Resting Light Theory

[Wick]

Dunno about simpler, if just because it still postulates an unobserved aspect of reality, the hyperspace.

The dimension of time is no more observed as a dimension than a fourth spatial dimension would be. In both cases we are talking about something unobserved. The time dimension implies that all past and future events exist in the overall fabric of nature as a container of all events. Noone has seen that container, yet we accept it without the slightest question because it is mathematically expedient that we do.

In quantum mechanics we also depend on implied unobservable force carriers. None has ever been seen, but we accept them because they are mathematically expedient.

In the extension of general relativity we accept another pair of unobservable phenomena--dark matter and dark energy. These phenomena have never been seen, THESE PHENOMENA ACCOUNT FOR A VAST MAJORITY OF THE MATTER AND ENERGY IN UNIVERSE, YET THEY ARE UNOBSERVED, but we include them in our theories because they are mathematically expedient.

I'll admit that my theory purports an unobservable dimension, but so has every theory submitted to date.

[Max™]

I have to implicity disagree that time isn't observed, right now is qualitatively different than the now when I began typing this sentence. They were both nows when I noticed them, but they're in a different location relative to my awareness now. It isn't a matter of it being mathematically appropriate to me, it's just simple that way.

I don't like current quantum theories.

Dark Energy is the amount of energy represented by space itself, and the perceived accelerating expansion is a function of time and space being tied together. As time stretches, space has to grow thinner. Dark Matter isn't unobservable, just unobserved, and I've actually predicted a candidate which would explain why it's unobserved.

I'm not a math = truth kind of guy, I'm a math = tool type.


Again though, don't get me wrong, I like your idea a lot, I see where you arrived at it from, I agree with a lot of it in a roundabout way.

[AntonioLao]

I'm not saying that space time is invalid

To me time is now simply a fractal dimensional measurement between integral dimensions. 1/2 between 0D and 1D or 1.5 between 1D and 2D or 2.5 between 2D and 3D.

[Wick]

I have to implicity disagree that time isn't observed, right now is qualitatively different than the now when I began typing this sentence. They were both nows when I noticed them, but they're in a different location relative to my awareness now. It isn't a matter of it being mathematically appropriate to me, it's just simple that way.

I understand, Max, that for you the container of time is simply that way, but neither you nor anyone else can prove that past nows exist in any location. That's the part of time you cannot observe. I will allow that you can observe your nows, but the evidence that past nows exist in the fabric of spacetime is just not there. We have no empirical way of looking into the container of past or future events...unless, of course, you know a prophet!!

So we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. If you have empirical evidence that past events do indeed somehow exist in the fabric of space-time (mathematics aside), I need to know it, because if such a container exists, Resting Light Theory is rubbish.

There was a time when we said the stars were wheeling through the sky on a 24 hour cycle. We believed it with all our hearts for 1500 years. Had anyone said that the stars were not moving, we would have told them they were insane. We might have locked them up or excommunicated them. The evidence of our eyes told us that the stars moved. It wasn't a matter of being mathematically appropriate. It's was just simply that way, we told ourselves.

But it wasn't that way. A construction--the construction Ptolemy gave us--was not enough. We had to understand once and for all how that construction moved. Thank heaven for Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo who helped us to see our earth from the outside.

How long will we continue to make the assumption that light propagates or moves at all? Will we ever come to an understanding that the speed of light today is like yesterday's Dome of Fixed Stars? Our universe is falling through 4-space and we can't even feel it! With our most sensative interferometers, we observe light moving (in a vacuum) in relation to all things at the velocity c. We think our instruments prove it to us, not understanding that our instruments are moving at the same speed we are! It is as clear to us as the day is bright. The universe is at rest we say. It contains all things, then in what direction should it move? Yet our assumption that the universe is at rest will undoubtably keep us from greater knowledge. Only when we come to understand that the universe falls through 4-space, will we begin to understand the true nature of light...and of human consciousness.

Wick

[Wick]

To me time is now simply a fractal dimensional measurement between integral dimensions. 1/2 between 0D and 1D or 1.5 between 1D and 2D or 2.5 between 2D and 3D.

