Our Notion of Motion

If I perceive the universe (my environment) to be of a higher energy state than I am, my movement is forward in time (expansion). If I perceive the universe (my environment) to be of a lower energy state than I am, my movement is backward in time (contraction).

When I move forward in time, expanding, my experience is one of entropy. When I move backward in time, contracting, my experience is one of negentropy. By that, I mean that when I move forward, I sense my energy departing from me in many directions. And when I move backward, I sense my energy returning to me from many directions. Feeling my energy return to me feels better.

When I became sick, and realized I was experiencing metabolic gridlock, I discovered how difficult it is to move around in time. If I want to move forward, to accelerate, first I have to gather density (decelerate). But if I want to move backward, to decelerate, first I have to increase my speed (accelerate). It’s a big loop.

pH7 is life-critical. My liver and my pancreas are always communicating with each other. The liver is saying: I’m going to make this much acid, can you neutralize that much acid? And the pancreas is saying: yes or no. And the pancreas is saying: I can neutralize this much acid, feel free to accelerate accordingly. They’re in cahoots with each other, and they’re also trying to coordinate with the big picture—the metabolic rate of the universe. Time. When sunlight hits my eye, it’s giving my brain information.

Our astronauts are losing minerals from their bones and their viruses are re-activating because their time signature is different. The terrain is changing. The information coming into the eye is changing, and the liver and the pancreas are both changing their rates in turn.

Bohm’s ink-and-glycerine experiment (see my post Like Ink into Cloth) points to an interesting paradox. If I am not separate from my medium, I … never really move. The emergence model completely upends our classical understanding of motion.

According to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, if two particles spring from a common source and fly in opposite directions at once, neither one can be said to have fixed properties, such as momentum, until it is measured.

I would shift the EPR paradox slightly to say that the issue is one of designating an observer. A particle does not have momentum vis-à-vis itself (why being on an airplane feels like being in your living room). In a sense, a particle, a person, an airplane is not really moving; it has simply entered a different time signature. “Airplane Freezes in Mid-Air” videos on YouTube are illustrating the observer phenomenon.

In other words, it’s not movement. It’s state change. When light condenses, it becomes matter. When light accelerates, it becomes energy. Or is it the other way around? It depends if you are viewing things through the ink or the cloth lens.

Posted in

alethea