[Please note that this transcription is not completely accurate to my original recording. I have done only a quick proof-reading to find obvious errors, separate the material into paragraphs, and correct and grammatical problems. Beyond this, you’re on your own.}
Saturday morning, February 11, 1995
I just woke up with a thought for dealing with the wave forms and the variables of the Dramatica dynamic structural relationship. When we are picking domain, concern, range, and problem we have looked at this as being the equivalent of taking a wave form and saying, one of those choices fills in a value to the variable that determines a wave forms amplitude, another one it’s frequency, another one it’s phasing from left to right, and another one it’s overall vertical positioning,
The entire wave form is elevated or lowered, so that instead of being peak to peak from plus one volt to minus one volt, for example, it might be the same size wave but be peak to peak, plus two volts to zero or plus three to plus one. In other words, there is a two volt range peak to peak, but you can put that at any height lower or above.
That was the only way that we’ve been looking at it in the past, looking at it structurally as just choosing concern, domain, range, and problem, which one we chose assigned a value to each of those variables and positioned the dynamic wave form on the model.
Now in thinking of it in terms of dynamics, as with most of theses things, two of them will be the same from a dynamic stand point. But there will be a quad of variables that are filled in, of which, the other two are variables that are completely different ions.
That is what makes the dynamic and structural terms appear to intersect, is that they share two items out of a quad and each have two separate. That is also what makes them appear to come together at a ninety degree angle, so that they can intersect on two points of a square, on two corners of a square. And the other two corners, as it were, would form two planes that intersected at a ninety degree angle.
Then we look at the dynamics, the things that we do share is, I guess you could put this together in any combination of ways, you got to share at least two and this is what begins to create the dynamic model, is how many combinations you can create that share two.
Because the structural model is always going to be the four that we mentioned, and the dynamic model now will build itself by all of the permutations . An example would be, the dynamic model might share that there is a particular amplitude to the wave and there is a particular frequency to the wave. But then it might have a frequency modulation on amplitude modulation which could be a cyclic repeating thing, where you have a wave on top of a wave. So that you can actually watch over time an amplitude change but in a repeating sense, so that it gets higher and lower, higher and lower, as an amplitude. In other words, it becomes then kind of like an adjective, or a I guess an adverb in that case it would modify the flow of the wave form.
Another way to look at it would be to, rather than just say there is amplitude and frequency modulation along with an amplitude and a frequency, would be to say that there is an amplitude and a frequency and then there is an increase or decrease in linear fashion of the amplitude or the frequency. So that you can watch it changing without being repeating, moving it in a completely different direction.
Another way to look at it would be in terms of the wave itself becoming more and less distinct. In other words almost like putting it out of focus, into focus, and out of focus and into focus or having the force disburse itself and then re-congeal itself so that over the body of the wave you look more at it like a three dimensional scatter chart, that basically shows the wave becoming less dense and more dense, more focused and more diffused. So that overall, its power caused by its amplitude and frequency would remain the same and yet its impact or influence the scope of how much area it touches would actually become a factor. So then instead of just looking at the wave as being descriptive of some function which is a very linear, structural way of looking at things, we would be looking at it as actually a wave traveling through medium and when it travels through the medium,
if it is only a single point traveling through, then it is not having a certain dispersal. If you look at a wave as traveling through a medium as in gravity, everything will be affected to some degree just because of the influence say of the weak forces that hold the molecules of one to another in terms of affinity. So that you move through the medium, things farther away will have less of an influence from a wave traveling through it, things closer to the wave will be more influenced, and if you look at that kind of impact, it forms the notion of a wave that is more or less diffused as it is traveling through a medium.
And in doing so, it gives you a clear idea of the effect on biochemistry of the patterns that happen in biochemistry in terms of the brain. The interference patterns that we create, or that actually create our self awareness, are a combination between the linear patterns that you can see moving through the neurology, where it is there or it is , and you can detect wave forms in brain waves, by something being there or being not.
