You are not going to chase-much less catch-any frame of light time history from the rear because there is no rear to it!

[Atlan0101]

As I've noted before, a frame of light, of time, of history, is single sided 1- and 2-dimensional frame, and stops there having no 3-dimensionality, much less 4-dimensionality: No back end or rear end to it to chase, much less to catch, from the rear. It has no "depth", no "deep", no "thick", no "mass", no "density", to it.

You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front to front ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from front alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form, or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional).

 

[Classical Motion]

What is a dimension? Is it a boundary? And what exactly is a length dimension anyway? Three orthogonal lines? If right angles count as another dimension, then we have zillions of them.

Just one length is orthogonal. And it has area. Length itself has area. A 1 foot length has 1 foot area. We only need and only have one physical length dimension. A dimension of position and orientation. Orientation should be considered a dimension too. So a length dimension and an angle dimension. And both dimensions vary the time and measurement. So we have two spacial dimensions. Length and angle.

The other dimension is time. This is a physical dimension too. But you can't touch or hold it. And we can't save and store it. But time is needed and used for a "length" to move any length. The limited velocity of light and mass gives us duration. Time is needed for movement.

So, for me, it appears we exist in a dimension of motion, which is composed of length, angle and time.

 

[Jzz]

What is a dimension? Is it a boundary? And what exactly is a length dimension anyway? Three orthogonal lines? If right angles count as another dimension, then we have zillions of them.

Just one length is orthogonal. And it has area. Length itself has area. A 1 foot length has 1 foot area. We only need and only have one physical length dimension. A dimension of position and orientation. Orientation should be considered a dimension too. So a length dimension and an angle dimension. And both dimensions vary the time and measurement. So we have two spacial dimensions. Length and angle.

The other dimension is time. This is a physical dimension too. But you can't touch or hold it. And we can't save and store it. But time is needed and used for a "length" to move any length. The limited velocity of light and mass gives us duration. Time is needed for movement.

So, for me, it appears we exist in a dimension of motion, which is composed of length, angle and time.

Fair enough, it seems your definition seems to be somewhat justified. But eventually, it comes as something of a surprise that the three spatial dimensions of length, width and height together with time are the only true co-ordinates that describe the world around us. Nothing, no object, place or location can be described without recourse to this co-ordinate system. A dimension is a co-ordinate system within which matter exists. The surprise lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to describe an alternate co-ordinate system. Ask any proponent of string theory to describe one of the multiple dimensions needed to explain string theory and you will get a blank stare, he can state that they exist but cannot in any sense describe an alternate dimension. To speak of curls is a mere obfuscation. The same applies to quantum mechanics and the Schrodinger equation, for each additional object added an extra three dimensions are needed for things to make sense. Since light as it travels involves an almost infinite number of particles it requires an infinite number of dimensions: namely, the wave function, within which to travel. Is this truly the theory that we use to describe how light travels. It’s worse than the mad hatter.

Instead of making an issue of this why not try to describe alternate dimensions. Your example of multiple dimensions formed of lines orthogonal to each other (as infinite) is, if you think about it, quite laughable.

 

[Atlan0101]

Quite laughable to you since you don't have a clue about infinity and three, and four, dimensions, closing, boxing, an object or system. I can go to infinity simply by reducing a 3- and 4-dimensional closed systemic box to 2- and fewer dimensions (to infinity). I can go to infinity by simply making a 'Menger Sponge' out of a block of 3- and 4-dimensionality. I can go to infinity in the horizon of the total ((+/-) 'c') constant of the speed of light.

You seemingly obviously can't imagine a deceleration to the negative, -300,000kps. relative, while sitting still in your chair at your computer, or standing still by a railroad track watching a train pass by at some positive speed (+) relative to you at what you would believe to be your own 'stop' (velocity '0') action in the universe, the preferred frame of Einstein as well. You seemingly can't imagine going at the speed of light from two directions at the same time as a 'pincer' action, being both negative (-) to its positive (+) of speed, and positive (+) to its negative (-) of speed, its photo-stop action '0' in the universe, all at once! Those dimensionalities of speed; that dimensionality of speed, is not 3-, not 4-, dimensionality! And not 1-dimensionality! I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time.

To be continued.... (Maybe.)

 

[Atlan0101]

"And not 1-dimensionality! I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time."

