Resting Light Theory

[Graybeard]

Sorry .... I knew I should have put some graphics in my post. But my laptop is 5 floors down in the carpark, and I was using my girlfriends laptop. No graphics program ... lol.

First, just a clear up .... the unit-circle I describe as 2-dimensional, is the universe within the flat circle. The challenge is to describe a spatial (not temporal .. time does not enter it for this purpose) location by the minimum number of co-ordinates. Imagine throwing a dart into the circle, and then mathematically describing its location.

So if you draw an imaginary polar axis thru the circle, you can now draw a line from the centre to the impact point of the dart, by measuring the length of the line, and its angle from the polar axis .... you can recreate the exact location of the point... ?? Is this clear ... please stop me here if I confused the issue ??

So ... extending it to 3-dimensional, the universe becomes a sphere, instead of a circle. But the universe is within the sphere (not the flat outer surface of the sphere)

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

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

So to answer your second question first ... lol. I am picturing all co-ordinates as being within the sphere. (and within the circle for 2D)

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?

Well ... 0-dimensional space would require, in order to locate a point spatially, either negative-1-measurement, or an infinite number of measurements ... lol. I can't conceive of 0-dimensional space.

If 1-dimensional space has to have a point described within it then you need zero measurements .... ?

If the Universe was 1-dimensional, then in order to travel from London to New York you would need zero measurements .... because London, New York and the rest of the Universe are all within the point. You are already in both places, so no co-ordinate (or map) is required.

Hope I'm not confusing you more ??

If the Universe was 2-dimensional (the circle) then you would need the distance from the centre of the circle to London (if you were in New York) and the angle from the polar axis. In other words the minimum you would require was a single measure of length (dimensional space ?)

If the universe was 3-dimensional (lol ... it is) then you would not only need the 2-dimensional measure, but also the measure within the volume (sphere) otherwise you might end up exactly where London is axially, but a 100 klms below it ? or above it ?

And so on, adding a coordinate and an angle describes an extra dimension.


If I have made this explanation worse, let me know ... and I will do the graphics and repost ... a pic paints a thousand words ... lol

Wick ... your first link worked, but the other 2 just took me to the top of this page.

I am still reading your first link, will get back to it.

cool bananas ... greg

[G_burnett]

We would be able to perceive ourselves on the surface of a sphere but in our own vector of exist to the all that would be another encompassing sphere around us ... with bow wave of course.

beyond that sphere outer to us or edge of the all boundary variant to bow wave? or variant to an expand taking place still the return of emit from exist should give a picture different then from the center as a paradox vies due to what would be the velocity excel due to the expand ... if it was at a different rate then we on our sphere experience. ..vortex and entropic forces here and not there sort of view considered.

but does this happen?

I do not believe the calculation using light shows the variation Wick and would be support to a resting light state and constant expand of the non transient state ...

the non transient state of energy such as frozen light having spookiness event would be the experiment of choice to this as the source would be negated but still other would be effected ... or could and thus any light from the same source still in exist state of transient form would show the effect at the same moment.

further predictable be then would be the left hand material advance of reflect effect not sufficiently explained to me.

but all in my own head here the ponder

I do see the inside of the sphere geometry to determine the points but must agree with a point one start not zero center to give the exist a constant Planck value.

in determination of the orbital point the axial has to be used real or virtual for a determine as the forth D with a sphere and if in motion of orbit a 5th measure for prediction ... or without the axial in true non rotation spin event of randomness, prediction of point B in the sphere can be made using Feynman rules and up comes the 137 ... ( 136 + point A)

It will be at the point B sort of thing eventually in a certain frequency of time ratio given the 137 prime.

(Prime time TV ...!!) (sages humor)

hmm kind ~regards, graham

[Wick]

Graham and Greg,

I'll try to respond to your posts tomorrow. Thanks for getting back to me. In short answer I mean on a sphere not in a sphere. Because a sphere curves, it gives added dimensionality to motion. if you trace your two axes upon the sphere you end up with two straight lines that curve along the equator of the sphere on one hand and along the poles on the other. This permits you measure motion along a flat (2-dimensional) curved space. If you combine this with tandem measurements of 2 other dimensions on a separate sphere, you find that you have four axes that stand at right angles to one another. You only trace two lines in this scenario--one on each sphere--but when you add the lines together, you find a position in 4 space.

That's what the 4-ax (pictured below) is for.




