Resting Light Theory

[Max™]

Well, I naturally have to ask, how many dimensions does your hyperspace have?

Why is our 3+1 space falling through it?

Which way is it falling?

Couldn't you just as easily describe the motion as hyperspace moving through the universe?

Why invent hyperspace at all?

I like the idea of simplifying things down, getting rid of unseen concepts.

Perhaps I just have trouble seeing a need for hyperspace because of my whole increased temporal interaction view.

It's very similar to all of the theories about variable light speed, or adjusted propagation for light, actually, when you start thinking about differing interaction with time, all of these concepts look similar relatively.

I guess the key deciding factor would be occam's razor huh?

[Wick]

[QUOTE=Max™;67207]Well, I naturally have to ask, how many dimensions does your hyperspace have?[QUOTE]

There are only four dimensions. All physical dimensions. No temporal dimensions. Austin added a few more, but I stop at four.

Why is our 3+1 space falling through it?

3 + 1 space doesn't exist in Resting Light Theory. Please reread my rambling description again. In resting light theory space falls through hyperspace (4-space). It is falling in the same way a planet falls around a sun. My assumption is that there is a massive 3-space, around which our 3-space orbits through 4-space. This naturally is an assumption, as I can't see it.

Which way is it falling?

It falls toward the direction of the past, but that is not to say that past events exist along the trajectory. In Resting Light Theory, the past is a direction rather than a temporal location.

Couldn't you just as easily describe the motion as hyperspace moving through the universe?

No. That's sort of how Einsteinian time works, but it is unlikely in my estimation that greater spaces would move through smaller spaces. Everything in the cosmos seems to indicate that small things move through (or around) great things.

Why invent hyperspace at all?

Why did Einstein invent the ingenious thing we call space-time. We invent it because it helps us to explain nature.

I like the idea of simplifying things down, getting rid of unseen concepts.

Perhaps I just have trouble seeing a need for hyperspace because of my whole increased temporal interaction view.

I understand what you mean. I have felt the same way about many of the theories I have read about in the TOEQUEST.

It's very similar to all of the theories about variable light speed, or adjusted propagation for light, actually, when you start thinking about differing interaction with time, all of these concepts look similar relatively.

I don't find it similar to those at all. But maybe I am just wishing that this TOE is somehow special. I'm sure everyone who conceived of a TOE feels this way. Still I would like to hear why you find them similar. I would ask you to please reread the posts to date and if you still feel the same way, let me know why this theory is so similar to those you mention.

I guess the key deciding factor would be occam's razor huh?

I would place this theory in an Occam's razor contest any day. Why? Everything resolves in a simple motion of 3-space through 4-space. All the forces of nature and the standard model become much simpler.

Thanks for your comments, Max.

[Max™]

I guess I'm just partial to 3+1 time, I grew up with the concept in my head.

The reason why I say that varying light velocity/motion theories are similar to my time interaction theory is uh, a little hard to explain. The speed of light always seems to be the same to any observer.

If you assume it is because the light has a strange motion, or because the speed at which it propagates varies, then you could describe it as always being the same observed speed from any reference frame.

You could also describe it as an impairment of your ability to accurately interact with time, so regardless of any relative motion you have, the closer it gets to the speed of light, the less accurate your interaction with time becomes.

So you always see the beam of light racing away at 300,000 kilometers per second, even though you're going at 299,000 kilometers per second.

You would think that would require the beam to travel at 599,000 kilometers per second, but in actuality what you observed as one second took 1.9999 or whatnot.

As you increase your speed and get closer and closer to the speed of light, this number increases more and more, and you observe a longer section of the beams path as one second, where it "observed" the actual time it took.

[Wick]

Thanks, Max. I misunderstood in your second to last post when you said:

It's very similar to all of the theories about variable light speed, or adjusted propagation for light, actually, when you start thinking about differing interaction with time, all of these concepts look similar relatively.

I thought you were talking about Resting Light Theory rather than your own theory.

[Wick]

It falls toward the direction of the past, but that is not to say that past events exist along the trajectory. In Resting Light Theory, the past is a direction rather than a temporal location.

