Resting Light Theory

[G_burnett]

But boundaries are everywhere, Graham. Boundaries are where we begin to make sense of all things.

It is no wonder that the writers of the Bible describe creation as the initiation of certain boundaries or divisions.

Light is divided from darkness.
Day is divided from night.
Waters above are divided from waters beneath.
Earth is divided from the waters.
Vegetable is divided from mineral.
Animal is divided from vegetable

Divisions are what make creation possible. Without division, the universe is one enormous homogenous mass with no distinction. That's the way nature is. Without the division of light and darkness, there can be no shadow, there is no way to get to any gradient effect in the universe. Without division, there is quite simply nothing.

Should we be so surprised then if there are divisions beyond which we cannot as yet see?

When I look upon the surface of a still pool I see a watery plane. The plane can be penetrated by some creatures to be sure, but that surface, that division, is there none the less. It exists as a boundary that separates the atmosphere above from the watery depths below. Some denizens of those watery depths will never have the pleasure of knowing that there is something wonderful and alluring above them. But should they then simply dismiss the possibility that there might be something above? Should they ignore the boundary simply because they can't fathom at what point the boundary begins or how they might penetrate it, or how thick it is?

Thank heaven they did not. Had they not reached past the surface, no organism would have ever grown legs to walk past the boundary. Evolution would have ground to a halt.

Why should we humans be any different than the fishes? There is a boundary, Graham, that lies past the place that we can see, a surface we have not as yet penetrated. Shall we not strive to "grow the legs" that will take us into that new place. Space is not the final frontier. We can still go "higher".

At least that is my humble thought.

Best Regards! And thanks for keeping me company.

Wick

Hi wick

I hear you.

"We frame a picture to put it on the wall and in our vanity thus we enjoy."
sage

kind regards graham

[Wick]

Exactly. Only in this case we find ourself painted into the framed picture and refuse to believe there is a room in which we have been hung.

Wick

[Wick]

Wick, are you referring to pages as though they are multi-layered frequencies?

Not frequency. Leskey, you always discover the weaknesses of my metaphors! That's a good thing.

The pages are just space. In that regard a scroll might be a better fit. The scroll is rolled together but it is all one piece of paper. Frequency would be when the paper waves up and down (tiny oscillations).

Is RLT proposing that we are tuned to perceive only the specific 3D aspect of a simultaneously corresponding veridical 4D perspective?

No. This observable universe is one scroll in the library. There are others.

Thanks for the questions.

Wick

[Graybeard]

I had a hard time understanding how such a thing works until I was one day reading a book. When the thought occurred to me, I was suddenly amazed at what an amazing thing the invention of the book or scroll is. Books and scrolls are 4-dimensional in nature.

now i have to come up with a mu-ti directional U-joint type ball system attachment for a moment point one event define as the math to Antonio's fine posting link(s) is not there for this define of effect observed having the hidden to view ... etc etc

Hi Graham / Wick .... just reading your posts and it seems to me that WIck has provided you with the CV (constant velocity) joint you are looking for.

If you picture a circle drawn on paper and let that resemble a 2-dimensional space ... then any point, placed anywhere within the circle can be located (or described) by drawing an x-y axis thru it and using simple trigonometry you can calculate the lengths of the x-axis and the y-axis from the point to the edge of the circle. Its called a Unit Circle and the Wiki describes it well.

Once you know the lengths of x-axis and y-axis you can locate the point within the quadrant of the circle. Because all 4 quadrants obey the same rule it follows that a point anywhere in 2-dimensional space can be located or derived by the measurement of two lengths. (x,y) Don't worry about the maths, its simple, just take it as a given.

So two measurements of length describe 2-dimensional space.

This is true, but this is not the minimum way to describe 2-dimensional space. 2-dimensional space can be described by a single measurement.

To describe this method just imagine an arbitrary polar axis (imaginary line thru north-south) drawn thru the circle. Now if you draw a line from the centre of the circle (centre of the polar axis) to the point, and you measure the angle between that line and the polar axis you can locate the point.

To sum up you can describe 2-dimensional space with a single measurement. In this case the length of the line from the centre of the circle to the point. The angle does not count as a measurement of distance, it is just an angle and has no length in space.

So 2-dimensional space can be described by a one measurement. It follows that 1-dimensional space can be described by zero measurements. Thats because 1-dimensional space is just a point, not a line, and every location in one dimensional space is in that single point (singularity ??) it has no outer dimensions.

So:

• 1-dimensional space is described by zero length measurements
• 2-dimensional space by 1 length measurement
• 3-dimensional space by 2 length measurements (plus an angle - Polar Sphere)
• 4-dimensional space by 3 measurements
• 5-dimensional space by 4 measurements.

All of these measurements are really just co-ordinates. So to describe any-dimensional space, you just need a number of co-ordinates equal to the (number of dimensions minus 1) plus angles.

These are mathematical dimensions, not 'dimensions' as in common use. There is a difference !

So, in Wick's 'scroll' you could roll it up so that New York was rubbing shoulders with London. It would still be 3-dimensional space, and you would have to travel the distance around the scroll to get from one to the other, equal to the distance between London and New York. But you can now take a third measurement. The measurement between the two 'across' the scroll. (the distance between the two layers of the scroll ?)

This third measurement (co-ordinate) gives you a four dimensional space exactly as Wick describes it. Have I explained this well ... it seems clear to me ?

If you now bend the scroll into a circle, joining all the layers together, you will have a donut, or a torus ... you can now take a fourth measurement, because the top of the scroll is joined to the bottom of the scroll.

Four measurements, or co-ordinates gives you 5-dimensional space.

