Resting Light Theory

[Wick]

When I say that light is resting, I mean that light is resting in the same way that the stars are resting in their positions relative to the earth. For centuries we have looked up at the sky to find Polaris is where we expected it to be. Orion seems for the most part unchanged. For all intents and purposes, the stars seem fixed and stable in relation to this old moving earth of ours.

Yet we know that the stars move...move very quickly indeed. Yet their motion in relation to ours (because of their extreme distance from us) seems no motion at all. The stars would appear to be at rest in the heavens.

We didn't always think this to be the case. There was a time, during the infancy of science, when we thought the stars were moving in circles around the fixed and immoble earth. We have learned better thanks to the sacrifices and studies of brave observers of the skies.

So light which appears to be in motion to us now, will someday be known to be at relative rest in relation to a universe that moves. In ancient days the tyranny that held up scientific progress was the notion that the earth was at rest. This notion was based firmly upon scientific observation. It was agreed to by virtually all the learned men of science. We held it as scientific truth for over a thousand years. Yet it was what Einstein would call "an apriori given". The Ptolemaic model of the universe was indeed useful. It ordered daily life and made it possible for sailors to find their way across the seas. Yet the earth-centric doctrine was false.

I have quoted it before, but Einstein's words are worth quoting again:

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason."

So I would ask: Can the velocity we call the speed of light or "c" be legitimated? Over a hundred years ago, Michelson and Morley floated an interferometer on a pool of mercury and thereby determined that light moved at the velocity "c" in relation to all points of reference. They thereby infered that there was no ether through which light was propogated. If light had propogated through an ether, the rotatable interferometer would have detected that light was not moving at a constant rate of speed in relation to the orbiting earth. At certain times of year the earth would have turned back upon the ether and the speed of light should have slowed. But light didn't slow. Its velocity remained constant from every frame of reference.

But Michelson and Morley were making a brash assumption--namely that light was moving at all.

If light moves at the same velocity from all frames of reference, two things are possible: either light is indeed moving at a constant rate of speed in relation to all observers (a curious and somewhat counterintuitive kind of motion); or, all observers are moving together along an as yet undiscovered axis through the light which is at relative rest to us observers.

Sadly, we held on to the "a priori given" that the stars were moving at the same speed in relation to all earthly observers for over a thousand years. I wonder how long the "a priori given" that light is in motion will keep progress in science at bay. It has kept science at bay for over a hundred years already!!

I will be the first to admit that I am a fool. I have nothing but my gut and the gift of inspiration (a quixotic gift indeed) which tells me that all of science is headed down the wrong track. They have ginned up a dimension of time (which can neither be verified nor observed). They have applied a constant speed to the most common instrumentality in the universe (light), without even taking the time to wonder if a constant speed in this instrumentality might actually mean a universal velocity through an instrumentality which is actually at rest.

I suspect a thousand years must pass before the new Copernicus comes to save us from our ignorance. May God send him as quickly as possible so we can escape the "Alice in Wonderland" physics that arises from general relativity and quantum mechanics.

The universe is moving. It is moving very fast. It is moves according to laws of motion first established by Newton, but it moves through a 4-space.

I know I'm probably insane/wrong.

But in my world, there is no time dilation...only the appearance of time dilation. Objects do not actually shrink in the direction of their motion in my world...they only appear to shrink. In my world particles need not be entangled or in two places at once, because particles have 1 more dimension than we think. They extend into 4-space and intersect 3-space at many points. There is no spooky physics in the resting light universe. What appears to be spooky is simply the interaction of an object of four physical dimensions with a universe of only three physical dimensions.

Yet what seems clear to me, is obviously clear to no one else. I must be mad (insane). The Wick is burning with a wild light. I will remain here in my cave of resting light and amuse myself with clever arguments that nobody hears.

Regards! Regards! Regards!

Wick

[leskey]

Hi, Wick.

I've recently been exploring the possibility of the (elusive) monopole as a source of generation and decay, ie in relation to active galactric nuclei and, in the micro realm, of perhaps even neutrons.

Is there a correlation to resting light and the potential of net electrical charge?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've come to understand that what is generally considered to be 'time' is, in essence, the cyclical process of 'generation' (flow through resting light) and 'decay' (resistance to that 'flow').