But when you are looking at the brain waves that are actually biochemical waves, then you are going to be looking at the ones that are more or less diffused and are having their frequency more or less constant. That kind of an impact then creates an unusual interference pattern because instead of putting two waves together to create an interference pattern that are both linear, you are putting a diffuse wave in conjunction with a focused linear wave, and when the two come together all bets are off.
That is what creates the meaning of chaos because it is virtually impossible to predict both what the momentum will be and also what the new position will be because the wave form can have a number of factual levels. In fact, there are an infinite number of factual levels from which to appreciate this new interference pattern and each fractal dimension. As you appreciate it, would be a different place at which you could perceive a wave. if you could see a wave, you’ve got a fractal dimension. There are areas in-between where you can perceive no wave and so the context in which waves can be perceived in the interference pattern between the diffuse and linear wave. Those areas in-between are chaos and those areas where we perceive the waves are order.
Again this is at the heart of unified field theory in these kinds of appreciations, depending on the level in which you perceive them, fractal levels can go on infinitely.
Changes in those patterns are what always is going on fractally because whenever you see a pattern that remains constant, while it remains constant that can be fractal and described by nonlinear equations. Whenever you see a pattern that is undulating or changing you can perceive that there is something at work, either above or below it, that is altering it.
(end of side A of tape)
Continuing… This is at the heart of unified field theory concept because it deals with the relationships between orders and chaos, and it says that whatever you perceive in the relationship between the diffuse pattern of waves, the biochemistry, and the focused linear pattern of waves in the brain, in the neurology, that the relationship between the two creates an interference pattern. If the interference pattern is constant, you perceive that as order and the less constant it is the less orderly that things appear.
In fact, the relationship is that fractal is where it is constant and where it is not constant that is were you end up in the domain of frictal. [Frictal is a term we coined to describe the temporal pattern created by the interaction of order and chaos, being a contraction of friction and fraction, as opposed to fractal – the spatial pattern created by the interaction of order and chaos l being a contraction of fracture and fraction].
Frictals tell you that there is another force at work, either a greater or larger fractal magnitude of were you are looking that is having an influence but an uneven influence because it is another wave passing through the system.
When waves pass through the system, that can not be linear because a linear wave passing through the system will cause constancy which would contribute to the order of view that we have. But when we have a larger or smaller magnitude wave of diffuse nature passing through the system, then is influence is not going to be constant and that is going to be a frictal force that we appreciate.
The result of the frictal and fractal working together is relativistic verses the non-linear appreciations that is what ultimately creates alternating layers of order and chaos, with order being what we perceive the constancy and chaos where we perceive the inconstancy because unpredictable, because we are not monitoring above or below at those levels of magnitude and therefore have no way of knowing what the next move will be.
The value of this way of looking at the theory is that it takes concepts such as synchronicity and relativity, which seem to have a relationship outside of linearity and approaches them and arrives at them completely through understanding of linear processes just by adding the extra concept of diffusion.
And that is the same concept that you would look at in terms of saying “does something exist or does something not exist,” well it’s more of a question of how firmly does it exist.
Now that’s something you look at in reality, you say how firmly does this tape exist? Well the tape will exist absolutely, I mean there is no question in our minds but that is only if you look at it spatially. You can say right now here is the table and it exists, and only if you look at it at this level you are appreciating it.
But just as in chaos theory, they say the coast of England is infinitely long because if you try to measure it as you get with smaller and smaller instruments of measure you begin to go around boulders and then you begin to go around grains of sand. By the time you measured you’ve added one circumference after another a portion of it as you go around all of these irregularities in the coast, and the length of the coast begins to become larger at an exponential rate, you would end up with an infinite coast to England.
