RLT: A Superficial Universe

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(May be a bit crude, as having trouble understanding you...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Yeah Wick, the only way I’ve ever been able to understand the total phenomenon of light and matter, is that as matter accelerates through space, say as it reaches 99% of the speed of light, if this were even possible, matter would have to take on the linear velocity of light, as angular velocity within itself__thus the matter, if being an observer, would still witness light traveling at c__though in fact__it’s the matter whose overall velocity has changed__that is the total velocity of light and matter must always be expressed as one total true c velocity. Matter would just vibrate/spin/radiate faster, the faster it travels__It’s just the inverse evolution of how it formed into solid/standing wave matter. This is what is happening when Lene Hau’s experiment stops light__it’s only the linear velocity of light that stops, and transfers all its new velocity to the standing Bose-Einstein condensate as spins and vibrations/harmonics, or angular velocities. The total present group velocity must equate to one total true c, or possibly 2c if both linear and angular are figured at once…

I choose to look at this phenomenon very differently. If we think of the universe as a surface, much of this confusion falls away. Let me show you why.[/quote]
Sorry Wick, but I do not see the universe as a surface…

Imagine a surface of water. Now lets say that someone has blown dandylion seeds onto the water. So you have a surface of water now strewn with dandylion seeds. The surface of the water only contains a slight cross-section of each dandylion seed--a slice. And since the seeds don't land in the same way, each cross section upon the surface looks a little different.

Now let's for the sake of argument say that the surface of water (and only the surface of water) is three-dimensional space...and let's also say that the cross-section of each dandylion seed represents particles of matter resting upon the surface of space. This picture is the observable universe.

What is not in the observable universe is the wind that blows above the surface of water, and the depths that lie beneath the surface of the water. Those things exist, but they lie outside the universe.

So far, this makes no sense what-so-ever__to me. Sorry…

Likewise, the universe does not contain that portion of each dandylion seed that reaches up above the surface of the water nor does it contain that portion of each seed that extends below the surface of the water. Whatever extends above or below the surface of water we will call dark matter and dark energy.

When the surface of water moves, its surface area increases. The surface of water (which represents space) moves on a small scale (ripples and waves). Let's call these ripples and waves the electromagnetic force. But the surface of water also moves on a large scale (falls, whirlpools, currents, etc.). As a metaphor of space, we'll call this large scale motion the gravitational force.

As the surface of water moves, it causes the dandylion seeds to move as well. These seeds move in ways that actually cause localized disturbances of their own--tiny ripples that are localized to their immediate vicinity. In other words, the moving surface of water moves the seeds, but the seeds also cause the surface of water to move. Breaking this metaphor down, we can say that there is a complimentary effect. Space moves matter and matter moves space.

Well maybe to you, but to me, space is fundamentally matter and motion, and that would be a pre-bang linear chiralling/swirling right and left handed photonic motions, and a post-bang real quantum particle/wave angular and spin em motion__Stars and black-holes cook fundamental photonic/waves into real hard particles of our real known finite universe. I call it S1 and S2 state spaces, to distinguish between non-quantumized, and quantumized space states__non-quantumized would be the decay state of non-conjoined particles/waves, and quantumized would be the structured state of conjoined particles/waves…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
And at this point, I’d have to disagree with you, as imo, all matter decays over time to its most fundamental state, and since all protons to electrons absorb and emit photons, neutrinos, etc., they are not fundamental.

You disagree, because its hard for you to accept the metaphor I describe above.

It isn’t a question of being hard, imo, it’s just a simple point of rejection, to any known and possible physical mechanics…

The idea that the universe is the superficial surface of something of greater dimensions is hard to swallow.

I only accept a four dimensional universe, and that fourth dimension is the simple measurable distance matter travels and stops at, whether progression or occurrence…

Its easy to say that there is dark energy and dark matter because if we call it dark we can imagine that it actually is in the universe but as yet unobserved (aside from its obvious influence). But I choos instead to say that if there is dark energy it is energy that flows "above" or "below" the

superficial universe which we call the "observable universe. These "dark" things are the winds above the surface of water, the currents below the surface of water, that portion of the seed that extends upward and downward into those energetic mediums. We fail to see them not because they are dark, but because they are spatial extended into a place we have not yet managed to probe.

Wick, I accept nothing within science I can not see and know, with some sort of instrument, or obvious experimental results__Dark matter and energy have not yet been proven to me__And stating superficial universe, as you have, is way outside any possible science view, to me…

The dandylion seed certainly changes its cross-sectional configuration on the surface of water, but fundamentally, the seed does not change except that the more caught it becomes beneath the surface, the less likely it is to extend above the surface again. Neutrons and protons fit nicely into this paradigm. A neutron would be a seed that extends upward into the wind. But once the bulk of the "seed" transitions below the surface of water, it becomes a proton and thereafter remains a proton.