I made a mistake here in my description. Space does not fall in the direction of the past. It falls in the direction of the future. Sorry for the lapse in thought, Max.

[Wick]

A bit more regarding time:

Consider for a moment a timeline.

A timeline stretches out in two directions and generally (in western books at least) events on the left side of the line happen before events on the rights side of the line. For human's there is a special point on the line, the moving point that represents the current location of their consciousness on the line. For human's this moving point represents the point of division between past (to the left) and future (to the right).

I have used my language carefully here so as to be in keeping with Einstein's 1955 view that the human sensation of past, present and future is illusory. For him all points in time existed as a permanent element of the space-time continuum. I move from that position because I've noticed in these TOE forums many espouse this position. Each TOE-quester has a variation regarding what Einstein meant and there are nuances regarding the impact of such a statement to science and ethics, but by and large a majority of folks here hold this statement about past, present and future to be self-evident.

With all these things in mind let me offer a thought experiment:

Before me stretches a timeline of the universe, but this timeline is a very special timeline, indeed. Each point on the timeline represents a complete configuration of everything in the universe at that point in time. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the line has a starting point (the Big Bang) but no ending point (eternal expansion).

Now the way one see's the complete configureation of everything in the universe at a given point in time is to apply a device called a pointescope to the line at the precise location he wants to view. The pointescope then projects into the mind of the user the configuration of all things in the universe as they stood at that instant. The projection appears "Matrix" style, such that the pointescope's user can imagine himself at any frame of reference in the universe and thereby come to understand the space-time relationships associated with each frame of reference experienced.

So the user could apply the pointescope to the first point in the line and observe the emergence of the universe from the Planck space in which it was confined. He could even drag the pointescope along the line and watch the Big Bang, the Inflation that occurred shortly thereafter, and if he wished to, he could drag the Pointescope backwards and forwards along the line to experience and reexperience the first few fractions of a second of the Universes life.

If he wanted to, the user could find the place on the line that represents his own existence. He could drag the Pointescope along the length of his life, observing his birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood. He could even observe the place in space-time where he holds the pointescope and drags it along the line. He could observe his decline into old age, his last dying days, his fading into death.

If he looked far enough along the line, he could witness the cooling of the universe as it continued to expand, the resulting darkness and entrophy, the never-ending end of all things.

But in Resting Light Theory things are different.

[Wick]

In Resting Light Theory, the human experience of past, present and future are not illusory. On the contrary, in RLT we take these temporal elements at face value. Let me show you what I mean.

First, let's turn our timeline into a vertical position. The past is now above and the future below. The moving point called the present falls along the line in the direction of the future always separating the past (above) from the future (below). The only configuration in RLT exists in the descending point we call the present. I will hereafter call this point the present point. So past events do not lie above on the timeline and future events do not lie below on the timeline. The past is simply the contrail of the universe, the future is the remainder of the flight. To understand RLT you must first give up any concept of the past and future existing in the fabric of space-time.

The Present Point represents space and all its contents, which at the fundamental level are 4-dimensional particles snagged upon the surface of space. As space falls along the timeline, these fundamental particles move through the surface of space like pinwheels or whirligigs, interacting with the light through which they move. This reconfiguration of the fundamental particles of matter leads to the changes with which we are so familiar. The growth of a seed into a plant, the development of fruit, the eventual death and decomposition of the plant back into the soil. The point here is that the only configuration of these 4-d particles is the one that exists upon the surface of space in the Present Point.

This concept of time is radically different from space-time models. In RLT, there is no determinism, which means that conscious beings are free. Each individual has the power to exert an influence on the way his local part of the universe is configured. This is hugely important when we start to consider issues of ethics and accountability.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Still sounds great.

Now we put people in jail really to protect ourselves, first and foremost, then for the hope of their improvement, but, of course not really knowing if the state of their brain came to such a 'hurtful' state due to genetics, bad upbringing, or what, although learning bad stuff is a dangerous things, as actual neurons grow and get stronger, 'permanently', as unlearning may be much harder than learning.

Naturally, we would think that a normal person would not be in a right mind to commit a serious crime, but… the criminal's mind was what it was for whatever reason, and operated accordingly, so, could the criminal really be blamed? I'd say 'no', but s/he still has to be locked up for the benefit of all others.