Well similarly when you look at table and you say well is the tablecloth part of the table? Well no it’s not, OK. Now on this particular table I’m looking at there is some adhesive tape that I put a rip on as part of the surface, well is that part of the table? Well no it’s not. Now the fact that there is a rip, there is a few molecules missing of that table, does that make it less of a table? No, because we will define it then by it’s function, it holds things. all right one of the legs is weak on this particular table, and if I touch the wrong way it falls over and things spill, does that make it not a table? Well it makes it not a table at the moment it is spilling, well when exactly is that moment when it is spilling?
And then you start to get into the temporal sense, you see, you know at what exact moment of time did it cease to be a table and you run into all kinds of problems like that logistically, unless you are looking at things in terms of their frictal nature.
When you look at things in terms of frictal nature there never is any absolute existence or non-existence everything is in a constant state of flux. It is just that some things have long term flux and some things have a short term flux, as a result of this things appear more or less constant to us within the level at which we appreciate them. But when we look at larger and smaller magnitudes we cans see that things are actually always in a constant state of change.
That leads back to the concept that is essential to the unified field theory, that when dealing with things that appear to have synchronicity they only have an apparent synchronicity because of the fact that the influences that we are watching are beyond the scope that we can perceive. And there are moments when the diffusion is undulating and at two points at the undulation of the diffusion there are two focal points in this undulation.
Our concept of life, as an observer, does not allow us to have two focal points, when we look at something we see it from only one focal point or so we think. We look at the world and say this is where we are, this is where everything else is in reference to us that is the subjective view. And in so doing we then look at everything as being converging on us at one particular point.
But if we have two focal points where we say this is what it looks like to me and also this is what it looks like to me, it happens all the time but out minds are constructed so as not to appreciate it.
When you are working out two views where you say, well I want to go here, but I don’t really want to go there. Or when you are saying, well it makes sense logistically that it would be a good career move to go there, but I really don’t like that particular meeting or those particular people and I don’t want to go.
You have a logical point of view and you have an emotional point of view and you are actually sensing the parallax between the two. If there is a wide ranging difference it causes more deliberation, if there is a small difference then it causes less deliberation. If one is stronger than the other than it causes less deliberation, if they are both as equally balanced as possible if cause the most deliberation.
When you reach the point were you get absolute deliberation, you do not move, you do not act, you form an endless loop because nothing is changing. It’s constant and yet even though it is constant the two are completely balanced in magnitude and in differential.
Each makes the same amount of sense, each has the strongest feeling attached to it, so you end up trapped in a loop. This is one reason why there is a bias built into the mind of being a temporal or spatial minds to prevent people from going into brain lock all the time, which is a bad survival trait. It’s another reason that things would evolve in this way, is any entity that was of two minds would quickly cease to live long enough to procreate.
In any event, it is the observer looking through two eyes that creates a parallax that gives us all of our depth perception. And as a result of that two focal points are what is happening in synchronicity is that things exist spatially in two areas and in-between they do not exist as firmly. So we move from focus to diffusion and when they become diffuse enough we cannot see the smoke in the room until it reaches a certain point were we can perceive it as a haze, if it gets beyond a haze we can see it as a fog.
Eventually you solidify a fog enough and you’ve got an ice cube, something solid, something tangible. You go out into space and it is not absolutely vacant, it’s not a complete vacuum, but what concept does vacuum have anymore when you have to go one light year between the particles.
If you are in-between the particles, is there a vacuum in-between the particles? Well you really can’t say there is because from a spatial sense, as long as there is any content in something it is not an absolute vacuum and yet if you are in-between those two particles there is an absolute vacuum.
Well you have to look at it in two ways, there is a vacuum in terms of the fact that you are not feel any physical effects from the two particles. So you can say that their molecular energy is not being imparted to you, they’re kinetic energy and therefore you are in an absolute vacuum.
Yet at the same time each will have a gravitational field and that will effect your gravity, so through an indirect means the kinetic energy of your molecules is being altered by the changing positions relative to one another of these two particles that you stand in-between with a light year on either side.