Sorry Wick, but that’s just pure self-conjecture. Self-conjectures are private languages, not allowed in science…

What's more, using this metaphor we can't really talk about photons as being particles or "more" fundamental. There really is no photon, per se. A particle does not exist. Space (the surface of water) moves and as it moves it changes the configuration of a seed floating on the surface. The seed in turn moves space and sends a ripple moving away from itself. There is no absorbtion or emission in this case. There is a wave moving through space which causes the configuration of matter to change, which in turn causes the space to move again. This is a flowing series of actions and reactions. We are not talking so much about particles here. We are talking about movements that arise as space and matter interact.

Well, you can talk about it that way, if you wish, but I don’t intend to. Imo, the universe is absolutely made of real physical substances called waves and particles__just jump in front of a train to prove it__I wouldn’t seriously suggest it though…rrr
(continued...)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(continued...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Here again, the only way I could theorize this was to see, say an electron, at the very outer edge of the light cone, where it would run out of photons to absorb, so it could possibly reach its state change condition of emitting photons, neutrinos or whatever other relative bosons, and completely decay to its most fundamental state of photons/bosons__or other bosonic family members, we may not have yet discovered.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your ideas seem to deny the laws of conservation on the one hand and the concept of entropy on the other.[/quote]
No Wick, I’m totally respecting all the laws of physics with my ideas. It’s just most people think the finite universe is some kind of closed vessel__I do not, except that it’s semi-closed by the infinite hydro-dynamics of the fundamental initial force__The Prime Mover__The Action of Least Action__Nearest zero k wave motion and temperature…

Once we get rid of this concept of emission and absorption, we can look at matter and space in a new way.

Sorry again Wick, but I do not intend to get rid of what I know is absolutely fundamental to the mechanics of motion and matter…

Matter does not become space. Neither does space become matter.

I think it’s just a matter of linguistics and semantics, whether one calls space, matter and motion or not, as it’s always eternally infinitely full of either it’s most absolute fundamental substance, or this is formed into the matter objects we enjoy, or it decays back to it prime fundamental S1 state of substance. In order to exist at all, an absolute fundamental substance must eternally, infinitely exist__Imo…

Space moves and we call these things electromagnetism, gravity, gravitons, photons, etc. But really its just space moving.

All I see here is the difference between making different distinctions or not. I choose to make entirely different distinctions than you. To me all three__space, matter and motion all move__Nothing is stationary. In order for it only to be space moving, you’d have to explain why I see my truck’s headlights going down the road at night, etc…

We don't need a special label. What's more the reason space moves is because of matter. When matter accumulates it causes space to bend in a smooth and large-scale way that we call the gravitational force. .

Regards!
Wick

No-one’s arguing those last three points, Wick__Space, matter and motion…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
For this you’d have to look at the estimated decay rates for all particles,
Again, I may well be wrong, but I don't think there has ever been the observation of single quark or electron decay. Nor has anyone observed the decay of even a single proton.
When I waterski, my rest mass in the water is relatively constant, but the moment I begin to accelerate through the depths of the water and the surface of water, I immediately begin to exhibit a good deal of drag. [/quote]
Yeah Wick, but in the real universe, nothing ever escapes the eternality of the two fields__either S1 or S2. There is eternally and infinitely always one of these two states, therefore; real drag always exists, and more within soft matter than hard__go figure…

In a sense, I never stopped being myself. I didn't change names when I was dragging through the surface, or when I glided over the surface, or when I biffed it, or when I went tumbling through the waves, or when I returned to rest. It is quite true that my cross-sectiion and my drag changed, but these changes were properties associated with my interactiion with the surface. They did not (assuming I was in one piece when I finished) change me fundamentally. I was the same "particle" when I started, as I was when I was finished. All along I was Wick. I did not become Muon or Tau along the way. It may well be that if there were a species of flatlanders living upon the surface of water and observing my ordeal, they may have perceived everything quite differently, because they were only able to see my cross-section, the drag associated with my climb out of the water, the sudden collision with another skier, the wild spray of MANY cross-sections as hands, feet and other body parts entered the water in stages, then my swift return to equalibrium. They would not have comprehended any of what really happened. They would have invented a particle zoo of their own!

