Why Do the Planets [Appear to] Move?

We live in a world in which everything is spinning. Water (whirlpools), air (storms), even the stars appear to spin (star trails). Evidence of spin’s ubiquitous signature, the Fibonacci spiral, is found nearly everywhere, from pinecones to flower petals to seashells to the human face to DNA. Why do the planets—and everything else—spin?

Here’s an idea. It’s not that every single thing in the universe, from the macro to the micro, is spinning. It’s that the observer is spinning.

The perception of motion is a funny thing. It requires a frame of reference. When you are on a train, the trees appear to move. But are they really moving? Instead it is you, the observer, who is moving. But … are you really moving? Moving relative to what? Are you not like the trees? By that I mean, you might appear to move from one frame of reference (e.g. a person on the platform back at the station), but appear to be stationary from another (e.g. a person on the train). In fact, there could be a frame of reference from which you would appear to be moving backward (e.g. a person on a faster train).

In a holographic universe, perhaps this is not an inertial frame. I believe we should liken the “correct” frame of reference to the train itself. The observer itself has speed.

In other words, if the planets are in motion, who is observing them? Is the observer herself in motion? Could you find me an observer who is not spinning, please? I would like a second opinion.

When Mercury is “retrograde,” we know it’s an optical illusion whereby the planet appears to move backward from the perspective of the earth. But why should one portion of one planet’s motion be an optical illusion, and not the whole of all the planets’ motions?

Cognitive science has been telling us something rather shocking, and we have not yet absorbed its shock. If matter is emergent, physical reality is A) Not what it appears to be, and B) Not responsible for causality. Here is a brilliant video by Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist at UC Irvine:

Don’t have time to watch the full 38 minutes? Start at 16:06 and watch just three minutes. Don’t have time for that? No problem. Just read this quote (18:22):

“Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That’s very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So if there’s no spacetime, it’s not clear what physics is about.” — Nima Arkani-Hamed, Cornell Messenger Lecture 2016

Perhaps the planets appear to move in the same way that trees appear to move when we’re on a train. Just as it is not the trees that move, but rather the train; it is not the planets that move, but rather the earth. But … is the earth really moving? Moving relative to what? What is the frame of reference? Who is the earth’s observer?

Here’s an idea. There is light, and the light is inside itself. There is a spine of light—a quasar, an arrow of time—and when it is behind itself, it spins to the left. When it is in front of itself, it spins to the right. When it is behind itself, i.e. is denser and faster than itself, and the meniscus is concave. When it is in front of itself, i.e. is less dense and less fast than itself, and the meniscus is convex. The meniscus is the lens through with the observer perceives itself. We do not see reality as it is (flat), we see reality through a lens that is either concave or convex.

These ideas are not fringe. Stephen Hawking’s Holographic Principle (you can’t store information inside a volume of space, only on its surface area); Donald Hoffman’s Interface Theory (explained elegantly and compellingly in the above video); Emergence Theory as it is applied to physics (Raphael Bousso, Gerard ’t Hooft, Klee Irwin, Fotini Markopoulou, Herman Verlinde, and many others): These are some of our best and brightest minds, leaders in their fields, men and women have been bent over their desks for decades. If matter is not fundamental to the universe, what the current science is irrefutably telling us is that the globe is a fiction.

We take what our eyes deliver to our brains as frank information. But I believe it is not frank information; it is being filtered through a lens: the speed of light. It is the degree of curvature of the meniscus that creates the perception of speed. The greater the degree of curvature, the faster the speed. When the observer (light) is very far behind itself, i.e. very dense (Saturn), the speed is very fast (Mercury). When the observer is less dense (Jupiter), the speed is less fast (Venus). When the observer is even less dense (sun) the speed is even less fast (moon). But the true observer (quasar) is light that is not split from itself; light that is “flat.”

So why is everything the world in motion? Because the observer is in motion. Because energy that has been compressed to the density of matter from the point of view of an observer (dark energy) wants to fly outward; and matter that has been exploded to the speed of energy from the point of view of an observer (dark matter) wants to fly inward.

But the dynamic created at the Big Bang—where what’s inside wants to fly out, and what’s outside wants to fly in—is a reversal of what time is doing. Look at a whirlpool. The center doesn’t explode; it collapses. The Big Bang could have been called something else: The Great Reversal or the Fall. According to this paradigm, the competing tensions of the Big Bang (time’s backward direction) and Time (time’s forward direction) hold the universe together and apart. One spins left, and the other spins right.

To be more precise: When we spin left, the world appears to spin right. When we spin right, the world appears to spin left. When we stop spinning, the world stops spinning.

 

We are told the universe is accelerating and expanding. Here’s another idea. We live in a holographic universe. There’s a plane of light. When we’re behind it, it appears to accelerate and expand—but, in fact, we are condensing. When we’re in front of it, it appears to decelerate and contract—but, in fact, we are expanding.

Matter as light has speed. Energy as light has reverse speed. Light as light (light qua light) has no speed. Light has speed only when it’s emergent. It isn’t light that has speed; it’s time.

Posted in

alethea