I want to understand what that means, Antonio, but I'm stupid.

Tell me, putting space-time aside, is it possible to model the property of time in a 3D moving and reconfiguring through a 4D? I just want to know if mathematics could describe such a relationship.

If this question doesn't make sense, please let me know and I'll try to express it another way.

Wick

[austintorn@aol.com]

We can see the past with a video camera, just as someone 'out there' could, with the right equipment, catch up to the emanations of our past and see them.

Maybe someone is watching the first TV shows now, just as we see stars as they were millions of years ago.

To see the actual future is difficult, but its 'there' if you believe in determinism, but just possibly there if you don't.

[Wick]

We can see the past with a video camera, just as someone 'out there' could, with the right equipment, catch up to the emanations of our past and see them.

Maybe someone is watching the first TV shows now, just as we see stars as they were millions of years ago.

To see the actual future is difficult, but its 'there' if you believe in determinism, but just possibly there if you don't.

Cameras and signals exist in the now. The visual record on the film is a record preserved in the present, not the past. The light signal emanating from the star exists in the present, not the past. As for determinism, it is not even possible if you believe Resting Light Theory. And I do, Austin...I do.

Thanks for you comment, but there is a difference between records stored in the configuration of the present and the existence of past events.

When I was young, I used to listen to Fibber McGee and Molly on the radio (reruns...not the original...I'm not that old). Fibber had a closet in which he would throw everything when he needed to clean up. At times, he would forget how full the closet must have become and inadvertantly open the door. And from my radio would come the hillarious sound of all kinds of trash falling out of the closet to rain down on poor Fibber's head.

Space-time and determinism is kind of like that. I don't think nature is like that though. When nature is done with something, she changes it into something else. She doesn't preserve it for an eternity in some universal version of Fibber's closet.

I like Resting Light Theory if only because it is economical. I'm not one to carry around a lot of baggage. I don't think the universe is either. In Resting Light Theory, the past and the future are simply the covered and remaining track of a moving present. Past and future don't exist in any physical way. The observable universe exists only in the Present Point. All existing configurations are stored there, along with records like dvds, cds, human brains, tree rings, geologic layerings, bones, books...you get the picture. These records are enough. We don't need to assume that the future and past are stored in a deterministic way. Why assume something we can never observe?

[austintorn@aol.com]

The opposite of determinism of mind is perhaps learning new things, then perhaps making different choices than before, but then, after that, which is ever ongoing, the choices are not pre-determined by the nature of the person as s/he has become(not random senseless either)?

As for the universe, we had good luck?

[Wick]

The opposite of determinism of mind is perhaps learning new things, then perhaps making different choices than before, but then, after that, which is ever ongoing, the choices are not pre-determined by the nature of the person as s/he has become(not random senseless either)?

As for the universe, we had good luck?

Not at all. Perhaps this thread has come full circle. It started with what it means if light is at rest.

If light is at rest, then Austin is not merely flesh and blood. The flesh and blood we call Austin is only a recent addition to something much older. What's more, Austin's flesh and blood is moving (at a fundamental level) through 4-dimensional space.

The essential thing we call Austin--the conscious Austin--is an organized and coherent, thinking, reasoning electromagnetic organism. This "light" organism is the pattern according to which matter takes form.

It sounds wierd, I know, but in Resting Light Theory, light is structured and solid and fundamental, while matter is fleeting and transitory and unsettled. The concept of an electromagnetic organism turns the table on how we think of ourselves. We usually focus our attention on our physical bodies, but the core of our being, the thinking, organizing, core that enlivens the matter we wear, is electromagnetic.

So there was no luck involved in the universes success. It succeeded because we wanted it to succeed. We needed it to succeed. Resting Light Theory implies that the universe was a conscious choice...and its creation was integral to our learning and development.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks Wick,

I could be electromagnetic just as well as I may have been formerly described as bio-electro-chemical, for all is waves anyway.

Probably, our consciousness brought the universe into being, the universe then reflecting the workable avenue that led to consciousness.

Determinism? Kind of, but not really, for a workable end arose from others not so workable.