The point of conjuction between the two spheres represent the location of an observer. As the observer moves through 4-space, globes that are placed in the 4-ax rotate to represent the observers location along the two axes. The length of the line represent speed. One of the spheres bears a line that moves along the forward-backward axis and the left-right axis. The other sphere bears a line that moves along the up-down and the ord-entrop axis. When the lines are combined they provide a matrix location in 4 dimensions.

Does this make sense?

Wick

[Wick]

First, just a clear up .... the unit-circle I describe as 2-dimensional, is the universe within the flat circle. The challenge is to describe a spatial (not temporal .. time does not enter it for this purpose) location by the minimum number of co-ordinates. Imagine throwing a dart into the circle, and then mathematically describing its location.

Got it.

Let me offer another way of looking at the circle. Permit the circle to move in a downward direction. As the circle descends (lets say at the constant velocity "c") any point particle moving along the surface of the circle must be spatially located not only in relation to the circles center, but also in relation to the circles descent through a higher space. Time becomes an unnecessary device in this instance. We are describing the universe in terms of a higher space. I partly misunderstood you because in RLT there is not need for dimension of time. If the universe moves through 4-space, we can describe motion in the universe in terms of 4 spatial coordinates.

So if you draw an imaginary polar axis thru the circle, you can now draw a line from the centre to the impact point of the dart, by measuring the length of the line, and its angle from the polar axis .... you can recreate the exact location of the point... ?? Is this clear ... please stop me here if I confused the issue ??

Its clear.

So ... extending it to 3-dimensional, the universe becomes a sphere, instead of a circle. But the universe is within the sphere (not the flat outer surface of the sphere)

This would only account for 3 dimensions, I think, unless we permit the sphere to move (fall) through 4-space. The problem with a sphere falling through 4-space is that the entire space of the 3-space is a surface which remains fully exposed to 4-space. Imagining a falling sphere give the impression that the inner part of the sphere is not exposed to the 4-space through which it is falling.

The only way I can fix this impression, is to describe the motion on a pair of spheres, each of which represents the motion along two of the axes of 4-space. Motion is then reconciled when the two lines are added together.

So to answer your second question first ... lol. I am picturing all co-ordinates as being within the sphere. (and within the circle for 2D)

Got it. I see where my confusion lies. I am trying to deal with motion as the sum of two lines drawn on the surfaces of two rotating spheres and you are dealing with motion as a single line drawn inside a sphere. Is that right?

Well ... 0-dimensional space would require, in order to locate a point spatially, either negative-1-measurement, or an infinite number of measurements ... lol. I can't conceive of 0-dimensional space.

Hmm. I think I understand, Greg. I can imagine 0-dimensional space as a point particle. But I think what your getting at is that I should not be able to imagine locating a point particle without drawing 1 line from the center of the circle to the location of the point particle. I think we are in agreement here. Our difference is in the way we are using words.

If 1-dimensional space has to have a point described within it then you need zero measurements .... ?

Got it.

If the Universe was 1-dimensional, then in order to travel from London to New York you would need zero measurements .... because London, New York and the rest of the Universe are all within the point. You are already in both places, so no co-ordinate (or map) is required.

I think I understand, though previously I would have said that in a 1 dimensional universe London and New York would not occupy the same point, but the same line. I think I see what you're saying. I'm still a little fuzzy on this point (npi).

If the Universe was 2-dimensional (the circle) then you would need the distance from the centre of the circle to London (if you were in New York) and the angle from the polar axis. In other words the minimum you would require was a single measure of length (dimensional space ?)

If the universe was 3-dimensional (lol ... it is) then you would not only need the 2-dimensional measure, but also the measure within the volume (sphere) otherwise you might end up exactly where London is axially, but a 100 klms below it ? or above it ?

And so on, adding a coordinate and an angle describes an extra dimension.

If I have made this explanation worse, let me know ... and I will do the graphics and repost ... a pic paints a thousand words ... lol

Please provide the graphic if it doesn't take to much time.

Wick ... your first link worked, but the other 2 just took me to the top of this page.

The first link is sufficient. We can go from there.

Regards!

Wick

[Wick]

I do not believe the calculation using light shows the variation Wick and would be support to a resting light state and constant expand of the non transient state ...

the non transient state of energy such as frozen light having spookiness event would be the experiment of choice to this as the source would be negated but still other would be effected ... or could and thus any light from the same source still in exist state of transient form would show the effect at the same moment.

I'm not sure I follow, Graham. Let's see how I do.