That is how the brain works, is that some functions of the brain, the ones that happen in the neurology are occurring when particles collide with one another when they actually impart kinetic energy through direct contact, (quote end quote) ” direct contact”.
In fact when you then look at the chemistry of the brain, it is kinetic energy being in parted through gravitational means. This kind of relationship between the two is the nature of all these interference patterns, that what we hold to be reality is a combination between both.
Now when you have items that are getting closer together, what happens to the gravity? Well naturally the gravity between them seems to be stronger when they are closer, as if which is the strangest part of it, as if gravity was egocentric. As if gravity was something that determined it’s influence by perceiving it’s place in the universe, rather then just having a place in the universe.
You look at a particle and from the particle’s point of view, if there was such a thing, gravity would seem to be linear, it’s gravity would seem to be linear, the gravity it has. It would look outside itself, and say “well the sum total of the force I have one foot away from me, is equal to the summed total of the force that I have two feet away from me, which is equal to the summed total of the force that I have four feet away from me and so on.”
So that you end up looking at these increasing as the square of the distance and the force, of course, is cubed. But as you begin to look at this you realize that, just as the entire universe shrinks all around you from a point of view, the farther away it gets, your influence appears to shrink also, and that is what makes it appear to be a constant.
That is the real key, is that the two seem to me coinciding. So that when you look at some force that is in the distance, the farther away it is, the force gets smaller from your point of view, that you are exerting, and at the same time the universe itself shrinks.
Trees become smaller in the distance, stars are little tiny things, and when this happens it appears that your force is shrinking at the same rate away from you, as things are shrinking at the same rate away from you. Therefore, your power appears to be consistent throughout the universe from an internal stand point and certainly that is the point of view a particle would have exerting gravity in the universe.
However when you look at another particle, when you look at a second force generator in the universe, then at that point it seems as if when it gets closer to you it’s force gets stronger.
In a sense, you can turn around and see you’re occupying more of it’s field of vision and therefore the particle exerts more force upon you. But as the particles come together, the gravity increases and as that gravity increases from one perspective, remember we are dealing with subjective and objective here, as the gravity increases from one perspective then it suddenly becomes the stronger of the two forces and the kinetic energy becomes the weaker.
Now that is a very interesting thing, which one is more important? How long does it take for gravity to change it’s position relative to the kinetic energy? If you have two particles that are traveling near the speed of light and they collide, then what is actually going on?
You have to look at combined momentum to understand this, consider that light travels at the speed of light, light travels at the speed of light. Now we look at the speed of light as a limit that we cannot get by, that we can approach but never achieve. And yet light travels at the speed of light. So something is not only approaching, something it is at the speed of light. Light cannot travel at anything but the speed of light, it’s trapped in that limit line.
Now what if you take two flashlights and shine them at each another, and the two photons are coming at each other at a combined momentum of twice the speed of light. What occurs then? Because from either standpoint each particle could not see the other coming faster because it cannot perceive anything beyond the speed of light.
And so if the particle is coming towards it there is no way it could affect it in a direct physical sense, so that it would have energy imparted that would transmit to it before the other photon arrived because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Now if you have these two photons coming towards each other, you can look at their combined speed and you can say that they are actually converging at faster than the speed of light, at twice the speed of light, in fact. Well that is at an objective of standpoint. From a subjective stand point you cannot see anything traveling faster than the speed of light because it couldn’t get to you any faster and therefore you could not see it coming and that is the nature of the chaos in a temporal sense.
Chaos, in a temporal sense, is something that is coming at you faster than you can perceive it, faster than the size of mind, faster than the speed of mind.
When something comes faster than the size of mind, faster than the speed of mind, it is a chaotic event but it is actually something that is quite ordered. It’s just that the overall combined speed between what is coming to you and you coming to it, creates something that is unappreciable from a subjective perspective.