I contradicted myself at this point. At my age and retired I'm sometimes up from bed later or earlier, not being on any definite schedule. It is of course 1-dimensional in its constancy of speed ('c') . . . that is, regarding its "relativity" to space and time ("I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time").

Since it's short enough I'm going to repeat and explain the entirety of its "'relativity' to space and time", as I see it to be:
--------------------
With marked [] Changes:
As I've noted before, a frame of light, of time, of history, is single sided 1- and 2-dimensional frame, and stops there having no 3-dimensionality, much less 4-dimensionality: No back end or rear end to it to chase, much less to catch, from the rear. It has no "depth", no "deep", no "thick", no "mass", no "density", to it. [It is a window, a 'Looking Glass', with no glass, a doorway with no door.]

You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front [facing] to front [facing] ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from front [from a facing] alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form, or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional).

"[People] seemingly obviously can't imagine a deceleration to the negative, -300,000kps. relative, while sitting still in [their] chair at [their] computer or standing still by a railroad track watching a train pass by at some positive speed (+) relative to [them] at what [they] would believe to be [their] own 'stop' (velocity '0') action in the universe, the preferred frame of Einstein as well. [They] seemingly can't imagine going at the speed of light from two directions at the same time as a 'pincer' action, being both negative (-) to its positive (+) of speed, and positive (+) to its negative (-) of speed, its photo-stop action '0' [relative to the BB, Planck, and Infinity, 'Horizon' of the universe], all at once! Those dimensionalities of speed; that dimensionality of speed, is not 3-, not 4-, dimensionality! [...] I opened up the dimensionality . . . and kept the constant at the same time."
--------------------

 

[Atlan0101]

"I'm back," the man said..

I'm back to square #1, as the saying goes.

Infinite mass in one dimension is a hole in another.

E=mc(square).

Can you really measure the mass of a hole, most particularly a wormhole or a black hole?

E=mc(square).

As I've noted before, a frame of light, of time, of history, is single sided 1- and 2-dimensional frame, and stops there having no 3-dimensionality, much less 4-dimensionality: No back end or rear end to it to chase, much less to catch, from the rear. It has no "depth", no "deep", no "thick", no "mass", no "density", to it.

You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front to front ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from front alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form, or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional).

E=mc(square)

Face to facing, alone! "Through the Looking Glass," (the Mirror, the Horizon, the Frontier.)

(PBB(B)H (cc)) Horizon (T=0)

Can you truly measure the mass of a hole, most particularly a wormhole or a black hole (if there is no singularity to the black hole)?

E=mc(square)

I really do like Stephen Hawking recounting the tale of Berkeley versus Johnson over Newton.

E=mc(square).

Then there are the tales of time reversal and the physic of entropy.

There is no such thing as a closed (a closing) system without an open (an opening) system. The two are the two sides of exactly the same coin (a 0-point-portal). Can you truly measure the mass of a hole?

(PBB(B)H (cc)) Horizon (T=0).

E=mc(square). Matter can have coordinates (x, y, z, t). Can mass? Can energy? Can entropy?

 

[Atlan0101]

Oops! Edited #6. My mistake because I was hurried toward the end. Of course, matter (objectively real as I see it) and mass (subjectively relative as I see it) are not the same thing, though sometimes, often times, viewed, used, as being interchangeable.

 

[Atlan0101]

Of course, too, there are coordinates (objectively real) and then there are coordinates (subjectively relative), "though sometimes, often times, too often (to me), viewed, used, as being interchangeable."

 

[Atlan0101]

And the argument continues. The speed of light emitted, at all emissions, measures 'c' (the measure is only in the 'facing', the 'front' or 'frontage'). The speed of light received, at all receptions, measures 'c'. (the measure is only in the 'facing', the 'front' or 'frontage'). Variable velocity of the speed of light, such as 'c'+'v' or 'c'-'v' (yes), simply does not exist. The relationship of emitter, any emitter, to 'c', and of receiver, any receiver, to 'c', is 'constant', the same 'c', the same 0-point of universe; the whole of it all at once in the universal 'Horizon'. The (t=0) ties to (T=0), universally, in the case of the speed of light 'c' which exists solely at the point of emitting (which is also a point of reception regarding measuring) / receiving measuring.

