Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To register, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Yes, I can clarify what I mean by frame of reference. I mean that, since there is substantial evidence that this is a holographic universe, we should treat the frame of reference as the speed of light.
You are speaking about images on a tapestry. All of your examples are grounded in Newtonian language. That is not the state of the art. The world is comprised of images we are creating with our brains. Again, if you were to take a quick dip into books by Donald Hoffman, Beau Lotto, Anil Seth, or the like, it'd go a long way.
You are speaking of the images on a tapestry. I am speaking of the tapestry itself. I believe, in a holographic universe, the tapestry is c. C is the required speed. It can be achieved innately, or via movement. From the frame of reference of matter, c requires speed. From the frame of reference of light, c requires nothing. From the frame of reference of energy, c requires "reverse speed" (contraction). Again, see the Lorentz contraction.
Yes. I believe we are mistaken at a fundamental level. I share the view of physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, who said this of the Cosmic Microwave Background:
“But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun—the plane of the earth around the sun—the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is (s)imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.”
One strong possibility is that it's a coincidence
The observer is the center of the universe. The center is not the sun. It is the observer. This is neither new nor controversial. The Copernican model is outdated and inaccurate. To continue to invoke Copernicus and Newton is to cling to the rails of a sinking ship.
The observer is not only the center of the universe; the observer is creating the universe. This is something we absolutely know. It is not original to me. If your brain (your pineal gland) misunderstands the speed of light, you will create the universe at the wrong speed. If your pineal gland is too dense, you will create a world that is too fast.
If the universe is emergent, and it is emerging from light, then the most important thing our brains can do is to have an accurate understanding of light's speed.
For matter to emerge as light requires speed. For light to emerge as light requires nothing. For energy to emerge as light generates speed. The perception of light's speed is dependent upon an observer, and varies. It varies the way the perception of the speed of water would vary. To ice, water has speed. To water, water has no speed. To vapor, water has "reverse speed."
Even without the damning implications of the so-called 'axis of evil'—which, as I'm sure you know, was so dubbed because it implies that there is something deeply flawed with our models—we know, and can demonstrate, that the observer and the creator of the universe is the brain.
It is in that way, in my opinion, that the universe is akin to a simulation. It has nothing to do with alien supercomputers. It is being simulated by us, by consciousness. Are you familiar with the work of Klee Irwin? His paper, "The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," is brilliant. https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
Ah, yes. The old "coincidence" explanation. The old coincidence explanation always makes me smile. I strive to have childlike eyes, and to look at the world with beginner's mind, but if you honestly see "coincidence" in the following, you possess an innocence I can only admire and aspire to.
“The black hole at the center of our galaxy, Sagittarius A*, has the largest angular size in the sky, followed by M87. M87’s black hole is 1000 times bigger, but roughly 1000 times farther away.” —Feryal Özel, Harvard University Black Hole Initiative
katabasis, though we passionately disagree, I trust and respect you, and admire your intelligence. So I will assume, in spite of the occasional suggestion to the contrary, that you actually read the paper whose contents we are discussing here, called "The Speed of Time in Health and Disease." It is posted at the top of this thread. There is also a peer-review paper, "What We Call the Moon: Cognitive Science Meets Human Health," forthcoming; and a second peer-review paper that was published in January. "Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson’s, ALS, Autism, ME/CFS DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23756/sp.v9i2.694Ok. Please explain to me how and when matter or energy 'emerge as light' and how this effects the speed of light.
What if light functions like a plasma? A plasma is something that possesses a dual character, such as a gel. In some ways, gels behave like a liquid; in other ways, like a solid. We see a similar indeterminate quality in stem cells. A plasma’s relationship with time is that of an open gate: not limited to one direction. Neither chicken nor egg, it is a kind of chickenegg.
Perhaps light functions similarly. It can display characteristics of matter, or characteristics of energy. When time (the background fabric) is slow, light can acquire speed, like matter. When time (the background fabric) is fast, light can acquire density, like energy. At the speed of light, the perception of the background fabric flips, from “slow,” to “fast.”
“[O]ur observable universe is at the threshold of expanding faster than the speed of light.” ―physicist Lawrence M. Krauss
I also suggest that we can test this hypothesis that light has a "plasma" quality—whereby it may appear as matter, or light (light qua light), or energy, depending on the observer's location in time—by looking to the mathematics of total solar eclipses. I argue that 27,729 days—the number of days between total solar eclipses—is the distance above or below which light will undergo a state change.
We don’t seem to have a solid grip on time. We need leap years—even leap seconds—to make our calendars work. But there is a “cosmological constant” when it comes to time. Was there a total solar eclipse on a certain date? Add or subtract 27,729 days, and see if there was also a total solar eclipse on that date (spoiler alert: there was).
27,729 days is ~76 years, about the length of a human life. It’s also roughly 70 times 360 plus 7 times 360 days. Could it be the number of days between branes of time—the distance above or below which light undergoes a state change?
I don’t know. But here’s something interesting. The Tunguska Event took place on June 30, 1908. The largest explosion the world has ever seen, it flattened 80 million trees. No one knows what caused it. But if you add 27,729 days to the date of Tunguska, you get another date—May 31, 1984. What happened on this date?: US performs nuclear test at Nevada Test Site.
To go back to the beginning, and our discussion of Einstein, I am an adherent of those who believe this is a singularity, wherein everything happens at once. When you speak of "that first moment of the Big Bang," you lose me. (You also lose me when you question the consciousness of dinosaurs, but let's let that go.) That "first moment of the Big Bang" in these models, is now. Everything is now. What changes is the distance from which we observe it. As distance from its source increases—as time "lengthens"—the perception of light's speed changes.
In terms of Einsteinian relativity, what I am talking about—as you aptly noted, in the beginning—is frame of reference. Past, present, and future are not linear in the way we imagine.
Precisely. What I am arguing is that time is only slower or faster from the perspectives of energy and matter, respectively; and that this difference in the perception of time's speed is balanced by the "state" (speed) of light in matter and energy. At the speed of light—when light is light—time is simultaneous.From the perspective of light, time is never slower or faster
Because I am arguing that time has a fundamental unit, 27,729 days (or ~76 years). Next, I am asking: Might time's fundamental unit have a relationship to a "fundamental unit" of light? Might a "fundamental unit" of light be measured from eclipse to eclipse?Why would the regularity of eclipses have any relationship with the properties of light?
I disagree. We need to constantly play catch-up, we have had to re-calibrate, omit entire years, omit years again, wonk around with the labels (October should be 8; November should be 9, etc.) when trying to get a working calendrical system. Because we do not have a fundamental unit of time that remains constant across time. I am suggesting a new fundamental unit—27,729 days—and suggesting that time ("singularity time") should be measured from eclipse to eclipse.The quirks of the calendar do not imply anything about our 'grip on time'.