But if you look at it from an objective perspective quite clearly there are things that one can perceive that are happening at faster than the speed of light or faster than the speed of thought or larger than the size of mind or bigger than the universe, there are levels beyond that are going to have this kind of impact.
And it all has to do with that fractal and frictal nature of combining the linear wave patterns with the diffused wave patterns and creating an interference pattern that either has a constancy or has inconstancy, were it is constant we look at it in our time sense and our space sense or in our gravity sense, in our physical connective sense.
We put the two together and were we see constancy, we describe it as order; were we see inconstancy, we describe it as chaos. If you step back into an objective perspective out of the point of view, the single point of view concept, then you can clearly see that there is a wave form even in that, and that the wave form undulates between order and chaos, with order and chaos being one-hundred and eighty degrees out of phase.
So the strong and the weak forces of the universe are connected in this concept, strong and weak forces of the mind, the observers connected to the observation and again, once the math is worked out, these essential concepts describe the unified field theory, which can be seen as both open and closed as a system, both as being infinite and as being infinitesimal.
It’s all a matter of perspective, and science, as it is built now, cannot allow for a unified field theory because the one thing that must not change in an observation are the conditions under which the observation was made. In other words, you cannot perceive the beginning of an experiment any differently than you perceive the end of an experiment or you have changed your standard of measurement, which is not allowed and that invalidates the experiment.
That is why in trigonometry, you can only have functions that can be plotted horizontally, but if you try to plot a vertical inverse function it’s limited to one cycle because anything beyond that would require changing your perspective to perceive it.
Everyone knows the waves doesn’t stop in that direction and waves can go in both, but we just can’t allow ourselves to look at them because it violates the standard of not changing ones perspective, cause there is only that one cycles worth of overlap between the function and the inverse function that we can perceive from the same perspective.
That is the nature that has come out to be 3.14 on and on, as opposed to being an even three. A truly objective perspective will see it in fact as four. So in order to appreciate a unified field theory it requires that the perspective change, it requires that the observer be considered, it requires that you shift were you are looking at things from in order to see all the things that you can look at.
So that is the crucial aspect of it, as long as you only adopt only a single fixed perspective or a single standard of measurement, you can only see part of the universe, you will see as much as you can see at one time.
If you allow yourself to shift your perspective, then you are changing your perspective and between those two perspectives you will be able to see all of the universe. But the one thing that you won’t see by doing that is to realize that you can’t be in two perspective simultaneously and therefore you have to take time to get from one perspective to the other perspective, going from one to the other.
The nature of what you are observing changes under your feet and therefore you will not see all of the universe shifting perspective, you will only see the largest amount of perspective you can see, keeping space as a constant, changing your perspective over time.
So when you say let’s freeze time, that is the male perspective and that is what goes into traditional science. When you’re saying lets freeze space, that is the perspective intrinsic to women and that is also why women are not statistically doing as well in science or math, is not because they don’t have the capacity to perceive as much of the universe as the men do. But because the standards of measurement in the science community is established on male perspectives in which time is frozen and space is looked at in terms of the arrangement of things.
If we were to create alternate tools for women to use, which could allow for multiple points of view to get a more holistic sense of looking around an issue rather than looking at an issue, then women would excel equally to men in terms of science and math. But it would be a different language of science and math and in fact that language would be as inaccurate to men, as men’s language of science and math is not meaningful to women.
In talking to my son just a moment ago, he was bringing to my attention one thing I said, “What about when you have a black hole? And you have light that is going into a black hole and it reaches the event horizon and light actually freezes because it has slowed down towards the observer. Well, of course, discounting what we just said about the observer and the fact that the light slows down according to the observer, meaning that light never actually slows down, that light actually continues right on into the black hole at the speed of light because it defines zone speed from a subjective stand point, suppose for a moment that we did assume that light did stop from the scientific perspective and was no longer preceding towards the black hole. Of course that is when it would vanish because if light stops it will give off no light, it can’t decrease itself, it will freeze it’s momentum but that is only the momentum that is going directly into the black hole. In fact, from the stand point of the unified field theory such as this one we are describing here, is that when you approach the black hole, light will be slowing down it’s forward momentum so it will be increasing in it’s sideways momentum. Well rather in a momentum of being diffuse more or less diffuse, because what is sideways in space?
