Resting Light Theory

[Wick]

Hi Leskey! Please explain. My understanding of triality and Dynkin diagrams is microscopic. I've done some cursory searches, but need your thoughts to help me along. Thanks!

Wick

[leskey]

Hi, Wick.

"My understanding of triality and Dynkin diagrams is microscopic."

...as is mine. I found reference to triality in my notes from a couple of weeks ago relating to fractals. I know you are keen to have some mathematical input - so it was my hope (gotta keep hoping, Wick!) that this may be relevant to Resting LIght and serve to attract a contributor with a mathematical background. It's the Dynkin model's correlation to reflecting hyperplanes that caught my attention:

A hyperplane is a concept in geometry. It is a generalization of the concept of a plane into a different number of dimensions. Analogous with a plane which defines a two-dimensional subspace in a three-dimensional space, a hyperplane defines a k-dimensional subspace within an n-dimensional space, where k<n. A line, for example, is a one-dimensional hyperplane in a space with any number of dimensions. High dimensional hyperplanes are difficult to visualize, but they share many mathematical properties in common with regular lines and planes.

Unusually, for me, the notes are not referenced, other than they related to another ToE Quest contibutor's thread: "Winter's New Equation..." So, I must give full credit there.

I'm more than happy to share the notes (which are quite concise) - maybe by PM? But, be warned, after tomorrow I'll be away travelling for the remainder of the week...

In addition, I find this of interest because I also correlate 'self-reflection' as the underlying function of consciousness.

[Wick]

I'd appreciate your notes, Leskey. Please send them by PM when you have the time. Thanks again for your help here. These math constructs are indeed what I am trying to relate. The only difference is that I'm trying to focus on the motion of a 3 dimensional subspace through a 4 dimensional space. I think the motion of the 3-space (its vector, speed and rotation) will help us to understand how forces and particles arise in the 3-space.

I have tried to gain the interest of mathematicians and physicists, but have not fared well. I generally get the response that the universe doesn't move. So I'm left to go it with a few faithful friends here at TOEQuest.

Regards!

Wick

[Wick]

Returning to the laws of motion: Since the whole observable universe is falling at a (relatively) fixed rate, we have to discard the idea of a resting frame of reference. The observer who considers himself at rest is in fact moving along a "w" axis which he cannot see.

This means that Newton's bucket, when it's at rest, is actually moving in relation to something. It's moving in relation to the 4-space and the resting energy that fills the 4-space. Likewise, when the bucket is rotating on the rope, it (and its contents) are rotating in relation to the 4-space and the resting energy of 4-space. What's more, the interaction between the bucket and the resting energy differs from the interaction of the resting energy with the water in the bucket. Because the energy interactions are different, the bucket and the water behave differently in the space they are given. They shape the space through which they move in different ways.

So in a turbine, we should not think of the central coil as being at rest. The central coil falls along the w-axis at a fixed rate of speed even though it seems to all observers as if it were at rest. The magnets that rotate around the central coil are also falling along the w-axis, but in addition they rotate through 3-space around the falling coil.

Nothing in the turbine system is at rest. The entire system falls along the "w" axis.

At the beginning of this thread, Greybeard suggest that the perception of motion along an unseen axis would not significantly change the accepted laws of physics. Here is what he said:

I don't see how that perception would change the laws of physics as they currently are. In other words, would the textbooks need to be re-written, or just a title change ? So while it can be considered a perception, I don't think it can be considered a theory.

But this "perception" is not a mere "perception".

RLT suggests that the universe is literally moving through a background of resting energy. This suggestion would seem to indicate that what we think of as potential energy is not potential energy at all. Every resting object does not exhibit potential energy. It is moving at the velocity "c" along an unseen axis. It is falling at an incredible rate of speed. It is full of energy. In actuality, when an object moves through 3-space it actually begins resisting the downward fall--as it slows along the "w" axis, it releases (or looses) energy inside the 3-space. If its fall is slowed suddenly (or even stopped) it releases all of its kinetic energy (the energy associated with the fall along the "w" axis) in the 3-space and looses all of its energy in a momentary burst in 3-space.