When we look up into the night sky, the stars spin on an axis, the axis being a point near Polaris--the north star. The planets trace an arc across the sky, except for a few of the inner planets, which trace a circle around the setting sun. The planets typically move in one direction, but on occasion they reverse their track across the sky in what we sometimes call retrograde motion. The moon moves across the sky and displays phases. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

We observe these motions every day. These discriptions appear to describe true motions. And until the dawn of the age of science, the reality of these motions were maintained by mathematicians, astronomers and scientists for nearly 1300 years. But today we know these apparent motions are not real, they represent the actual motion of the earth.

We also used to think that the Dome of Fixed Stars was a two dimensional spherical surface that was wrapped around the universe. The stars seemed to move as a single unit and so we ascribed them the quality of a unit. We now know that such thinking is wrong-headed. Galileo's telescope and other inventions have helped us to see that the stars do not move as a unit. They are simply so far away, and the motion of the earth is so constant, that the stars appear to move as a unit.

Appearances are not always correct. Sometimes the motion we see in others is due to motion in ourselves.

Light is like that. It appears to move, yet it is the universe that is moving through the light. But because the phenomenon of light is 4-dimensional in nature (as Kaluza once suggested) as the light passes through the surface of 3-space, it has the capacity to move through that surface in ALL directions. It also does not persist in the surface of 3-space. The light that was here a moment ago is different from the light that enlightens us right now. Because we are moving through the resting light, we have new light with each new moment. And in the coming moment we will pass through the light that lies "below" us--in the entropward direction.

When a 4-dimensional thing (like light) passes through a 3-dimensional space and interacts with 3-dimensional things it will not appear to observers in 3-space in the ways we might expect. It will have the capacity to pass through two slits at once, to enter the universe and exit the universe, to change the shape of the universe, to do all kinds of counter-intuitive things (and light does all of the above).

further predictable be then would be the left hand material advance of reflect effect not sufficiently explained to me.

Assuming the universe is moving in one direction (towards entrop) as RLT suggests, I think it makes sense that certain particles would tend to move in one direction. Chirality and the left-handedness of the universe is partially explained by universal motion through 4-space.

Regards!

Wick

[G_burnett]

LOL i will give a reserved agreement till my sugested experiment of frozen light is done to the spookiness effect .. observed or not.

kind regards g

[Wick]

For what its worth, light has been "stopped". Check out this link:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...stoplight.html

A careful reading shows that the light is not frozen, however. The light moves about inside a cloud of sodium or rubidium until all the light energy has been transferred to the atoms in the cloud.

From a RLT perspective the only way to stop the velocity we attribute to light would be to stop the universe. In the same way, we would have to stop the motion of the earth to stop the constant circling of the stars, the characteristic motions of the planets, the course of the moon and the sun. Stopping the earth would be all but impossible. To stop the universe would be all the more difficult...

Light is frozen (at rest) already. It is the observable universe (taking you and I with it) that moves.

Regards, as always!

Wick

[Graybeard]

..the universe was spread out like a vast surface of water, above and below which rested a vast, calm sea of light, a sea so brilliant and pervasive that it bleached everything to snowy whiteness. So the observable universe seemed a plane of darkness that separated the light above the dark plane from the light below.

And the surface was moving. Falling down through the light faster than imagination.

Hi Wick .... Do you mind if I quote the above from another thread, if so, just post and I'll delete. Could I ask you if this is how you conceive your theory ? Does this 'paint' the idea ?

Let me offer another way of looking at the circle. Permit the circle to move in a downward direction. As the circle descends (lets say at the constant velocity "c") any point particle moving along the surface of the circle must be spatially located not only in relation to the circles center, but also in relation to the circles descent through a higher space.

Just dropping the idea of the sphere for a moment and sticking with the circle, as the circle moves downwards, we go from being able to locate the point on the circle with a single measurement (2D) to requiring two measurements (3D) to locate it ? Isn't this saying the same as you quote ? You are, in effect, creating the 3D Space ?

Time becomes an unnecessary device in this instance.

Except, that for a continual definition of the 'point', we must allow for continual change in its co-ordinates ? For this measurement we use time ? In other words, our 4-dimensional universe (3 space, 1 time)

Also, Antonio has posted a more complex (lolol) version HERE

cool bananas ... greg

[G_burnett]

For what its worth, light has been "stopped". Check out this link:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...stoplight.html

A careful reading shows that the light is not frozen, however. The light moves about inside a cloud of sodium or rubidium until all the light energy has been transferred to the atoms in the cloud.