You are correct, in my opinion, coherent light is encapsulated in all material form...this may be of interest:

http://www.lightforhealth.co.uk/content/light-and-the-body.pdf

In 1933 the Russian scientist Gurwitsch hypothesised that all cells emitted light. It took until the late seventies before German biophysicists (Popp et al.) provided evidence to show that he was right. Every cell emits at least 100.000 light impulses per second at a variety of frequencies. ***

Experimenting with differences in light between the healthy and the ill, Popp found that whereas the healthy had light emissions, which followed set patterns, and biological rhythms, the sick did not. Thus cancer patients had lost the natural periodic rhythms, and their coherence. The means for the body to communicate with itself and the outside world was sabotaged because the light had become distorted.

When a cell is healthy, coherent light is emitted. When a cell is disturbed the light turns chaotic.

In summary, Popp demonstrated that weak light emissions of low intensity were able to control the body, and that light in the body may be the factor that determines health and illness.

In other words complex pathways of resonance and frequency form the body's communication system.
**
*Popp FA, Becker B. Electromagnetic Bioinformation, ed. 2, Urban and Schwartzengerg, Germany, 1988.

In quantum physics coherence means that these subatomic particles are able to cooperate with each other and highly linked by bands of common electromagnetic fields. As Dr Dietrich Klinghardt puts it 'cells gossip, inform, celebrate and grieve.When things go wrong, such as in auto-immune disease, they fight each other. Light (and sound) can have a profound effect on regulating and correcting intercellular communications.

*+*'
+Textbook of Psycho-Kinesiology - a new approach in psychosomatic medicine - Dietrich K. Klinghardt, MD PhD, Verlag Herman Bauer Frieburg, Germany 1995

In particular, from what I understand about the plasmas of both chlorophyll and hemoglobin, this statement, "these subatomic particles are able to cooperate with each other and highly linked by bands of common electromagnetic fields," may well apply to the cosmic plasma, too.

BTW, after considering you descriptions of Resting Light, have you ever considered sonoluminescence as a part of your hypothesis? Is it possible that this is the initiating source of the generation process of AGN?

[Wick]

I've recently been exploring the possibility of the (elusive) monopole as a source of generation and decay, ie in relation to active galactric nuclei and, in the micro realm, of perhaps even neutrons.

Regarding the monopole, I suspect that the concept of a monopole is an example of physicist subdividing too far. In an effort to understand how all things are quantized, the monopole falls out as a requirement in several theories including Grand Unified Theories and String Theory. Yet the monopole has never been directly observed. Some suggest the monopole will never be unobservable. In RLT we look at all point particles (monopole include) as a partial manifestation within 3-space of a larger 4-dimensional whole. In other words, the monopole’s manifestation in 3-space may only be one manifestation of many manifestations of the same 4 dimensional whole (like the point of a ball floating on the surface of a swimming pool). The monopole (the point on the surface) would therefore not be causal of itself. It would only be causal in relation to the 4-dimensional instrument to which it belongs (the ball).

To understand what I mean, I want you to imagine that you are an invisible observer in a volume of empty space. Remember that empty space in RLT has distinct properties. These properties arise because the 3-space is a phase boundary (or surface) of 4-space. Surfaces are generally described in terms of surface tension, gravity and fluid inertia. The 3-space would need to be described in these terms. So in RLT, we must assign quantities to space to include the surface tension, the gravity, and the fluid inertia of space.

With that in mind, you are now an observer inside the 3-dimensional phase boundary of 4-space (aka the 3-surface) and an object of 4-dimensions passes through the 3-surface (like a stone passing through the surface of a pond). Because the 3-surface has surface tension and gravity and fluid inertia, it responds to the passage of the 4 dimensional object as any surface would. Like the surface of a pond, the 3-surface begins to oscillate at the point of impact, but instead of generating a capillary wave (like a ripple on a pond), the 3-surface oscillates into a spherical ripple, propagating away from the point of impact.

As you observe this interaction, you never actually see the object that passes through the 3-surface. The extra-dimensional object’s passage through the 3-surface is much too swift for observation. You only see the object’s effect upon the calm surface of the phase boundary.

The structure and motion of the spherical ripple depends upon several things including the structure of the extra-dimensional object, the speed at which the object and 3-surface meet, and the surface tension, gravity, and fluid inertia of the 3-surface.