'c' = +300,000kps /\ (bound to t=0 (local frame photo-stop action)) tied to (PBB(B)H Horizon T=0 (collapsed constant)).
'c' = *-300,000kps \/ (bound to t=0 (local frame photo-stop action)) tied to (PBB(B)H Horizon T=0 (collapsed constant)).
(* Stephen Hawking talked about information (we are our "information" in the case -- raised to the ultimate case -- he talks of) being on two sides of a horizon at once; at one and the same time.)

 

[Atlan0101]

Mentioning what Stephen Hawking was pointing out about information being on two sides of a horizon at once, in the case of 'c' = ((+/-) (t=0)), is sort of like telling someone to look in a mirror. 'c' = ((+/-) (t=0)) is direction (+), direction (-), direction (t=0). The speed is the same 'c' (constant), no matter the direction to it . . . locally so damn fast || non-locally so damn slow!

A photo-stop frame mirrors across the universe the same photo-stop frame. A mirror, and a mirroring, is single-sided 2-dimensional frame and frames, it is no 3-dimensionality, not even the waves of photons that define each and every frame leading out (into history) and following behind (back toward the future (to some 0-poibt real emitter never exactly the same one in space and time that emitted the lead frames)). The photon-wave that makes up the photo-stop-action frame being mirrored across space-time as a single-sided 2-dimensionality is continuously energized, re-energized, from the universal ground grid of [energy mirroring] it mirrors through. It contributes energy to, and it draws energy from, the rather dense and largely unobservable ground grid of space, aka the void, the vacuum, the nothing, or simply the single-sided 2-dimensional well of space (having no rear to it) any traveler will always travel into the face of. Were it not for such dark energy density of a void to draw from, we would have no observed, no observable, universe.

 

[Atlan0101]

So damn slow(!) || So damn fast(!):

'c' = +1>0
'c' = -1>0
'c' = 0>+1
'c' = 0>-1
'c' = (+/-)
'c' = 0
'c' = 1

So damn Fast(!) || So damn slow(!)

 

[Atlan0101]

So damn fast(!) || So damn slow(!):

The (horizon) coin and being on both sides of the coin at one time, the same time. A physic that is binary base2.

 

[Atlan0101]

A dimension, a physic, that like the biggest dimension, the biggest physic, of Horizon of them all (the PBB(B)H (cc) Horizon (T=0)), is binary base2 (T=0 / T=1)!

The horizon of the speed of light and the Horizon of the Infinite Multiverse Universe run in closely paralleling courses in many forum threads, but I think this is last time I will have these rails, this particular train, run so parallel. Above, I've reached a closer understanding of this particular train. Others may not and there may be some kind of continuance of the ideas but that will be a different story.

 

[Atlan0101]

I begin to wonder about something. Something that 'Billslugg' said that got me going. A light time history single-sided 2-dimensional frame of light that has no rear to it, no backside end to it, whatsoever, or so I thought . . . that is vacuum, void, nothing, 'hole', to the rear, to the backside, of it might just be gravitational (a gravitational 'well') to that side, to the rear side, the back side. Possibly a literal duality of entity and dimensionality (two sides to the coin, two different coin entities (as Stephen Hawking said in a different context).

That a photon that is a single-sided 2-dimensional particle-wave, that disappears to its rear, on its backside, just might be the fabled elusive "graviton" * on that side, its rear side, its backside, the 'well' to the other side of the coin that would be the other side of the coin.

'c' = +300.000kps from '0'.
'c' = *-300.000kps from '0'.
'c' = 1 (unity)?
'g' = 1 (unity)?
.... I'm sure of the first two, not so up on or so sure on the second two except for 'c' = (+1, -1, binary base2 (0, 1) 'unity'.

Altogether, maybe . . . maybe not. I really don't see any reason, though, why not. Thought provoking, what Bill said about photon floods and super massive black holes (SMBHs), though not what he intended when he said it, I'm sure. After a while of thinking on it, I got to thinking of my own picture of infinite density being nothing more than a hole in space-time (a 0-point-portal singularity). I had already long ago pictured, realized that, and described the backside of a single-sided 2-dimensional light frame as being in fact a form of tunnel / funnel.

 

[Atlan0101]

Sometimes I just have some difficulty with painting my picture modeling. There is word salad, then there is math salad. Same salad, different language. Stephen Hawking, and Albert Einstein, too, and at least one other famous physicist I can't remember the name of, talked the math salad often being indigestible.