From a RLT perspective the only way to stop the velocity we attribute to light would be to stop the universe. In the same way, we would have to stop the motion of the earth to stop the constant circling of the stars, the characteristic motions of the planets, the course of the moon and the sun. Stopping the earth would be all but impossible. To stop the universe would be all the more difficult...

Light is frozen (at rest) already. It is the observable universe (taking you and I with it) that moves.

Regards, as always!

Wick

Hi wick yes i have posted prior the Harvard Experiment a few times here at the ToE and the 2005 reporting of picking it up and moving it once it froward motion was held in stasis.

It is too hot in space to have the event there so light moves with us as we vary to the constant potential .. hmm no i will have to ponder this more.

I think we could envision a stopping of the earth with the right torque spin given it ... heh heh but then we would all be fried as the Gamma caught up to us and all in between .. hmm.

I see the problem of the collapsed orb point measure and is an undefined solution variation that has it function of interest in lab for me.

kind regards graham

[Wick]

Hi Wick .... Do you mind if I quote the above from another thread, if so, just post and I'll delete. Could I ask you if this is how you conceive your theory ? Does this 'paint' the idea ?

No need to delete the post, Greg. And yes this paints the picture. The only difference is that the vast expanse mentioned in the idea I paint is a flat surface. I had to flatten it so that I could maintain the relationship of a 3-space to a 4-space. A 3-space enveloped by a 4-space would be exposed at every point to the 4-space. Consequently, I have to subtract a dimension from both sides, thus 4-space becomes a 3-space and 3-space becomes a 2-space. The important thing to remember is that even though "Wick's vision" describes the observable universe as a falling 2-space, it is actually a falling 3-space.

Just dropping the idea of the sphere for a moment and sticking with the circle, as the circle moves downwards, we go from being able to locate the point on the circle with a single measurement (2D) to requiring two measurements (3D) to locate it ? Isn't this saying the same as you quote ? You are, in effect, creating the 3D Space ?

Not exactly. Let's go back to the scroll concept. The scroll is a modified 2-space which begins to resemble a 3-space. This is true for two reasons: 1) The scroll bends out of 2-space and into 3-space; 2) the stacks of 2-space give the impression of a 3-space (especially if the stack is infinitely deep!). I suspect our 3-space is something like that.

If you think of the observable universe (3-space) as a modified 2-space in which the infinite layers of 2-space are stacked together and in which one can actually get from New York to London by moving "up"--then you begin to understand my concept of 3-space. Because of the way that the modified 2-space is stacked up, it becomes a 3-space.

But (and this is the important part) the scroll always appears unrolled when observed from 4-space. Observers in 4-space can clearly see that New York and London are not touching in one respect (a 2-spatial perspective), but that they are touching in another respect (a 3-spatial perspective). What's more, they are able to see that the scroll is "falling through the library of light" and that every point in the modified 2-space (the scroll) is touching completely new territory in 4-space as each moment of the scroll's fall passes.

So going back to your circle, I would suggest that the circle actually represents all of 3-space. But you have to use both sides of the circle to document the motion. On one side you record the motion of a point particle along axis A and B and on the opposite side of the circle you record the motion of a point particle along axis B and C. You add the lines together to show the point particles location in 3-space. The fourth measurement is a measure of how far the circle fell while the measured motion of the point particle on the surface of the circle took place.

Hope this makes sense.

Except, that for a continual definition of the 'point', we must allow for continual change in its co-ordinates ? For this measurement we use time ? In other words, our 4-dimensional universe (3 space, 1 time)

In RLT, there is no dimension of time. The falling circle contains all the information for the point particles location in 3-space at a given instant. The location of the falling circle in 4-space at that given instance provides a 4th measurement. In the instant that follows, the 3-space has fallen to a new location in 4-space which is "below" the circles location the instant before.

In this scenario, there is no interwoven space-time relationship. The 3-space is changing as it moves along the 4th axis (down from the direction of ord into the direction of entrop). The 3-space is dynamic. It is also indeterminate (at least to a certain extent). The speed at which the circle travels ("c") provides a measure of determinancy, but also permits a measure of freedom.

Also, Antonio has posted a more complex (lolol) version HERE

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out, but be warned, Antonio's thoughts are higher than my thoughts. I usually don't understand what he's saying. I am a Wick of very little brain.

Regards! And thanks for the comments and questions.

Wick