That said, the shape of an extra-dimensional object might permit that object to intersect the 3-surface at spatially disparate locations and times. This means that you as a observer might think you see many things (lots of spherical ripples) and might think that they are separate and distinct quanta, when in fact they are just one extra-dimensional thing. The monopole in this case, if it should every be demonstrated to be real, will only be a facet of a larger thing.

So the bottom line is this: monopoles will probably not play a role in RLT, because RLT assumes that the concept of the monopole is less than basic.

[Wick]

Is there a correlation to resting light and the potential of net electrical charge?

Absolutely!!

There is a very curious number in quantum mechanics called the coupling constant. This curious number (Feynman calculates it as -0.08542455) represents the amplitude for an electron to emit or absorb a photon.

While current theory cannot explain why this number governs the relationship between electrons and photons, RLT can (I think). If we think of the electron as a 4-d bit of matter floating on the 3-surface (remember the 3-space is a falling phase boundary or surface in 4-space). As the 3-surface falls through 4-space it drags the electron through the light which has a fairly constant energy density.

The coupling constant describes the probablility of a 4-d electron to interact with the 4-d light through which it is dragged based upon the energy density, the speed of the universe's fall through 4-space, the size and motion of the "electron", and the properties of space (surface tension, gravity, and fluid inertia.

Wick

[Wick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've come to understand that what is generally considered to be 'time' is, in essence, the cyclical process of 'generation' (flow through resting light) and 'decay' (resistance to that 'flow').

In essence what you have written is true within the context of RLT. Time is motion along the "w" axis. As all matter (which is 4-d in nature) is dragged through resting light (which is also 4-d in nature) it is forced to reconfigure. As it reconfigures, bodies change, energy gathers or dissipates, tissues decay, seeds sprout, photosynthesis occurs.

I call this kind of change "changes of state".

Physicist don't differentiate for the most part between changes of position and changes of state, but in RLT we do. In resting light theory, a change of state occurs when 4-dimensional particles either separate or combine. This process is only possible when a body composed of 4-d matter is pulled along the the w-axis.

To provide a 3-dimensional metaphor for what I'm trying to say, please imagine a frozen sphere of dirty water containing several hundreds of millions of gallons. This sphere is not under any influence. It moves far from any matter in the depths of space along a trajectory that it has taken for many billions of years. During the length of its existence the sphere has not changed. It has always been a frozen sphere of dirty water. Existing in an environment very close to absolute zero (the temporature of the CMB) it continues along a constant course in an almost constant/unchanging configuration.

But as chance would have it a star comes into view, and the sphere of dirty water comes under the star's influence. Its course is diverted. It begins to warm. It forms a gaseous tail. It becomes a comet. Now changes of state become a constant part of the sphere's character. It will now exist in a constant state of change until it collides with part of the planetary system through which it falls or is distributed by evaporation throughout its respective star system.

So the sphere of ice was able to move without changing state until it fell under the gravitational pull of the star. Changes of state only began to occur when the star wrought changes at the most basic level to the structure of the constituent matter composing the comet.

In RLT we do not assume that the universe arose from a Big Bang. Instead we consider it possible that there was a time when the universe was not falling along the "w" axis. In that early time of the universe's life all objects/bodies in the universe were capable of changing their position without changing their state. Objects/bodies still had properties like heat, gravity, inertia, elastisity, brightness, sweetness, etc. But these properties did not change the state of the objects/bodies. All 4-d things remained configured as they were. This may be the weakness of RLT (as most would consider such an ideal state unlikely). But the quantum kernel of the universe prior to the Big Bang, is no less idealistic.

Thus in RLT, in a universe in which there are changes of postion but no changes of state, there is no time. Time is a measure of change of states. In RLT we measure changes of postion in terms of durations, but not in terms of time. Time is specifically used to measure how 4-d things reconfigure once they begin falling along the "w" axis.

Wick

[Wick]

You are correct, in my opinion, coherent light is encapsulated in all material form...this may be of interest:

http://www.lightforhealth.co.uk/content/light-and-the-body.pdf

In 1933 the Russian scientist Gurwitsch hypothesised that all cells emitted light. It took until the late seventies before German biophysicists (Popp et al.) provided evidence to show that he was right. Every cell emits at least 100.000 light impulses per second at a variety of frequencies. ***

Experimenting with differences in light between the healthy and the ill, Popp found that whereas the healthy had light emissions, which followed set patterns, and biological rhythms, the sick did not. Thus cancer patients had lost the natural periodic rhythms, and their coherence. The means for the body to communicate with itself and the outside world was sabotaged because the light had become distorted.