 

[Think twice]

You can catch up to a wave. Light or any type of wave. Take water waves.
Ive been in motor boats on large lakes and “caught up” with the waves from the wake of another motor boat. All that happens is you “see” them in reverse. From the boats perspective travelling at let’s say...40mph. When it catches up to waves travelling at 10mph what it looks like ,from my boat, is that the waves are coming towards me at 30mph.
The same goes for light. If one ignores the fantasies of relativity then in an infinite non expanding but turbulent universe, we on earth can actually catch up to lightwaves emitted from a very distant source from 10s of billions of years ago from another star. Because our speed moving away from but relative to the original long dead star is more than the speed of light . So we “catch up” to its lightwaves.
And there is definitive proof of this. Do a computer simulation of what this light (ie a blackbody curve of the stars spectra in and around optical)would look like if our speed relative to the light waves we were catching up to was decelerating. Try the simulation and see what would be observed of this stars blackbody optical emission spectra in three seperate wavelengths. Gamma, optical and radio., As we now do for GRBs.
Guess what these graphs look like?
Exactly the same as those seen for Gammaraybursts.
You get a short seconds long burst in gamma. A minutes long one in optical . And a lightcurve of days in radio. All with similar lightcurve profiles but delayed peaks for longer wavelengths.
GRBs are proof that the BBT theory and relativity are invalid theories.

 

[Atlan0101]

As I've noted before, a frame of light, of time, of history, is single sided 1- and 2-dimensional frame, and stops there having no 3-dimensionality, much less 4-dimensionality: No back end or rear end to it to chase, much less to catch, from the rear. It has no "depth", no "deep", no "thick", no "mass", no "density", to it.

You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front to front ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from front alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form, or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional).

Had to reply to myself to get this original in without writing it all again.

The principle of uncertainty tells us if you know momentum, at least of a particle, to a certainty you won't know position. If you know position to a certainty you won't know momentum. We know the speed of light constant 'c' to a certainty, so there is no such thing as position regarding it. Since light at the speed of light 'c' is also the light conc of time, there will be no positioning the "passage" of time (a universal "passage" always at the universal speed of light constant, 'c').

So now I've the ultimate of the principle of uncertainty's momentum dealt with, what of the equal but opposite ultimate of position? Stephen Hawking's "Grand Central Station" and its grand central clock with its single hand always pointing to '1' time (unity), '0' time (null unity), on the clock. Everyone and everything will pass through the Station and under that clock constantly moving, constantly passing, the station and the clock not moving, not passing in either space or time, fixed and immortal. Not relative and non-local. So, I need a relative, a local!

To repeat once more:

"You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front to front ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from frontier alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional)."

Front to front alone! Thanks to Billslugg once again (when he mentioned a universe loaded to the brim and over with light (which I had done sometimes before in passing without considering more possibilities of it), I pinpointed that single-sided 2-dimensional frame "front" to single-side 2-dimensional frame "front" in a second and alternate dimension of it. Front-to-front always as equally but oppositely always frame back-to-frame back everywhere and always in the universe. Thus, in fact, allowing coordinate positioning to that which can never be coordinate positioned. Better, much better, when there are more sides, more fronts, locally and relatively speaking, to each and every crossroad of an infinity of crossroads from every point of a spherical universe compass into any 0-point "observer" and all of an infinity of 0-point "observers." Hawking's crossroads' "Grand Central Station" and its clock essentially anywhere and everywhere in spacetime.

 

[Atlan0101]

How many light fronts would someone meet head on, light fronts in their face so to speak, trying to chase to catch a wave frame of light time receding away from them in spacetime at the constant speed of light and time? A traveler traveling dead into the physic of the principle of uncertainty? as that original wave front becomes buried deeper and ever deeper in the gravity cone of accumulating space and the light cone of ever accumulating frames of earlier and later times . . . the light cone of past and future histories (buried in telescoping gravity and light cones of gathering ever more information).

Light at the speed of light and time will always come to the traveler from every point of encompassing spacetime as if he was sitting dead still in the dead center of the universe between distant horizons, which is exactly where he is and exactly what he is doing.

 

[Atlan0101]

Anyone with half a vision for physics and cosmology, and half the brain for the same, would see upon reflection that Albert Einstein with his "mind's eye trip to the constant of the speed of light," and the "photo" stillness he found there, and Stephen Hawking in describing his "Grand Central Station" of the universe with its "clock" in the dead center of the Station, through which and under which all pass, and me (above in post #18) describing the traveler always "sitting dead still in the dead center of the universe between distant horizons" all three of us in our different ways, describe exactly the same coordinate position and place and occurrences!

