Beyond Light Speed: A Tenet Nosce suggestion

[zenmaster]

Because it is the most simple.

The "most simple" description of the function of the universe would be: Love. Which equation does "Love" fit into?

Love fits into all equations, because all equations depict relationships and any possible relationship is provided by love. Love is a principle which is outside of space and time. So can only be described AND experienced through a state of being capable of understanding it. The closest thing we have using our condition is an unconscious feeling or intuitive notion. For me, love is sort of like the vehicle for the vehicle of consciousness. From our point of view, it's like a 'lease' or opportunity.

According to my understanding, Einstein's theories require us to deduce some very NON-SIMPLE conclusions about the universe. To the point where Einstein himself was not really satisfied. General relativity still needs to be reconciled with quantum physics, as I am sure you well know.

Also, there is currently no mathematical representation of consciousness in any theory of physics that I am aware. If light = consciousness, and that light/consciousness is something that entities can exchange information with, then scientists would really need to rethink everything they consider to be "physical law".

There certainly have been many attempts to represent aspects or portions of consciousness mathematically.

We can and often do frame knowledge any way we want to feel justified in our desires. One such framing is the depiction of close mindedness in light of new data. When in fact those who came after are most of the time entirely dependent on those who came before.

Pardon, but who is "we"? You and me? People in general? Or are you a scientist? If so, what kind? I am just trying to get a feel for where you are coming from.

People in general. That is the condition we all have, including both you and me. The expressions are slightly different based on what one needs to learn. But we tend to re-use the same valuing memes left by other pioneers in order to depict our current biases. No, I am not a scientist.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical about new data that overturns previous theories. I understand this. I also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. It is actually quite humorous to me, and ironic. Science and religion... unified by dogmatic thinking... the ultimate "security blanket" if you ask me.

Scientists also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. Religious people do the same. Such viewpoints are just steps to learning about the self. And, yes, they also find it quite humorous and ironic. But if you look into both science and religion, there is nothing about the purpose of science which is dogmatic and nothing about the purpose of religion which is dogmatic (in the pathological or regressive sense). The scientific method is based on creating relationships from observation. The religious ceremony is about connecting to the creator.

Many discoveries and current events have been selectively framed as being 'fitting for the times'. This is like the opposite of dogma: the unbridled use of the intuition, pareidolia, masking as open mindedness and insight. Grasping for such confirmations of bias tends to be a form of regressive coping behavior, like a security blanket.

Are you also a psychologist? Because you may wish to take a look at the way you are painting others with broad brush strokes.

What do you mean broad brush strokes in the manner of the security-blanketed, dogmatic science and religion?

Generalizing, using words like "unbridled", "masking", "grasping". Using technical terms rather than speaking in plain english. This is dissociative behavior, typically used when one would like to put some "distance" between themselves and another, as a result of feeling threatened or attacked.

Its actually just yet another way to explain the condition that is currently happening. The "unbridled" term I got from Ra, as I felt it was an apt depiction of hyper-intuitive behavior where blanks in cognition are allowed to be filled by unconscious desires i.e. in the manner here or here. The "masking" term was used because any meme which we inflate as "truth" is necessarily temporary. The so-called open minded person who is the would-be purveyor of truth (for example, some conspiracy) and therefore some kind of "liberator", is often just parroting what they are compelled to do based on valuing-meme identification. They do not see the hole which they have dug from the attachment to their borrowed ideology. For them it is entirely appropriate or fitting to what they perceive to be the actual situation and righteous. The "grasping" necessarily follows from the attachment, for one can not fully see any brand new condition of being which they are drawn to for some reason. "grasping" is an apt word because it does describe this new condition of learning. We tend to move in stages from apprehension (grasping), to comprehension to understanding. Yes, all of us - hence the broad-generalization brush strokes.

Speculation and the intuition always leads the way to a new condition, new knowledge not only about the external world but the internal as well. And we continually, without fail, unconsciously project one on the other (because one is ultimately the other - i.e. time/space = space/time, or "as above, so below").

Confirmation bias works in all directions. In my particular case, I do not have any stake in the outcome being one way or another.

We necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we connect it with a hope. Such is the nature of hope. Hope does just that, it creates a stake for some type of gain. I will say it again, we necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we have a hope for some outcome or event.

How would this prove that time is nothing more than a projection of the mind?

Let's see.

Special relativity postulates that there is no absolute frame of reference. I would conjecture that there IS an absolute frame of reference, and that frame of reference would be the Logos (consciousness/mind) in which we live, move, and have our being.

Special relativity also postulates that the speed of light is the same relative to all frames of reference. Again, overlooking the special case of the observer being the Logos, who existed prior to the creation of light, which itself was birthed out of LOVE.

These two postulates form the basis of the concept of mass-energy equivalence. This concept also postulates the speed of light in a "vacuum" which does not really exist. If consciousness/mind permeates the entire universe, then consciousness/mind is the medium through which light propagates.

Since the principle of causality rests upon the acceptance of the "vacuum" as "nothingness"- if the "vacuum/nothingness" is a fabrication of the mind, then the mind's conception of causality is flawed and the only reason events APPEAR to have causality is because we are viewing events with our own limited mental faculties.

Theoretical Breakthrough: Generating Matter and Antimatter from Nothing

The scientists and engineers have developed new equations that show how a high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse could rip apart a vacuum into its fundamental matter and antimatter components, and set off a cascade of events that generates additional pairs of particles and antiparticles.

IF a "vacuum" can be ripped apart into more fundamental components, and used to generate particles, THEN the common concept of a "vacuum" as "nothingness" is a fabrication of the mind. If there is no such thing as "nothingness" then any conception of time which is built up upon such a fabrication is an extension of that fabrication.

We ask you to realize that we are speaking on the level of a causality that is far beyond the causality of worldly things.

Questioner: Yes, I have a question. I would like to know if there is a vibrating vortex at the center of what we perceive to be a particle?

We are those of Q’uo, and are aware of your query, my brother. To respond to your query directly is almost impossible, for to us there is no particle involved. From our point of view we would say that the energies of space and time are mismatched in a certain way which causes the oscillation of which you have been speaking and creates the visible worlds or the manifested worlds. When the mismatch between space and time is won by time, then the inner planes or the unseen realms are created by this incredibly quick oscillation.

However, my brother, to the best of our understanding there is no particle involved, no mass, but simply dynamic tension betwixt space and time as components of velocity.

But you can not prove it is a projection of the mind. The mind is creating the theories. There would first have to be a practical theoretical base for how the mind works (the mind-body problem) in order to associate experience and mind. If we understood how the mind works, we would at the vary least understand how 2nd density works, since that is the first manifestation of the mind principle. Up to this point, most of the theories of the mind are soft-science related (psychology) or philosophical.

General relativity builds upon these conjectures by postulating various non-Euclidian geometries. These are anything but simple. So Occam would be rolling over in his grave with these.

Yep, and scientists know this. Yet it is difficult to remove complexity. Complexity is entertaining. Eventually the epicyclic system of theory we currently use (with some success, of course) will become too insufficient, possibly by a dogmatic scientist working in earnest.