RST vs. Cosmology: Time, Light, and Spacetime

⏳ RST vs. Cosmology: Time, Light, and Spacetime

The short video “The past is in every direction” explores the strange nature of time, light, and cosmological observation. While rooted in General Relativity, its themes highlight both areas of alignment with Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) and points of contradiction.

🟢 Arguments Supporting / Aligning with RST

  • Challenging Linear Time and Intuition:
    Video: “I'm starting to think that time isn't linear” [00:00].
    RST: Space and time are not fundamental but emergent constructs of the Substrate Field (Σ). The non‑intuitive nature of cosmology supports RST’s claim that our perceived reality is a computational interface, not the true non‑local substrate.
  • The Bizarre Quality of Light (Speed Limit):
    Video: “Light has a speed” [00:54], allowing us to see snapshots of the universe as it was [02:49].
    RST: Light’s speed (c) is the propagation speed of shear‑like ripples (photons) in Σ. The universe appearing as time‑delayed snapshots is a natural consequence of light traveling through an elastic medium.

🔴 Arguments Critiquing / Contradicting RST

  • Confirmation of Spacetime and Direction:
    Video: Direction exists in space; looking farther away is “going back in time” due to light‑travel [00:39, 01:15].
    RST: Claims space, time, and distance are emergent illusions. The video empirically confirms structured spacetime geometry, directly contradicting RST’s assertion.
  • Lack of Non‑Local or Informational Influence:
    Video: Phenomenon explained purely by finite speed of light.
    RST: Requires Consciousness/Information feedback (Fᴿ(C[Ψ])) as a driver of reality. The video’s deterministic explanation omits any non‑local or informational influence, undermining RST’s feedback mechanism.

📌 Takeaway

The video highlights the strangeness of time and light, offering conceptual support for RST’s claim that reality is emergent and non‑intuitive. Yet it also reinforces General Relativity’s structured spacetime and deterministic framework, directly contradicting RST’s assertion that spacetime is an illusion shaped by consciousness and information.

Popular posts from this blog

Conceptual Summary #2: (∂t2​S−c2∇2S+βS3)=σ(x,t)⋅FR​(C[Ψ])

Image
The tests designed to find the Aether—principally the Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M)—would be largely ineffective at detecting the fundamental S field (Substrate) in the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) framework, though their null results are highly compatible with RST's structure. The reason lies in the distinct conceptual definition and behavior of the two media. The Test: Michelson-Morley and the Aether. The M-M experiment was designed to detect the "aether wind," a predicted change in the speed of light caused by the Earth's motion relative to a stationary, rigid medium—the classical Luminiferous Aether. Classical Aether: A static, absolute reference frame; an elastic, passive, material-like medium that fills space and serves as a carrier for light waves. Predicted Result: Light traveling parallel to Earth's motion through the Aether should be slightly slower than light traveling perpendicular to it. Actual Result (Null Result): No significant differenc...
Read more

The Non-Attraction Model of Gravity: From Attraction to Displacement: RST's Theory of Gravitational Push..

Image
Brief on the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) RST posits that all of reality—matter, energy, space, and time—emerges from a single, continuous, non-material field called the Substrate (S). Matter: Defined as a σ Soliton, a stable, localized "knot of tension" in the S-field, replacing the concept of a point particle. Energy: Defined as dynamic, propagating tension (waves) in the S-field. Unification: RST views E=mc2 as the conservation of Substrate tension: mass is stored tension; energy is tension in motion. Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) fundamentally redefines gravity as a Substrate tension gradient, which is the mechanism underlying the "buoyant" view of gravity. This explanation also clarifies why the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment failed to find the classical Aether, supporting the RST concept of a dynamic Substrate. In essence, gravity is "buoyant" in RST because matter (high tension) sinks into a less-strained S-Field (lower tension...
Read more

Beyond the Flaws: Why RST Succeeds Where Push Gravity and EM-Aether Failed to Unify the Void

Image
RST vs. Extended Electromagnetic Theories (Pre-Relativity) These theories attempted to unify all forces by making gravity a secondary or residual effect of electromagnetism, treating space as an electromagnetic Aether. Why Extended EM Theories Failed Gravity's Independence: The most critical failure is that gravity does not behave like a polarizable electromagnetic force. Gravity affects all matter equally (the equivalence principle), regardless of its charge or composition, which a secondary electromagnetic effect would not do. No Gravitational Shielding: Electromagnetic fields can be shielded (Faraday cage), but gravity cannot.1 This fundamentally contradicts the idea that gravity is an electrical or magnetic residual force. Conflict with GR: They could not accurately predict or explain phenomena later verified by General Relativity (GR), such as the exact amount of light bending around the Sun or the precession of Mercury's orbit. RST vs. Le Sage's The...
Read more