 

[Jzz]

As I've noted before, a frame of light, of time, of history, is single sided 1- and 2-dimensional frame, and stops there having no 3-dimensionality, much less 4-dimensionality: No back end or rear end to it to chase, much less to catch, from the rear. It has no "depth", no "deep", no "thick", no "mass", no "density", to it.

You only observe it, detect it, meet it, go into it, travel into it, from one direction and one direction only, front to front ('c') alone! Meeting it ('c') from front alone! You will not chase, much less catch, what is not there to chase, to catch!!! A physic that does not exist to observe, to detect, in any dimensionality, any possible way, form, or existence, that can be chased to catch up to!!! Its frame depth is '0' ('0-point' dimensional).

Historically the one dimensionality you speak of with regard to light has been well known, unfortunately neither Huygens nor quantum mechanics was ever able to explain why this was so. Huygens theory of each point on the spherical wave-front giving rise to another spherical wave front worked well; what couldn’t be explained is why light did not travel backward as well as forward. Quantum mechanics, as usual, resorted to mathematics to demonstrate that the backward moving light waves would cancel each other out with the result that light only ever moved forward. Regrettably, the quantum mechanics explanation does not hold water. One theory that does explain how and why light propagates only in the forward direction can be found here: https://www.academia.edu/37258409/The_Electromagnetic_Universe_docx

 

[Atlan0101]

Historically the one dimensionality you speak of with regard to light has been well known, unfortunately neither Huygens nor quantum mechanics was ever able to explain why this was so. Huygens theory of each point on the spherical wave-front giving rise to another spherical wave front worked well; what couldn’t be explained is why light did not travel backward as well as forward. Quantum mechanics, as usual, resorted to mathematics to demonstrate that the backward moving light waves would cancel each other out with the result that light only ever moved forward. Regrettably, the quantum mechanics explanation does not hold water. One theory that does explain how and why light propagates only in the forward direction can be found here: https://www.academia.edu/37258409/The_Electromagnetic_Universe_docx

You still missed it. Frames of light time history come to you as stacked, streaming, waves from every direction there is. You can't turn to chase a passing wave without being smacked in the face by oncoming waves from the direction you thought you were going to chase one. It simply won't be there.

Even if you could travel fast enough to outrun the frame of light time history and turn back to face into that history, you'd have to dig it out of all those other peripheral histories accumulated in the frames now smacking you in the face. All you would observe would be spacetime positional data anyway . . . like observing Mars to be in location in its track, move fast to a different point of observation and observe it to be in another location in its track when you observe it than it was before, either an earlier location and history in the spacetime track or a later location and history in that same orbital track. Even if manage the earlier location and history, it is still being forwarded to you in your own location far further in distance from Mars than was your earlier distance from Mars' track. If it's the later location and history, you closed up toward it, swiftly toward a rendezvous with it, instead of fast traveling away from it. So, the light waves themselves will mean nothing, and the times, the spacetimes, you deal in will mean everything.

 

[Classical Motion]

"Historically the one dimensionality you speak of with regard to light has been well known, unfortunately neither Huygens nor quantum mechanics was ever able to explain why this was so. Huygens theory of each point on the spherical wave-front giving rise to another spherical wave front worked well; what couldn’t be explained is why light did not travel backward as well as forward. Quantum mechanics, as usual, resorted to mathematics to demonstrate that the backward moving light waves would cancel each other out with the result that light only ever moved forward. Regrettably, the quantum mechanics explanation does not hold water. One theory that does explain how and why light propagates only in the forward direction can be found here:"

Hey Jzz, try this out for a laugh. The answer and explanation for the subject in your post is easy to explain. In the first place the description of this puzzle is not right. Light does not go forward and backward.

Light goes out.....and can never go in. It's not forward and backward.........it's out and in. And the reason for this LAW, is very simple. Light is made from an electric field. And the electric field, like the charge that it comes from.....is self-repulsive.

This is why light always goes out, but never in. Self repulsiveness of the electric field. This use to be taught in K schools. It's no mystery. Only the math is a mystery. The humble photon grows into a structure, much larger than a galaxy. The photon structures that I emitted in the 70s, have a radius of about 50 light years now. And are still growing at a rate of c.