When a cell is healthy, coherent light is emitted. When a cell is disturbed the light turns chaotic.

In summary, Popp demonstrated that weak light emissions of low intensity were able to control the body, and that light in the body may be the factor that determines health and illness.

In other words complex pathways of resonance and frequency form the body's communication system.
**
*Popp FA, Becker B. Electromagnetic Bioinformation, ed. 2, Urban and Schwartzengerg, Germany, 1988.

Popp is one of the sources I refer to in RLT. His concept of light coherence in organisms is a critical component to the way I understand that element that I would call spirit.

I believe that everything existed first spiritually and then physically. The spiritual existence is light...resting light. What Popp does not understand (IMHO) is that we do not live in spacetime. Popp has interpreted the remarkable evidence he has accumulated from a spacetime perspective. As such he is forced to think of the light as an instrumentality that is divided by time. But light is not divided by time. Light--especially coherent light--is not a flow of energy. It is energy at rest.

Imagine if you will a sphere of pure energy--brilliant white light. Imagine that this sphere has a consciousness and an ethos, that it thinks and moves about. While this sphere can change position, it does not change state. It is always quite simply a sphere of pure energy.

Now I want you to imagine that this sphere intersects a pool of still water. The surface of the water tries to comprehend the sphere, but the sphere to the surface of water is only a circle of changing size.

The sphere is also affected by its intersection. When you put a ring on your finger, you become quite aware of that portion of your finger ensheathed in the ring. The rest of your finger is not really felt unless it touches something or unless you focus intensely upon feeling the rest of your finger. Where the ring is becomes a place of greater awareness.

So when the sphere intersects the pool of still water, it becomes very aware of the place where it intersects. It even begins to think that it is only a circle, because that is the part of itself that it can feel most.

The spirit is like that.

Our light is cohesive. Every living thing is a 4-dimensional being of light. That being of 4-dimensions becomes caught on a falling 3-space and suddenly the spirit feels the place of intersection more intensely than it can feel the rest of its 4-dimensional self. It comes to associate itself more intensely with 3-dimensions than with 4.

But all of the spirit's light is there in the 4-space very close by. The whole of the spirit exists in a greater space than 3-dimensions can hold. The part of the spirit crammed into the 3-space is an almost insignicant subportion of the spirit's whole being.

Popp doesn't look at this coherent light in this way. To him the light is a signal divided over time. He doesn't realize that the coherent light exists in 4-space as a cohesive and complete unit. He doesn't realize that the coherent light which is the spirit predated the existence of the organized matter we called the body. He gladly admits that the light is an organizing instrumentality, but he fails to see that the coherent light is the very pattern in accordance to which the organism is organized.

It is when the coherent light of the spirit is not permited to flow properly through the 3-space (when it is impeded by the interference of external electromagnetic fields) that the pattern of life and health becomes disrupted. The spirit cannot organize through the interference. It cannot bring about healing in the body. For this reason, I think the field of medicine will be revolutionized once we recognize that coherent light is the source of biological patterns in the universe. We will look at the artificial electromagnetic patterns we permit to come near us with greater caution. We will find that we have to alter things like cell phones and electric blankets and lap top computers to make them safe. These electromagnetic generating objects likely interfere with the coherent electromagnetic patterns invoked by our spirits and which find expression in the biological patterns we call our bodies. The reason why we suffer from sicknesses and disease lies largely in the fact that we alter catostrophically the electromagnetic enviroment around us without even realizing it--either by consuming energy in unwise ways, by causing chemical interactions without understanding the EM consequences, by coming under the influence of another light-based organism or by deliberately harnessing EM on a large scale without understanding the impact to our coherent light forms.

I don't know how to say these things more simply. I know this takes the RLT thread into a more spiritual realm, but that's alright. It might be time to walk that road.

What I'm saying is that none of us really originated here in 3-space. We originated in 4-space. We came to 3-space for a visit, but in the process of coming to visit, we have lost sight of the 4-space which originated us. So we have come to think of ourselves as creatures of 3-space. We have lost sight of our higher-dimensional origins.