This, in effect, gives you your ball or CV joint. As you measure the distance between 2 points in three dimensional space you are measuring the long way round or linear (lol) But if you curve the space back (bend the linear measurement) you create an extra measurement, in this case, not the distance between the two points, but the shortcut across the bend, the hypotenuse, between the two points.

So Graham, as you say your resources won't allow you to conduct Lab measurements does not mean you can't refine your theory. if you believe you have a 5-dimensional space then you need to search for your fourth measurement, which will probably be an hypoteneuse.

Wow ... I hope this does not sound like gibberish ... it seems sound to me ... lol

This is not to say that these dimensions have a physical presence. Just as 1 measurement or 2 measurements can be used to describe 2-dimensional space. So can multiple measurements be used to describe 3-dimensional space, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. We still just live in 3-dimensional.

Sorry for interrupting.

cool bananas ... greg

[G_burnett]

... Hi Greg, you just butt in any time you want as far as I am concerned ... my mind is too loaded with meds for this flu cold viral thing my doc is trying to knock out and the sporadic two hour sleep periods for the last few months has taken its toll with all the lab stuff too .. we have motion but not the way we expected due to the missing 5Th. My partner just watched Hawking's 13 D on the the Nature channel and is way out there ..

I have not forgiven Hawking's humor in his "A Brief History of Time" i think it was in 1980? ... then of course i still have that 137 etc number on my white board Greg... sage keeps playing with it and laughs at me as if he gets it ... Wicks book i have read on before, probably here to his writing i think an it has been the ponder for me because it is a very good view ... Ty for the posting because as our trial and error develops now we have a math base to describe it better that is for sure and i can get away from my queens solution .. I was kind of hoping it would come out of the Gyro and Vincent but that is too much pulse and not steady axle effect in the view I have of it right now ... which view i have is changing as I go.

Damn motion. ... I will rest my mind to define time in a break from here till I can get better. It is up to you good fellow Wick and i will post my reply to Greg after your thoughts. or maybe Antonio's too?

Kind regards all, graham

[Graybeard]

... then of course i still have that 137 etc number on my white board Greg... sage keeps playing with it and laughs at me as if he gets it ...

As you say ... that damn 137 thing is on my mind too ... lol. A pure dimensionless number and a prime CLICK

I just got over the cold-virus-flu thing too. I was eating limes and garlic and every other possible remedy, including mixing Port with Coruba Rum .... but nothing worked, so I decided not to fight it but just to make out my last will and testament instead. But before I did that I decided to go for one more run (Analog gave me the idea)

I ran about 7 klm and when I got back I felt a lot better, so the same dose the next day, and the next ... in a week it was gone ... true

cool bananas ... greg

[Wick]

No interuption, Greg. You were the first to join me here at RLT. Its been a long time since you last posted here and I'm glad you have come to post again.

A few questions:

Seems to me that the point is 0-dimensional space, not 1-dimensional space. Would the line be 1 dimensional space, and the other dimensions follow?

If you draw your line on a sphere instead of a circle, how would your description above change?

Please check out the following links in RLT, let me know whether they illuminate any of what you have written here.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...here#post80472

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post81013

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post82094

Does the 4-ax serve your purposes at all? It would seem that using the 4-ax you can measure 4-dimensions by drawing only two lines on a pair of spheres and relating them from their point of conjunction. Isn't that right?

Please let me know what you think, Greg. I'm trying to understand this concept better. I dreamed it, but I don't really know everything it means.

Regards!

Wick

[Wick]

As you say ... that damn 137 thing is on my mind too ... lol. A pure dimensionless number and a prime CLICK

You guys are making Feynman into a prophet.

I have a RLT theory regarding 137....

The observable universe (3-space) moves through 4-space and the 4-d background of resting light. The number 137 tells us something about the speed of the universe through 4-space and the light density of 4-space. What does it tell us? Electrons dragging on the 3-space through the light density of 4-space interact with the light through which they are dragged and the number 137 describes the probability of this interaction.

Wick

[G_burnett]

if i go out for health reasons to exercise i take my Wolf bitch with me. Since i do no run much any more i decided to calculate how far i should walk to equal the 7k run needed to get better in relationship to the distance my dog will run fetching her ball back and forth as all in the big should work for the small ... in the same amount of time walking.

amazing enough no matter how far i would throw the ball it took 137 times and the passage of time of the run she made combined to equal 7k for her and in the passing of time i had taken 274 steps, divided by the two of us gave 137 so i expect to be healthy in a few days .. thank you Greg.

...in the state of the field density in the center of a torus compared to the field density of the outer of the torus on the horizontal plane, thus the boundary to any effecting it works out to 137, note the add giving credence to the state of the torus or density prime needed to effecting event of attachment entry of other to the torus now having a boundary but by the potential not inclusive to all at the same time of the charge or energy potential.

The other of not acceptable charge transferred to the center of the torus for an emit.

As the torus grows in density of mass expanding, the prime ratio predicts the potential of further event which includes an increase of velocity of the torus and motion of the fields in an axial spin that does not make the center of the torus any larger.

Thus we can predict the moment of event in a so called bb point zero - or + one constant.

the boundary value can then be 137 but used only in the sense of the potential in side the boundary as all inside is the added one Einstein did to the 136 .. one the effector and one the effecting ... real innies and outies stuff.

....but it could be all the fresh air and the meds so do not take what i say for face value, there is a rumor going around that if you chant to the beat of the bongos in 1-3-7 time 137 times saying "alahfeynmen" real fast you will have a vision of the ToE manifest behind your eyes.

I tried this but it did not work because i believe i did not have a yellow robe on.

Happy Good Friday everyone here!

kind regards g.

[G_burnett]

....

If you draw your line on a sphere instead of a circle, how would your description above change?

....
Wick

Is this on a sphere or in a sphere wick. ...

graham