Try that same experiment at the speed of light, and you may begin to understand Einstien’s real physics__Because, in order to reach true c, you’d have to completely decay to photons, as only zero-mass photons can exist at true c. So, your non-decay ideas are totally against all sensible physics knowledge__and don’t forget we know it’s true because h-bombs actually work__a certain percentage of the protons, neutrons, electrons and positrons decayed to photons__very violent photons, I might say, since photons and other bosonic relatives are all that carry and release the force energy, and that had to come from inside the particles’ many decays. Natural decays of only neutrons have been witnessed in the standard slow decay study labs, but bombs and accelerators/colliders is a different story…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Imo, since photons are the only particle/wave we know of not to absorb or emit any other particle/wave, except possibly other photons, it would be more fundamental to me than the electron.

Again, for me the photon/particle/wave is nothing more than space in motion. It is in no way more fundamental than fundamental particles of matter. We can't even compare them. They are apples and raindrops. All electromagnetic manifestations are space in motion. All material manifestations are matter in motion. Nothing is at rest upon the surface. The only resting places lie outside the surface of water (space) where all light (spatial motion) originates.

Well, you can believe fairy-tales like that if you wish, but I know better__as the WWII physicists also knew better, when they exploded the first A-Bomb__About 3% of the matter decays to more fundamental particles, including mostly photons. Two or three years ago, I posted the Los Alemos original papers. Their still on site somewhere in one of DaveW’s posts__All the facts and figures of real particle structures are there, and I’ve also worked in the nuke industry most of my life__and believe me__those hot zoomies are real, as many I’ve known are either dying or dead from accidental over-hits from those zoomies, you think aren’t real. One friend of mine was just in the vicinity of a fallen cobalt x-ray ball, but having a metal belt buckle on, he’s been slowing dying of pancreatic cancer for over twenty-five years__particle/waves are real, and they do move very fast, and they are hot…

Regarding the problems associated with time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
This has always been the problem with physics. If one tries to make time into more than it truly is(not a dimension, except as math)__just distance of matter in motion__one easily confuses all issues.

If time doesn't seem to be working, let's get rid of it! Change the dimension of time into a fourth dimension of space. Do that and we suddenly know in which direction space seems to bending, we also begin to understand what is going on in particle collisions, where black holes lead to, where dark matter and dark energy lie. Kaluza was on the right track...the problem was that string theory derailed him.
Regards!
Wick

Wick, time isn’t bothering me none, as I only deal with earth time for dinner, etc., not physics’ dimensional time, as I stated above it’s just the measure of matter in motion__So, what’s the big deal…? I sure as hell don’t care about other’s, who are over-consumed with their own imaginations__I can’t stop em, only they can…rrr

Regards,
Lloyd

[labelwench]

Lloyd,

As one who has worked most of your life in the nuclear industry, just what are the shortcomings with nuclear energy?

Is it too hot to handle?

Not well enough understood?

Or is there money and politics as restraints?

Of course I can do research on-line, but I am more interested in your comments, as they may be subjective, but hopefully free from other influences, and you do endeavor to use logic and objectivity as your baseline.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Well, I had a whole post for you Lorrina, but the WiFi conked out, so I'll try another...

Lloyd,

As one who has worked most of your life in the nuclear industry, just what are the shortcomings with nuclear energy?

Imo, the shortcomings are fear and politics. Though I have witnessed accidents, there are far fewer in the nuclear industry than any others. The problem, being a political one, is the issue of waste fuel and other lower level radiated materials storage. In the early years, it was dumped in the ocean. Now, this is the controversial side of the issue. Should we use the deep oceans, which are actually the safest waste area, or should we store the waste on dry land, the most dangerous area, to both contamination and terrorist problems? My vote is for the deep oceans, as 6 to 10 feet of water slows the rads enough to be safe, as our divers work on the reactor head, the hottest element needing handling, underwater...

Is it too hot to handle?

Under water, it's quite safe, but when the reactor head must be pulled is the hottest danger moment. The core is emptied of all un-necessary personel, and the crane operator removes the head, and sets it behind lead curtains. He's also wrapped in lead blankets, while running the crane. Once behind the lead curtain, the hot zoomies subside and other workers can return to work, though certain jobs only allow 15 minutes exposure per day, so a lot of guys volunteer for these jobs, as they get the other 11 hours and 45 minutes free with pay. These would be hot-rad pipe welders and fitters, and those handling other reactor hot parts. Sometimes even the wrenches and tools are radio-active__and must be contained. But all-in-all, it's one of the safest work environments I've ever worked in__Machine gun toting guards and physicist safety officers every ten feet...

Not well enough understood?

