has descended is less fluid than water. This new surface permits the O to move up or down through the surface, but it does not permit the O to be extracted from the surface altogether. If we try to pull the O out of the surface, the surface actually stretches in the direction in which we pull.

Now let's put this flat surface into motion. We are going to permit the surface to fall as a unit through space until it achieves the velocity "c". This would take a very long time, but since this is a thought experiment, we can get to the velocity "c" rather quickly.

As the flat surface moves through space, our O begins to resist the downward pull, and as this resistance is applied to the elastic surface, it begins to stretch upward ever so slightly.

Now imagine a whole bunch of additional O's also resisting the downward motion of the falling surface and applying their own resistance which causes additional upward pull on the stretchy membranous surface. In those area's where many O's are located in close proximity, the upward pull on the falling surface becomes greater, and the O's begin to draw closer and closer together in proximity. As this occurs, and as the number of O's in the area increases, the upward pull on the membrane becomes quite strong and the stretched portion of the membrane begins to resemble something like a narrow tube. The narrower the tube, the greater the propensity for the now hot and tightly packed O's to be pulled through the membrane at ever increasing numbers of intersections with the flat surface.

This description is a rough attempt to show how star formation might lead to the fusion of atoms of hydrogen (the O's) into other elements. It also describes how 4-d matter becomes a causal source of gravity. By pulling on the membrane, the growing mass of O's drags through 4-space. This drag leads to inertia and describes why objects acquire mass (without the need for a Higgs particle).

It also provides at least an initial reason why we can't see the dark matter and the dark energy in the universe. Only a miniscule cross-section or intersection of the O's exist in 3-space. The vast majority of the O lies on either side of the surface or membrane.

Perhaps with this description you can see where time comes from. I'll talk about that next as time permits (no pun intended).

Thanks for your insights, Austin. Please keep helping me with this idea. I think it has some promise, but I don't think I can figure it out alone. I'm poorly suited to acheive this quest without help as I'm an English major who came to these ideas (which, by the way, are completely foreign to my experience or interests) in a blast of inspiration late in February of 2006. The inspiration was way outside my natural capacity. I don't claim credit for it. If its true, I must admit it was given, not earned. It just suddenly was there in my mind. My belief in God was strengthed on that day. Just for the record, I DON'T think myself a servant of God come to save the world with a TOE. I merely want to learn if the thing I came to see as inspiration, was indeed inspiration. If this idea is true, then I was inspired. That knowledge would be worth more to me than the TOE itself.

Does that make sense?

Most humbly yours!

Wick

[austintorn@aol.com]

I prefer the arts and humanities, too, being a writer and an art compositor, so now we both are not scientists.

RascalPuff has done extensive work posted here on ToeQuest, seeing gravity as the 4th dimension due to everything expanding, then electricity and magnetism and the next 2 higher dimensions.

The 'Rational God' by Huck… also explores dimensions quite well.

Thanks for not going on to speak for God about what His nature is now, but it's OK whenever. Something has to be responsible for whatever we have as a universe, not that it will turn out to be a person for which something else has to be responsible.

Keep with the motion stuff, for most all agree that this is a key to much like time and change.

[Wick]

So, Austin, how do people like us (educated in the humanities) end up in places like this?

Been busy the past two days, but let me return to the subject of gravity.

In the construct described in my last post, the falling plane becomes warped as a direct result of the resistance exerted when 3-d particles of matter are dragged along on the plane through 3-space. More and more O's accumulate in the stretched regions until gravity wells are formed. Area's where gravity wells form become acutely warped and fill up with O's which begin to fuse and combine in the resulting extreme environment within the gravity well.

How does this relate to our familiar understanding of Einstein's space-time?