Well it is something becoming more or less diffuse so that angular momentum that goes of to the side that is going to increase and is going to become a wave form that’s kind of a polarity type thing, so that the wave of light that is going toward the black hole slows down and begins to come to the point where it becomes absolutely frozen.
In relationship to that, the light is going to become more or less diffuse as it undulates from side to side, going from a focused point in it’s angular momentum to a maximum point in it’s angular momentum.
Well what actually happens is as you reach a point coming towards the black hole when light actually would theoretically freeze and have no more forward momentum, that what’s happening is the wave form that is described as sideways undulation from side to side has become more stiff, more vertical, the peeks would become higher, the frequencies would become greater. And you end up with a point at which the wave form is violated because if the light actually comes to a point where it stops going forward, then the side ways momentum has to be maximum and that means that it has to be maximum there is no time to turn the curve on a wave form and if you were to plot what was happening as a function you would see it would violate all functional rules because it would become plotted along the horizontal axis a series of vertical lines.
In other words, light would, say, travel from the center point to the right as far as it goes and then once it travels from the center point to the right it would immediately be traveling back to the left and there would be no point at which it was at rest, there would be no slowing down it would simply travel to the right and immediately turn tail and travel to the left.
This odd phenomenon is what happens outside of black holes that makes them appear to just appear because all of the energy that has been seen coming back towards us is not going off in the side ways direction.
Sideways again, looking at it as a linear event, would perceive it at a series of vertical lines, and these vertical lines along the horizontal axis would be spaced equally so that they would represent a complete cycle. And each one would be the path way that light would take go from the farthest left point to the farthest right point, and then immediately it would be going from the farthest right to the farthest left.
The problem is that it takes it’s time to go from one side to the other, which is represented by lengths of the vertical line along the horizontal axis but once it has taken that time to go from one place to the other, then it immediately is going the other direction and time that it has taken has passed, which is represented by the horizontal gap between the vertical lines.
This would normally describe a wave form, how do we get the vertical lines? We get the vertical lines because it is simultaneously all along it’s full diffusion range from left to right, as it were, I mean from on the vertical lines from the top to the bottom from side to side in it’s movement and it simultaneously exists and then it ceases to exist for the interval period as time passes and then it exists again.
So in a sense that would be plotting it so that you could see that it was, it existed in sideways time, I guess is the best way to describe it. Where time has become space, space has become time, the two of them have inverted, they’ve exchanged positions and so it exists within a moment of time, … how to describe?
Let me walk through the model one more time and see if I can find a way to describe what’s going on in the model. The light approaches the black hole, it’s reaching the point where it freezes, as it reaches the point where it freezes, the momentum that it has so that it can continue to travel at the speed of light goes side ways to the black hole, because there is absolutely no force preventing it from moving in that direction, you might think of it as an orbit, if you would. So if the light going forward towards the black hole is slowing down, the light going side ways that polarity is going to in a sense orbit the black hole.
Now because it orbits the black hole, the only place we are going to be able to perceive the light as an observer, is when it comes around in it’s orbit back to the point that is directly between us and the black hole. So we are only going to see it for that infinitely small moment, that tiny moment at which it exactly lines up between us and what we are observing. When that happens all of it’s other momentum has gone side ways but the nature of the light has changed, because if we are plotting the forward momentum of the light is such that it no longer exists, light has stopped it’s forward momentum. If this is the case then light itself is only visible to us because it will appear to have forward momentum when it crosses that point, it’s own point in it’s orbit of going around this black hole.
