Thursday, July 5, 2007 – 0421 CST
Introductory Statement on Light Theory: Part I
By Rev. Derrek Younger
©2007
No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form, without the expressed written permission of the author.
Preface:
This article (as it is now) will be somewhat brief, as I am only introducing an idea; but like many things I write, I do so to work things out for myself, so that I may go back and read what I've written to see what direction I may go from there.
I'll only write a few concepts here, so as not to have to retract to much if I decide to take a tangent of thought. I may post a series of articles over an indefinite period of time on this subject until a reasonable conclusion is reached: That however, may take some time to accomplish, being that I would like to have some decent scientific data to provide sufficient support for this theory. There are no certainties however. If you'd like to be updated on new posts, I can only recommend bookmarking this page.
<edited at 12:11 CST><end edit>
<Section added for Myspace>
I will not be accepting any comments on these articles for a number of reasons; not that I do not desire input from other sources, (I shall be gathering those continuously), rather, I do not wish to be distracted from a course of thought. I may, in the future accept comments, but only after having formed a more solid basis from which to discuss or otherwise debate.
<end addition>
__
Introduction:
A while back (as I mentioned in one of my sermons: “Dogma Equals Division”) I watched an episode of Nova, called “The Ghost Particle”, which was about a sub-atomic particle called the Neutrino. The episode was very influential in several ways and sparked many different lines of thought (which I began studying in various arenas): one of which was the quality (or rather the essence) of light, as an element.
The interest was instigated by a particular statement in that episode (which I will paraphrase here): That an object, moving at the speed of light does not change; for in order to change, time must pass, but at the speed of light time stands still, thus nothing changes. This statement immediately interested me because I had been reading some Gnostic texts (specifically, “On the Origin of the World”, The Apocryphon of John” and “The Gospel of Thomas”) which deal quite a lot with statements concerning what is referred to as “Light”.
At face value, the statement of “Light” could be considered a figurative description of absolute positive, being the opposite of “Darkness” which is often equated with absolute negative; which may in fact be true to an extent. But that definition has never completely satisfied my preferences of explanation. In other words, I believe there is more within the statement itself.
My reasoning soon took me to a more abstract way of thinking about “Light”, but in order to go on, I must first define (to the best of my ability) a concept of (what I am referring to as ) “Light”, which may be somewhat difficult since I struggle to find the words to explain my comprehension of it. Therefore I offer a very vague explanation that I will expound upon in future articles.
When I speak of “Light” I am not referring to the light that you see the effects of in the form of Illumination. I separate the two and give distinction between them as separate elements. Illumination is the effect of light upon a physical object. IE. We perceive light because of Illumination. When we ask, "where is light?", one may point to a light bulb but, that is not light itself. That is the physical effect of light upon the physical object of the light bulb, which is a chain-reaction of other elements being consumed by heat, thus producing Illumination.
So light, (as a separate element in this case) must have been prior to the effects of Illumination and would Likewise, supersede what is commonly referred to as “the speed of light” which I will call “the speed of illumination” for these purposes.
NOTE:
The speed of Illumination is approximately 299,792,458 miles per second, which is an exceptional rate of speed. However, it would be naive for anyone to reason that there can be nothing faster than this element. The statement that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is erroneous, there is no statement in physics of this sort: Only that an object that has mass cannot be accelerated to this speed. An object without mass, however, would not be hindered and in fact, (to the best of my understanding) Must travel at this or greater speed; unless of course, it is absolutely motionless, which is supposedly impossible according to quantum theory, which states (paraphrasing again) that everything vibrates on one frequency or another: some so intermittently however, as to be undetectable. (This reminds me of the Hermitc philosophy in Kybalion )
END NOTE:
If objects traveling at the speed of Illumination are in stasis, then they do not degrade and would never change (except that they are acted upon by another substance). Thus, the statement that light (which must supersede illumination) must be eternal and unchanging.
Astronomers tell us that the majority of the stars we observe with our eyes have been gone for millions of years. Yet, we see their light still. This puzzled me for some time, being that when the source of illumination is cut off, the illumination itself appears to disappear because of the speed at which it travels. However, the stars have proven that illumination can exist without its source. But, illumination is not an element, it is a reaction of an element with another element; hence my distinction between light and illumination.
Light, (in this context), must then be present, prior to the act of illumination. Light must be an element that is not perceivable, only the reaction of physical matter with the element of light is what we perceive. Thus we have a perception of an image of light, but not light itself.
This can be better understood by examining light on a higher frequency, such as Ultra-violate light, or X-Rays, which cannot be perceived with the eye. They can only be perceived by electronic equipment, which is again, only reading the reaction of other elements to the element of light. This I will refer to as reactionary-illumination.
I would now like to introduce an except from one of the texts that inspired my current study.
From: The Apocryphon of John
Translated by Frederik Wisse
It is he who exists as God and Father of everything, the invisible One who is above everything, who exists as incorruption, which is in the pure light into which no eye can look.