[Wick]

Because RLT theory dismantles spacetime and describes the greater universe in terms of 4 physical dimensions, and the observable universe in terms of a 3-space falling through the greater 4-space, it also describes the observable universe as a phase boundary or surface which moves through the 4-space (in much the same way as the surface of our planet (which can be idealized as a spherical 2-space) falls around the sun through 3-space).

As such, RLT assigns properties to the 3-space which might seem a bit unorthodox--properties like surface tension, gravity, and fluid inertia. We have said this before in recent posts.

With this in mind, I recently took a large stainless steel bowl and emptied it of its burden of summer gooseberries. I then filled it with water and took it into my garage. I also took with me a box of cheerios (an "O" shaped cereal made of oats).

What I first noticed was that when the cheerios floated in large quanties upon the surface of the water, they tended to clump together. I tried to separate them, but found they would not remain separated. I've seen this "a million" times before, but never made any connection to RLT until today. When the cheerios, which actually rise above and sink below the 2-dimensional surface of the water, float on the water's surface, their interaction upon the surface causes them to clump together.

If the 3-surface of space is anything like a 2-surface of water, and I suspect it is (though the properties of water and space are very different indeed) I wonder what would happen if I poured out a portion of 4-dimensional "cereal" onto the quiet 3-surface. Would the 4-dimensional cereal begin to clump together as my cheerios did this afternoon? Could that be something like what happens with GRAVITY?

I actually took the bowl water and cereal into the garage because my drill was there.

I wanted to find out what would happen to a single cheerio if I placed it near a swiftly rotating drill bit. My gut told me that the rotating bit would cause a motion upon the surface that would attract the cheerio towards the bit. I was also fairly certain that this would be the case no matter which direction the bit was spinning (the right or the left). My gut was correct. Such attraction occured.

What I was not able to determine is what would happen if the cheerios themselves were spinning (some clockwise and some counterclockwise) Would counterclockwise spinning cheerios attract counterclockwise spinning cheerios, or would they attract cheerios spinning in the same direction? Or would all cheerios be attracted to one another regardless of their spin orientation?

If anyone knows the answer, I'm all ears!!

The reason why I ask, is because in resting light theory, we think of particles of matter as a kind of loop that spins upon its internal axis (like the axis inside a piece of yarn when you roll it between your fingers). For instance, in RLT we think of protons and neutrons as being very similar. In both cases the rotating loops intersect the 3-surface of space in 3 places (forming a knot of sorts). If the intersection of a loop rotates through the 3-surface in a clockwise direction, we call that intersection an up-quark. If it rotates through the 3-surface in a counterclockwise direction we call it a down-quark. As it turns out, if a loop intersecting the 3-surface at three places has two intersections spinning counterclockwise then the third intersection must spin clockwise. This would represent a neutron (two down-quarks and an up-quark). If this neutron then tips upside down in relation to the 3-surface, the spin upon the axis of the loop reverses and the neutron becomes a proton, with two intersections spinning clockwise and one spinning counterclockwise.

The important thing to remember in this strange little tirade is that what we thought might be three things (3 quarks) may in fact be one thing when seen from 4-space. Likewise what we thought were two different things (the proton and neutron) may indeed be the same thing when all is said and done. A boat is still a boat, even if it has capsized!

Wick

By the way, I suspect that the missing intersection (as 3 intersection are difficult to arrange upon a surface) is somehow related to the electron, but I haven't figured that out yet.

[Wick]

This morning in my garden, I found the remains of a rabbit killed by a fox.

As I looked at what was left of the rabbit, I found myself thinking about that dimension we call the special dimension of time.

Normally the addition of a dimension in physics provides a greater degree of freedom. Yet it seems that the dimension of time provides only a greater degree of constraint. Instead of increasing our ability to maneuver about this world in which we find ourselves, the dimension of time limits our freedom by degrees until we find ourselves...well...like the rabbit in my garden.

Then how can we call time a dimension? There is nothing special about time. Nor is it a dimension. It offers no increase in the degree of freedom with which we face the universe. Time and change hold us in thrall. Time and change are indicative of a direction in which the universe moves. We find ourselves on a fast moving train, and we cannot get off except by dying.