(I didn't know what else to say about RLT, so I put this.)

[Wick]

Blame is a curious thing. Should a child born into the world unwanted, by a drug addict mother and father be held responsible for the kind of person she becomes? Only if she rises above those conditions. For the most part, the configuration of her body was not optimal because of the carelessness of her parents. She may suffer from all kinds of conditions related to her parents addictions and neglect.

But sometimes, as you mentioned, we alter our own physiology for the better or the worse because of persistent choices we make. As we learn behaviors we become responsible for the way we permit our minds to become configured. Remember that RLT insists that conscious beings exist as organized resting light. But as that organized resting light learns and develops, it adapts the body for its own uses by changing the way it's light is organized. Individuals should be held responsible for changes they bring upon themselves in this way (whether that change is beneficial or detrimental).

A criminal can be born out of circumstance or by choice. I think it is important to differentiate between the two. This is by no means an easy task, and it is best if we do it primarily on our own behalf, rather than on behalf of others.

[Graybeard]

Hi Graybeard,

It's a theory because it fundimentally changes what I think about when I think about myself and the things around me. Currently, when I see a person, I am inclined to focus on the matter associated with that person. I see a body or aspect of a body. But if I think to myself this body is not only moving through a stationary background of light, this body is enlivened by an organized and coherent mass of electromagnetic patterns. The matter associated with this body is in a constant state of change (moving at the velocity "c"). It is merely a physical and fleeting expression of the constant and conscious thing which is light.

This view can be envisioned from Einsteins relativlty also. ??

Lets say I had a thin hollow metal ring ......

In this post you refer to the ring as explaining all the problems of QM. I can understand the ring as an analogy .... but I don't understand it as a reality .. How do you deduce a ring ??

Further, the flatlanders cannot be very bright. As their 'flatland', travels down over the ring, or as the ring rises thru the surface of 'flatland' all they would have to do to conceive a third dimension, from their 2 dimensional viewpoint is to keep a record of the 'tide'. Totalling these records would give a 3 dimensional graphic ?? You might reply that flatlanders could not perceive the graphic because they are limited to 2d .. but that applies to us also relating to 4d ?

Likewise gravity is not a force per se. Instead, gravity is a property that arises when space and the matter snagged on it begins to fall through hyperspace. Under such conditions space begins to stretch opposite the direction of its fall.

Resting Light Theory describes mass quite simply by the principle of inertia. Since all things in space are moving through hyperspace in the same direction, they naturally resist any force applied to them in space to move through space in another direction. So the Higgs is another invention for spatially challenged, three dimensional thinkers.

Its not enough to say that gravity arises when 3d-space and 3d-matter snag on 4d-space. Nor to say that mass is simple, a natural resistance applied on 3d-space by 4d-space.

It may be true or false, but it is not an explanation, just a statement. You would need to say why this happens ... not just that it is an interpretation of how you see it.

Spin and charge are not mysterious and inexplicable qualities in Resting Light Theory. They are simply properties related to the way the intersections of each particle of matter move through the surface of space. Like little dynamos or pinwheels driven by a current, these hyperspatial particles of matter spin in accordance with the pressures exerted upon them as they fall through a resting background of light.

Once again, you would need to explain the mechanism, not just say that pressures are exerted on them.

Wick ... just my opinions, and you did ask for them. I see nothing wrong with your explanation. But nearly everyone's explanation is different. That is we all need to visualise it in a manner we understand and feel comfortable with. But maths are still maths ... and they tell a tale that we must listen to. If you can fit the maths to your theory then you have an ideal interpretation.

I think that you cross too freely between QM and relativity in some of your analogies. Also some posts I found very difficult to comprehend, you have the advantage in having had the greater time to contemplate them from that angle. Personally I was very comfortable with the 2d-flatlanders and the 3d-space. As it often seems pointless to me to talk about 4d.

You might like to peruse the intro to this thread .. Dimensions & Entities

I see nothing glaringly wrong with your explanations and I will watch this thread for future posts.

cool bananas ... greg