It is not enough to say that this is merely a "perception". The laws of physics today are based upon the premise that the universe is at rest. Yet even the simplest laws of physics, like E=mc2, seem to indicate that an object's mass multiplied by the square of the velocity "c" is the source of that objects energy. It would seem that the velocity "c" is critical to the understanding of that object's energy. Why? Because it is falling. The object is falling along an unseen axis. It is not merely perceived as falling. The object, all objects, are falling along the "w" axis.

So we cannot talk about relative motion or relative rest. Everything is moving. Nothing is at rest. The only thing we can relate this motion to is that instrumentality that is indeed at relative rest--the resting energy of 4-space.

Wick

[Wick]

When pinwheels, or winged seeds, or wind-powered generators pass through a current of air, they turn. Particles of matter are like that. Held upon the falling surface of 3-space, yet protruding into the realm of 4-space, they fall along with the surface of 3-space and begin to turn, to rotate this way and that way, to move. When we see one point particle, we think we have found the indivisable units of matter--the quanta. But we have fooled ourselves. Float a pinwheel on a surface of water and you will see that the surface of water only comprehends that there are many objects which appear somehow separate and yet connected. But in truth, these many things observed by the surface of the water are really one thing--one moving thing.

So we see point particles that appear somehow separate and yet connected. We say they are entangled. We say they are interacting through "virtual" force particles that we can somehow never observe. What we fail to see is that these "quanta" are not really quanta at all. They are constituent parts of a greater structure--a structure that reaches into 4-space. Their motion is only observed in part by us. We cannot see how they move in the 4-space.

Yet these particles of matter--trapped upon the falling surface of 4-space--rotate and move through the surface of 3-space and keep us wondering what it is they are. They are like the pinwheel. Our confusion arises because we have sub-divided too far. We see many things where there are only a few things--perhaps only one thing.

Wick

[leskey]

Hi, Wick.

The uniformity of cosmic background radiation supports the concept of a "falling" universe...doesn't it?

[Wick]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. It might be more correct to say that if the universe were falling, uniformity of the cosmic background and the nature of dark energy would tell us something about the nature of 4-space.

RLT makes assumptions just like General Relativity does. General Relativity assumes that the universe of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time is fixed and unmoving. It further assumes that light moves at the velocity "c".

RLT, on the other hand assumes that the universe consists of 4 spatial dimensions and that the 3-space (the observable universe) moves through a 4 dimensional background of resting light at the velocity "c".

General Relativity has trouble explaining quantum mechanics, dark energy, and dark matter. I don't think RLT has the same troubles.

When we focus on the structure of the universe and disregard its motion, we confuse ourselves. Ptolemy and Aristotle made this mistake first. They revealed a stationary universe at the center of which was an earth surrounded by rotating crystal spheres upon which hung the celestial bodies. Copernicus got us out of that mess not by looking at structure, but by looking at motion. Kepler further refined the Copernican model by adjusting the way things move. Newton made his mark by analyzing the way things move. Sadly, Newton assumed absolute space and time in his motion models and this led to univercentricity. From Newton on we came to the firm conclusion that the observed universe was all there was. Einstein further indoctrinated this concept when he invented spacetime. We are back to where we started...a universe in which every point can be considered central and stationary. This is our problem.

Let's consider the problem using another metaphor...the human discovery of how to predict eclipses. The eclipse problem had two obvious variables. The first was the observed motion of the sun across the sky. The second was the observed motion of the moon across the sky. Eclipses occured when these two observed paths crossed. But we couldn't predict eclipses using this information alone. There was something missing--a third kind of motion we couldn't see.

Smolin describes this in The Trouble with Physics:

"The discovery of this third motion--the missing element--must have been one of the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking. We see two objects, the sun and the moon. Each has a period, known from the earliest times. It took an act of imagination to see that something else was moving as well: the paths themselves. This was a profound step, because it required realizing that behind the motion you observe there are other motions whose existence can only be deduced. Just a few time since has science progressed by the discovery of such a missing element."

So I believe the motion of the universe at large can be deduced from the observations to date. I also believe that the anomolies that keep general relativity and quantum mechanics from combining into a a more beautiful and more correct theory arise because we are ignoring this deduced motion. We will begin to make progress in physics again when we properly characterize the way the universe moves through 4-space.

