This Is Not a Vacuum

In 1984, at my public high school in Winchester, Massachusetts, there was a terrific biology teacher named Jerome Burdulis. Mr. Burdulis not only taught me to wonder at phagocytosis. He imprinted upon my 14-year-old consciousness a jingle that has stayed with me through the years. Don’t assume. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

Have we made assumptions in our foundational calculations about the universe that could be incorrect?

This is not a vacuum. So why do we use a vacuum as the baseline state in our models?

As of April 7th, 2022, some people have been asking whether the standard model of physics may be broken.

I have two peer-review papers that look at the universe in a new way. They suggest that the background against which we make our calculations should not be a vacuum but, rather, the speed of light.

Science & Philosophy, “Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson’s, ALS, Autism, ME/CFS” DOI:

Science & Philosophy, “Am I Too Pixelated?”

My friend, a classically trained physicist, could not wrap her head around what I was saying until I said it like this:

You say vacuum. I say: Point of density that exists inside light, that has been drawn back behind light, the way we draw back a sling.

What if time is the membrane between light that has speed and light that has reverse speed? If I am, in effect, exploding (too much intracellular sodium or dark energy), the light of the world will implode. (ALS?) If I am, in effect, imploding (too much extracellular potassium or dark matter), the light of the world will explode. (Parkinson’s?)

I don’t have the answers. But, at least, after many years of sub-optimum health, it feels as if I am finally beginning to ask the right questions.

Mr. Burdulis—Jerome Burdulis, biology teacher extraordinaire—across the chasm of time, I thank you.


Posted in