No, not at all. It's thoroughly understood, by even the average nuke plant workers, as all must go through a thorough training and knowledge program before even entering the hot side of the plants. Anything one doesn't understand can be answered on the spot by the physicist officers, or other head physicists, and formans, etc. Often, it's military contractors, such as General Dynamics, doing the shutdown and refueling work__Whoever it is, they are fully liscensed and knowledgeable...

Or is there money and politics as restraints?

Politics and fear is the big problem holding up our needed expansion of the nuclear industry, to its newest stage systems. Permitting is a problem in local communities, due to the exaggerated fears. Even when building the plants years ago, the workman's most dangerous part of the job was getting past the angry protestors__They're more dangerous than all the radiation...

Of course I can do research on-line, but I am more interested in your comments, as they may be subjective, but hopefully free from other influences, and you do endeavor to use logic and objectivity as your baseline.

Lorrina, if it were up to me, I'd build 1000 new nuclear plants, immediately__and have the waste fuel rods, and other heavy hot materials, dumped in the oceans, two to five miles down__where it could never harm anything or anyone, equatic life, environmentalist or terrorist...rrr

A bit controversial, but the safest way, to get the power we direly need...

[Wick]

I never claimed to be a scientist, Lloyd. That's why I made this a Unified thread. Languages and the arts are my game.

The reason I began this thread was to explore a superficial universe, which implies that there is something outside the universe. I'm ok with you disagreeing with that idea, but please understand that that is the premise of the thread.

By the way...I am a writer of fiction and poetry. Should you expect anymore, than a fairytale from me?

And though I would never aspire to come within a light year of the greatness of Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein...it is worth noting that their ideas were once thought to be fairytales...

Nor did I imply that moving space is NOTHING. When space moves amazing things happen. Those things can be hot and quick. Moving space can burn, tear, rip, shatter, it can send a message, inspire song, reveal a TOE. Moving space is as real as matter.

What I'm implying is that space is a surface with properties. Einstein helped us to understand some of those properties of space when he showed us GR. But we have not yet explored the properties of that space, which bends around stars, when it vibrates under the influence of the fundamental matter that rests upon it.

If I'm not making sense, please ask questions. I'll try to make myself clearer.

And perhaps your right. I never claimed to be lucid or wise. I simply have an opinion...fairytale or not. But that doesn't mean I will abandon my opinion (fairytale or not) because you disagree.

All that said, I respect your opinion. Hope you stick around to keep me honest and to help me clairify what I may not have gotten across.

Regards!

Wick

[SteveA]

Two quick comments

1) I agree entirely that nuclear power is a very good option though there are "powers that be" that prefer to create a global monopoly on energy. Most every energy crisis has been man made and political.

From an environmental standpoint, radioactive elements already exist in nature and in many ways nuclear power is the energy extracted from cleaning those up from the environment - you can spin things any way you want - the real issue is simply over containment. The dangers of nuclear weapons far far outweigh possible dangers of nuclear power and the benefits would be great. Many countries already rely heavily on nuclear power and quite successfully too.

2) Your comments, Wick, regarding space being the equivalent of a surface that we interact with I think is a great analogy. There's a more detailed level of complexity that exists and we just see the figurative surface.

I believe that there will never be a way to prove what all laws of physics are and this is due to more than just opinion, but logical evidence that there can exist properties of a system that cannot be proven true, except in a statistical sense, from within that system:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems

An interesting implication of this is that it would appear possible that things could be known to be true, yet unprovable that they are true, except in a statistical sense and if you consider that some things are rare, such statistical evidence may not be available either.

It could very well be that intuition reflects some of these properties as individual experiences encompass more than those experiences objectively shared in common with others (for example, a "scientist" may claim to be measuring or describing etc. objective reality, but that individual cannot see objectively reality beyond a subset of their own individual experiences and so that "objective reality" is actually a subset of their personal experiences embedded within their total subjective "universe", which is larger than the objective version), and that larger subjective version of experience has the potential to detect such properties that could not be proven from "within objective reality".

Basically, logic can do a lot (there are infinite varieties of infinite logical structures) but beyond that, the creative component is something that appears intuition, instinct and an unknown play a role in and it doesn't seem like much can be said, rather by definition, about specifically how those all fits together ... someone's guess is likely better than any logical proof.

Just like M-Theory unified string theories, "Universal Computation" unifies all forms of logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine - basically, you can swap physical forms for computation and yet perform equivalent computations (and computations can be seen similar to the growth of a structure from a seed/program). As an analogy, you can write a program on a PC, Macintosh or Sun Workstation and they can all perform the same computations, though the physical interfaces can reflect the results of those computations in different physical manners.