Wick

[Wick]

Sometimes motion is as good as (or better than) a dimension. When a flat circle constrained upon an axis begins to rotate upon that axis very rapidly, it presents the figure of the sphere. In such a case, the structure of the circle never changed. Though it appears a sphere because of its motion, it is still just a circle. Sometimes what appears to be structure is really motion.

So Kepler, when trying to describe the structure of planetary orbits in terms of perfect solids, ended up creating a theory that was beautiful, but also useless. It wasn't until he focused on the motion of the planets and the instrumentality of the sun's gravitational attraction, that he began to develop a ueseful theory regarding eliptical orbits. Motion was the key.

Wick

[Wick]

Indeed, analysis of movement (not structure) inspired Copernicus with a motion-based model that destroyed the structural model of Ptolemy. Likewise it was analysis of movement that led to Newton's three most famous laws. It was analysis of motion (of the sensations of a man in free-fall) that led to Einstein's "most fortunate thought". So it was the analysis of the motions of the quanta of light interacting with matter, that puzzled Einstein and formed the foundations for quantum mechanics. I would argue that it is analysis of motion (sometimes even hidden or deduced motion) that has led to break throughs in science.

Analysis of motion destroyed the crystal sphere's of Ptolemy. Analysis of motion destroyed the epicycles of Copernicus. Analysis of motion destroyed Newtonian absolute space and time. So, I suspect it will be analysis of motion that will destroy Einstein's structure of spacetime and the structural approach to quantum mechanics.

The universe moves.

The dimension we call time is not real. We invented it because it was convenient. It helped us to understand the world in terms of calculus, but its usefulness is past.

This is not to say that time is not a property of the universe. It is. But not a dimension.

There need not be a special dimension of time. The warped 3-space of the observable universe moves as a surface through 4-space. As it moves it reconfigures. We call the reconfiguration of the universe as it moves through 4-space "time". Time is the motion through 4-space and the resulting reconfiguration of matter and space in the moving 3-space. But these configurations are not stored in a universal container as suggested by Einstein's spacetime. The only real configuration is the one in associated with the moving present.

As such, we need to start thinking of the 3-space in which we move as the phase boundary of a 4-dimensional fluid--a 3-dimensional surface upon a 4-dimensional sea of light. But in this case the 3-d surface is moving at the speed of light through the 4-space. As objects move upon or pass through this 3-d surface, we see "ripples" or disturbances upon the otherwise calm surface of 3-space. We recognize these ripples as light waves and as the tensor fields associated with matter. So the 3-space has properties such as those we would expect to see in the phase boundary of a surface--primarily surface tension. As such, the ripples of light and the more lasting effects of gravity should be described in terms of the surface tension of the moving 3-space.

What's more, when a surface is moving (and I suspect this is true of 3-dimensional surfaces as well as the familiar 2-dimensional surfaces) it often moves, ripples and eddies not because of any interaction with objects passing through the surface, but simply because of the motion.

So if we return to Newton's bucket, and place the universe in the bucket instead of water, and if we spin the bucket, the universe begins to rise up the sides of the bucket. It moves in relation to the 4-space which encompasses the bucket and everything outside the bucket. It expands. It stretches. It moves simply because its nature is to move when forces are exerted upon it.

Wick

[Wick]

As such, we need to start thinking of the 3-space in which we move as the phase boundary of a 4-dimensional fluid--a 3-dimensional surface upon a 4-dimensional sea of light.

Thinking of the universe as I suggest above does not mean that any of us (fleas, trees, algea, whales, humans, etc.) are confined to the phase boundary of 3-space. We actually live inside the 4-space. Our physical perceptions are limited (to a certain extent) to our experience in 3-space, but our minds cannot completely disassociate from the 4-space. Our perception of time, our tendency to look past the physical, our dreams, our thoughts, our inspiration are all born out of one important aspect of our nature--that aspect is that we are all made of light.

Light is at rest by nature.

Light is an organizing principle.

But light can be constrained to fall with the phase boundary we call 3-space, and when it does, it organizes the matter with which it falls.

We are all creatures of light.

Our nature as creatures of light is to organize matter. So our nature leads us to form first a body from the matter we find in our mothers. And once born, our nature is to shape the material world in which we find ourselves.

But we were light first.

The body is afterthought.

The spirit is eternal.

Wick