Wick

[Wick]

Furthermore, the three dimensions of space with which we are familiar are easily observed. We scratch two points onto a flat rock and connect them with a line--two dimensions have been observed. The line that connects our eyes to the line on the rock provides context for a third dimension.

But time doesn't work that way. There is a point in the past in which Wick was born. But I cannot see that point. There is a point in the future in which Wick will die. That point is also hidden from my view.

I cannot therefore assume that the point of Wick's birth exists somewhere in space and time. Since I cannot observe that moment's existence, I must refrain from assuming that that configuration of time and space is somehow captured upon some eternal and imaginary fabric. Just as the contrail of a jet dissolves as the jet progresses through the sky, so my past may well disolve as I move along the universal track. It is, in fact, much more likely that my past dissolves into the present than that the past exists in some static configuration in the time behind me. I must assume such is the case since I can no longer observe past moments.

It is true that a picture or a memory of Wick's birth may remain in the moving present. But that does not prove the existence of a static configuration of space and time. It only proves that records in the present continue to move along with the present until such time as said records are distroyed by the reconfigurations that form the present--a fire, a flood, a fit of anger, over exposure to the sun--such things will make quick work of my photographed birth.

No the past is not real.

Neither is the future.

All that is real, all that truly exists in this universe, exists here in the Present...in the moving Present Point.

All who are truly realists must concede this point. If they cannot concede this point they must be ready to show us all the static past and the static future of spacetime. They may wish to show us a multiverse of spacetimes, but they cannot. Not even in quantum physics can we truly observe past or future spacetimes. We can observe the power of conscious choice and observation at work, but that does not prove the existence of past or future times in a vast mulitiverse containing all possibilities.

The Present is all their is. Can anyone prove otherwise?

Spacetime is a fairy tale. It belongs with Alice on the other side of the Looking Glass.

Wick

[Wick]

On serveral occasions, Leskey, you have asked me what my metaphor for the universe might be. I think I have suggested that my metaphor would be a skin.

A skin is a phase boundary that separates the essence of what I am from the rest of the world around me. I depend upon this surface (which I could idealize as a two dimensional membrane that surrounds my being) to provide me with everything I know about the world of 3 dimensions. I touch my cat and come to understand her nature. I hear her purr, or mew or hiss, and come to understand her nature. I smell her catbox and come to understand her nature. I watch her catch a bird and come to understand her nature.

My skin and its sensors (including the faculties of my senses (eyes, ears, nose, etc.)) help me to comprehend my cat. But all of my interactions with her are primarily two dimensional in nature. The picture in my eyes is a picture of two dimensions (my brain tricks me into thinking otherwise). As my surfaces interact with her surfaces I am coming to understand her by touch from a two dimensional perspective. My sense of smell is directional, but it lacks the power to give me a perfect understanding of the three-dimensional nature of my cat. I cannot sense her liver, pancreas or other organs. I cannot see her thoughts. I cannot see through her eyes or taste what she tastes. My experience with the cat remains two dimensional.

I may fool myself into thinking that I understand my cat in 3 dimensions, but I do not.

It is important here to point out that it is by motion in or through 3-space that I come to certain conclusions about my cat. I must move my hand across her fur to understand that part of her nature. I must move near her cat box to understand that part of her nature. I must move my eyes to the location of her act of avian murder to understand that part of her nature. By moving in or through the universe of 3-dimensions I come to understand her. And it is by moving that I can translate my two dimensional perceptions of my cat into three-dimensional sense.

So the universe is like a 3-dimensional skin--a phase boundary that divides the firmament above from the firmament beneath. As it turns out the firmament above is light and the firmament beneath is light. The universe is that thing that divides the light from the light as it falls through the light.

As the universe moves through 4-space, it perceives 4 space, but as a skin interacting with 4-dimensional things, the universe only obtains a 3-dimensional sense of the world through which it falls. So the universe places a huge number of point particles in a 3-dimensional configuration which we might call a moment. In the next moment, the universe places those same point particles in a slightly different, but new configuration. This process continues as long as the universe moves and as this motion continues, the universe begins to make 4-dimensional sense of its 3-dimensional experiences.

I don't know if this helps. Leskey. Please tell me if it does not, and I'll try again.

Regards!

Wick