If you plot that from the perspective of light’s forward momentum then it would appear as if light had it’s speed that it had before of the speed of light, but only for a moment.
This would create a vertical line that would be represented over the amplitude of the speed which would be the light and this vertical line would be placed on the horizontal axis with time going off along the horizontal axis toward the right as we continue our graph.
As things go along the horizontal axis towards the right, light is actually making another side ways revolution orbit around the black hole finally comes back to the point in front of us and instantly we see that it has an instant immediate momentary speed of the speed of light. And we plot that by it’s amplitude speed along the vertical axis, as a vertical line equal to the speed of light and that is evenly spaced to the right of the original observations.
These observations would continue so that each time that we saw the light, we would see it for a brief moment, kind of like a pulse type thing, we would see it for a brief moment where it would show up at full intensity and then it would be shut off instantly.
In other words there is no undulation in it, it’s not that we could perceive at all any wave form in it because in fact the light we are looking at is not truly anymore forward moving light but sideways moving light.
It has gone from something heading directly on, to something heading in an orbit, why would it do that? One would hypothetically look at a particle of light, at a photon of light going towards the black hole that would be hitting dead center, directly from the position of the observer. And if it did go directly from the position of the observer into the black hole then at that point we could say that (end of tape)
Okay, we are continuing now on Saturday morning, February 11, 1995, and we’re talking about if there was a situation with a black hole where the observer was actually able to see the light moving directly from them, directly into the black hole, dead on.
Then as they perceive this, one would assume that it would just appear to blink out and we could say that if light could go directly into the black hole, dead center, then light would not go into an orbit because there is nothing to pull it in any given direction into an orbit, no regularity.
So there would be a theoretical point at which light could hit dead on, perfectly perpendicular to the force of the gravity of the black hole, in all measurable directions and it would not go into to orbit because there would be nothing to make it go one way or another.
Well in fact as we know the Coriolis effect on Earth, there is always some kind of chaotic event that will choose one thing over another. There is a tendency to go one particular way but if you reach the equator, it is still going to go down the drain in one direction or another, but which direction it goes is going to be a chaotic event because the Coriolis effect will be an equal pull.
But you never see the water just sit there and not go around the drain and it never just goes down straight, that doesn’t happen, that just doesn’t happen, no time does that ever occur. The reason for that is, the observer, if you are looking at light the only way that the observer could see the light going dead on away from them, would be if the observer were in line with the light itself so they were watching it dead on, go away from them, into the black hole.
And if they are watching it dead on then they are not going to see anything because if the light hits them in an absolutely straight perspective completely straight, then at that point you are not going to see any light at all, so that observation could not occur.
That is the interesting thing about the universe, is that you can come up with all these hypothetical situations in which the paradox would exist, but the nature of the universe is such a way that as members of it, as citizens of the universe, we are constructed in such a way that we can not observe the paradox and so we believe the paradox doesn’t exist because we cannot see it, or we believe it exists even though we can’t see it.
It makes little difference because we’re never going to be able to directly observe it and if we can’t directly observe it or even directly observe it’s impact, because of that we have no way of having it effect us or us effect it in an observable fashion.
If you are looking for the mind of God that is probably the place to find it.
So anyway, that one instance where it would hit dead on is something could imagine but something that we could never observe and we can also never observe it’s impact or influence upon us. And so, there is no way we could even measure it through circumstantial factors, anything short of that direct hit is going to lead to some kind of an orbit.
And that orbit, because light will maintain it’s speed, is once it’s forward momentum freezes, then it’s angular momentum will be maximum but the observer will only be able to note when it exactly crosses their path. That there is a momentary flash of light visible at exactly one-hundred eighty-six thousand – whatever the speed is depending on the medium it’s moving through – that it will show up just for that instant at it’s full force without any fading in or fading out, it will be there one moment and not be there the next and that is the nature of it’s journey turning the forward momentum into orbital or angular momentum.