In space time, the warping of space occurs because 3-d matter stretches a fabric of 4 dimensions. We sometimes refer to this multi-dimensional fabric as 3d + 1d, which is to say there are 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

But if we permit the 3 dimensions of space to move through 4 spatial dimensions (hereafter called hyperspace), and if we permit the the 3-dimensional surface upon which we live (hereafter called space) to interact with tiny 4-dimensional particles of matter (hereafter called fundamental matter), we find that the warping does not result from the relationship between the stretchy four-dimensional fabric and matter. It results because of the motion of space and fundamental matter through a hyperspace.

Strangely the effect of this stretching and the gravity that arises is roughly the same as Einstein describes it. The only diffence between the two theories is that one describes the the observable universe from the inside (Einstein's Theory) and the other describes the universe from the outside (Resting Light Theory). In Resting Light Theory, I don't refer to 3d + 1d, but instead to 4d - 1d. Time is not a constituent part of the fabric of space in Resting Light Theory, instead it is a property that arises in space.

Now I need to describe the significance of the concept of point particles and then I'll describe the nature of time in a falling space.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Wick is bright lately, and, I mean, always.

We non scientists might be at ToeQuest without really knowing the nuts and bolts of nuclear physics if we are used to connecting ideas to make more ideas; however, we do know some basic physics from high school, college, and ToeQuest.

So, I say, that 'objects' painted by light give their nature to us by the source of the light and it strength and variations, the colors and reflective properties by frequencies, the form by where the light comes from and all that.

Then the brain figures out edges and textures and all and then paints an even better face upon the object, validly, we trust, although some aspects, like color, are arbitrary, but works well, and so we are all great painters.

[Wick]

Thanks, Austin! And since you bring up the subject of painting, let me discuss a painters subject: Pointallism. I recently enjoyed watching Sunday in the Park with George by Sondheim--a musical about the work of Georges-Pierre Seurat. I must say I was impressed. The story often brought me back to the idea of point particles.

It would seem that Seurat was a student of the Painter of the observable universe, who has created the world using tiny point particles and the light they carry to make a relatively solid looking world. I remember as a child, thinking that point particles seemed a bit spooky. When my science teacher in school declared that all the point particles in the earth could fit within the shell of a walnut, I wanted to scream and go hide in the chemicals closet. Fact is, if science has its way all the point particles in the universe once fit in a much smaller package--a tiny little package the size of one Planck length.

Whatever the case, the objects around us when looked at from an ultramicroscopic perspective would appear to consist of mostly empty space punctuated here and there by a few spectral points. Even Suerat had a working TOE.

A fully formed atom of common hydrogen is said to consist of somewhere between three and seven point particles. But in a Resting Light Theory, point particles are only vestages of a larger thing. An atom of hydrogen, is a 4d figure which intersects the observable universe in three to seven places (that's if we take the standard model at face value, which I am not ready to do. But we play by the rules we're given until they no longer work for us.)

Likewise each atom of any given element enjoys characteristics that are largely based upon how many times its 4d form intersects the observable universe. In extreme environments, like the core of a star or the vicinity of a supernova explosion, these larger particles of matter fuse together and increase their intersections with space in orderly and predictable ways. We might think of them as knotting up, as has been described in an earlier post.

As matter escapes from these extreme environments, and if it was created to have an unstable number of intersections, it slowly unravels over time.

Again, let me emphasize that fundamental matter in Resting Light Theory is larger than we believe. When we look at matter from hyperspace, we see large particles intersecting space in such a way that they only reveal miniscule and multitudinous cross-sections of themselves. From inside space, we see a swarm of particles, but we aren't seeing the natural whole. As Boethius warned, we take something that is whole and perfect and remove it from its perfect state. We thereby transform the thing into parts which don't really exist.

[Wick]

So there is no need for a strong force or a weak force. These forces are not forces at all. Atoms remain cohesive because each one is a unified, hyperspatial whole. When unstable they unravel and decay into other elements. This looks quite natural from hyperspace. But from space we find it hard to explain why a swarm of variously charged particles remains unified or flies apart. We have to invent forces to make up for our lack of "depth" perception. Being dimensionally challenged, we describe the universe from the inside, when we should be imagining it from the outside.