"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. He did not lack anything, that he might be completed by it; rather he is always completely perfect in light. He is illimitable, since there is no one prior to him to set limits to him. He is unsearchable, since there exists no one prior to him to examine him. He is immeasurable, since there was no one prior to him to measure him. He is invisible, since no one saw him. He is eternal, since he exists eternally. He is ineffable, since no one was able to comprehend him to speak about him. He is unnameable, since there is no one prior to him to give him a name.
"He is immeasurable light, which is pure, holy (and) immaculate. He is ineffable, being perfect in incorruptibility. (He is) not in perfection, nor in blessedness, nor in divinity, but he is far superior. He is not corporeal nor is he incorporeal. He is neither large nor is he small. There is no way to say, 'What is his quantity?' or, 'What is his quality?', for no one can know him. He is not someone among (other) beings, rather he is far superior. Not that he is (simply) superior, but his essence does not partake in the aeons nor in time. For he who partakes in an aeon was prepared beforehand. Time was not apportioned to him, since he does not receive anything from another, for it would be received on loan. For he who precedes someone does not lack, that he may receive from him. For rather, it is the latter that looks expectantly at him in his light.
It is important to note that, I do not believe that these texts were meant to be taken in a Literal manor: Rather, I believe that they representative of an older knowledge, which was written down in parable form, to be understood by those initiated into a certain school of thought, (inner temple) and misunderstood by those who are uninitiated (outer temple).
(The above referenced excerpt is, I believe (if looked at objectively), consistent with scientific data, which will be provide in Part II of this study. )
<section added at 11:55, July 5, 2007>
Another text I would now like to include is "On the Origin of The world"
Translated by Hans-Gebhard Bethge and Bentley Layton
Seeing that everybody, gods of the world and mankind, says that nothing existed prior to chaos, I, in distinction to them, shall demonstrate that they are all mistaken, because they are not acquainted with the origin of chaos, nor with its root. Here is the demonstration.
How well it suits all men, on the subject of chaos, to say that it is a kind of darkness! But in fact it comes from a shadow, which has been called by the name 'darkness'. And the shadow comes from a product that has existed since the beginning. It is, moreover, clear that it existed before chaos came into being, and that the latter is posterior to the first product. Let us therefore concern ourselves with the facts of the matter; and furthermore, with the first product, from which chaos was projected. And in this way the truth will be clearly demonstrated.
After the natural structure of the immortal beings had completely developed out of the infinite, a likeness then emanated from Pistis (Faith); it is called Sophia (Wisdom). It exercised volition and became a product resembling the primeval light. And immediately her will manifested itself as a likeness of heaven, having an unimaginable magnitude; it was between the immortal beings and those things that came into being after them, like [...]: she (Sophia) functioned as a veil dividing mankind from the things above.
Now the eternal realm (aeon) of truth has no shadow outside it, for the limitless light is everywhere within it. But its exterior is shadow, which has been called by the name 'darkness'. From it, there appeared a force, presiding over the darkness. And the forces that came into being subsequent to them called the shadow 'the limitless chaos'. From it, every kind of divinity sprouted up [...] together with the entire place, so that also, shadow is posterior to the first product. It was <in> the abyss that it (shadow) appeared, deriving from the aforementioned Pistis.
NOTE:
Both of the texts I have utilized thus far: "The Apocryphon of John" and "On the Origin of the World" Initially deal with the creation of the Universe. As I mentioned before, It is my belief that these texts were descriptions of actual events, but written in parable form.
END NOTE:
It must be explained now, the definition of Darkness:
Darkness:
a: The absence in whole or in part of light
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary- Unabridged) All dictionary references, henceforth, are from the same.
Whether in whole, or in part, darkness is perceived by the absence of light. If darkness then, preexisted light, the reverse would be true. This
substantiates the thought that darkness is a derivative of a shadow, which is caused when illumination is impeded by physical mater. If darkness then, came after light, it is reasonable to assume that physical mater as well, is posterior to light.
<section added at 0825 on July 6, 2007>
In order to continue, I must now introduce another illustration. I was first introduced to this concept in Isaac Asimov's science fiction novel: “Nemesis”
NOTE:
I read only a few pages from this book so the totality of the concept will differ greatly I'm sure. I am utilizing this simply as a model for an illustration, not as a scientific guide.
END NOTE:
Our model begins at Zero and is the neutral position. Anything above Zero shall be considered Positive; Likewise, anything below Zero shall be considered Negative. We now place the speed of illumination at the Zero point on our model.
According to this model then, the element of Light would be above the zero point on our model and would represent a positive. Matter then, would be a negative; being below the zero point.
Because the laws of attraction dictate that negatives attract positives and vice versa, mater must attract light: Which causes a forced interaction and reaction, thus producing illumination, whether it be visual or, as I have described as reactionary.
<Section added Tuesday, September 4 at: 0813>
Nothing Ever Touches
Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. Each of these have a charge which bonds the atom together. What is not commonly known though is that there is another force pushing them apart, which eventually leads to the atom being broken down and splitting apart. Atoms are bound together by electro-magnetic charge, but he particles themselves never actually touch one another, for as the force of attraction becomes greater, so also the force of repulsion becomes greater. This is why all physical matter eventually breaks down or otherwise decays.