Any physical theory that can make precise predictions will be equivalent to such a program on a universal computer and so we can unify all (deterministic) physical theories under universal computation and if we had a source of randomness (which could be present in time), then we can additionally include non-deterministic theories.

Once again though, all these theories could still have properties that could not be proven or derivable from with such a system, so we'd still have the "problem" that other properties could exist that are not described by that provable physical theory and past those limits of logic would lie areas of intuition, instinct, guesswork and blind luck or simply the unknown etc.

Well, I guess it could be worth appreciating the unknown, because it doesn't appear to be going anywhere in the near future.

Have fun (if you're not having fun, you may be doing it wrong ).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Just beware, the micro-tomb of too subjective a reality...rrr

[PhysicsMan]

I have been reading and re-reading, and I find myself at odds with Klevgard's concept of aging.

He says that light travels through space and is stationary in time (as does Einstein) and he calls this travel through space velocity. Particles of matter, on the other hand, he indicates are at rest in space and travel through time. Klevgard calls this motion through time "aging".

I find this term problematic.

If we look at fundamental particles of matter there is no indication that they "age" in any way.
Wick

Wick,
I think you are equating 'aging' with 'decaying.' As I read Klevgard he simply uses 'aging' as another term for 'progressing' or 'traveling.' No degradation involved.

You also write that: "No matter is at rest." Klevgard specifically repeatedly states that space-stationary matter is at rest relative to some observer, the significance of which is that the matter is question then has no kinetic energy for that observer. And if it has no kinetic energy then it is not a projectile and has no wave attributes for that observer. Wave attributes are then a product of RELATIVE motion.


PhysicsMan

[Wick]

Wick,

I think you are equating 'aging' with 'decaying.' As I read Klevgard he simply uses 'aging' as another term for 'progressing' or 'traveling.' No degradation involved.

Hi, PhysicsMan, and welcome!!

Perhaps Klevgard implied a kind of travel when he employed the word aging. That may well be. But traveling where? Or should I say, traveling when? The notion that time is actually a SPECIAL dimension of the universe is not yet confirmed truth. I am not fond of anything "special" in nature...least of all the special dimension of time. Usually when we apply a special status to anything, it simply means we don't understand it yet.
The word aging, in and of itself, is perhaps understood in many different ways...the word time is no different. I may misunderstand Klevgard's meaning, but I suspect others might as well. Clearly molecules and macroscopic objects DO age. They change over time. They reconfigure. They would clearly appear to move through time. Electrons, on the other hand do not. Quarks do not. They would appear to be as eternal as the photon. Time has no real meaning for them. At the quantum level, they don't appear to be strongly constrained by time. Fundamental particles would appear to defy time.

You also write that: "No matter is at rest." Klevgard specifically repeatedly states that space-stationary matter is at rest relative to some observer, the significance of which is that the matter is question then has no kinetic energy for that observer. And if it has no kinetic energy then it is not a projectile and has no wave attributes for that observer. Wave attributes are then a product of RELATIVE motion.

There are certain assumptions a physicist must make if he wishes to hold on to time as a dimension of the universe. Einstein spelled them out: 1) All laws must operate in the same way for ever frame of reference; 2) light must propogate at the velocity c for all frames of reference.

I'm comfortable with the first of these assumptions, but not with the 2nd. That's what Resting Light Theory (RLT) is about. In RLT, the universe is moving through a fourth spatial dimension (which is not special in any way). Consequently, all objects in the universe are moving together with the universe in a common direction. So regardless of an observer's status or perception of a resting state, that observer will always be wrong because he fails to account for the motion of the universe itself. I know its crazy to say the universe is moving. Several of my physicist friends have told me that the idea of a moving universe is insane.

But we used to think it crazy that the earth moved. We came around to that idea, but then we thought it was crazy to say the sun moved. After getting used to the idea of a moving sun, we thought it was crazy that the galaxy was moving. Hubble changed our minds. Today we think its crazy that the universe should move, because we have convinced ourselves that the universe is all encompassing. I think we have to get past this sense that the universe is at rest if we ever hope to understand time.

If the universe is moving, there is no relative rest state. All frames of reference in the ENTIRE universe are moving relative to a 4th spatial dimension. The coordinates of all motion through 3-space have a fourth set of coordinates that we have heretofore ignored.

In RLT, an object appearing at rest has no apparent kinetic energy, but because that object is moving along a straight line on this fourth (unseen) axis at an astonishing rate of speed, it actually has enormous kinetic energy...energy that we mistakenly call potential energy.

I'm probably raving, but that's sort of where I'm headed.

Thanks again for joining me here.

Regards!

Wick