Resting Light Theory

[AntonioLao]

It isn't an infinite loop

Say that to a computer programmer waiting for her printout then she will give you a dirty look not the other kind of dirty look you have in mind.

[Max™]

I only worry about one womans dirty looks, and she's upstairs doing her make-up.

I have a natural aversion to infinities, they will drive you insane.

[AntonioLao]

I have a natural aversion to infinities

Usually it happens when a number is divided by zero and it did drive Cantor into insanity, the father of modern set theory. The problem was partially solved by Godel incompleteness theorem.

[Max™]

I made a joke about that in a thread on an MMO board I play.

f(x) = Σ (x/-3)+(x/-2)+(x/-1)+(x/... OH CRAP! *boom*)
n=-3, -2, ..., 5

[AntonioLao]

If you work some more on this joke series it could possibly become the greatest discovery of an infinite series that starts with negative time and every mathematician must go back in time to find its limit unless of course if it is a divergence series then it has no need of a limit.

[Max™]

It was inspired by my time interaction idea, so in a sense you could say I'm working on it.

Of course, the limit is already set by the energy of the particle.

[AntonioLao]

the limit is already set by the energy

The hyperspace physicist Michio Kaku used to say that it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel in the time direction.

[Max™]

I didn't say travel, and that is absurd since our awareness does travel through the time direction.

I said interact, experience in a qualitatively different way than we usually do.

From the perspective of a body with high time dilation, you interact with a very broad stretch of time compared to one instant for the highly dilated perspective.

Now consider that we are in a highly dilated perspective compared to the quantum realm.

[Wick]

Gosh, Antonio and Max, you two have been busy today. I'm glad your spending time where light is at rest! In the upcoming posts I'll provide my comments on your recent interesting discussions:

The mathematics is described by Lorentz transformations if time is considered as the 4th dimension of a backgroundless theory but quantum theory is based on a background of space-time which makes the time as a parameter instead of a pure physical dimension.

Antonio, but this doesn't answer my question. My question was, "Is it possible to model time without turning it into a dimension?" I understand that virtually all mainstream theories consider time to be a dimension. But for a moment, let's just say that time is not a dimension. Instead lets call it a property that arises in a 3-space when that 3-space falls through a 4-space. Can such an idea be expressed mathematically without telling me that time is a 3.5-space!?

Here is a thought experiment to consider as you think about my question.

There is a ball carbon floating in a 3-d universe. This ball of carbon, which by the way is sentient and capable of movment, is the only occupant of this 3-d universe. Finally, the 3-d universe which contains the carbon ball is falling through a greater 4-space filled with a luminous ether or light.

So here's what we have: a ball of carbon, floating in a 3-d universe, which is falling through a 4-space filled with light.

The ball of carbon is made of fundamental matter which has 4-dimensions. Consequently each of the 4-d particles of carbon, which constitute the ball, cannot be contained in the 3-d universe. NOTE THAT THE WHOLE CARBON ATOM IS CONSIDERED A UNIFIED PARTICLE. Because most of each 4-d particle exists outside of the 3-d universe, the appearance in the 3-d universe is incomplete at best. At the microscopic level each 4-d particle of carbon appears to be a swarm of approximately eighteen point particles. In other words, each SINGLE carbon particle intersects the 3-d universe at eighteen points in a constant state of reconfiguration (because the 4-d particle constantly rotates through the surface of the 3-d universe. Were an observer in this 3-d universe, she might determine that 6 of the so-called "point particles" were positively charge, 6 neutrally charged, and 6 negatively charged. But the observer in 4-space would see each carbon atom as a single undivided unit.

Now lets consider the question of time given this scenario. Can math describe the four-space, the descent of the 3-d universe through 4-space and the resulting reconfiguration of the point-particles associated with the whole particle of carbon? In the process we need to describe the things we call spin, chirality, charge, mass, gravity, electromagnetic interaction, and above all TIME. Can it be done? I think it can, but I am not the man to do it. Can you, Antonio? Is there enough information here to build a model of this simple little universe?

Wick

[Wick]

Which suggests a fundamental error in the way quantum mechanics is formulated... to me at least.

Also, interesting thing I noticed Wick, RLT actually in a sense describes the viewpoint of consciousness as it moves through a universe, which is why I say it isn't so much that it is wrong, it's just like the duality of various string theories. They can seem totally conflicting, then you change the viewpoint and it's the same theory.

Except in this case consciousness moves along with the universe. Consciousness is actually 4-dimensional in nature. Once consciousness joins itself with matter it is also pulled along on the falling 3-space.

I'll take your word on it regarding string theory, but I must admit that string theory makes me very uncomfortable.

Wick