I have one -- er, colleague -- that I theorize with on occasion because we both study light, sound and form in a similar fashion. For me, its a bit more formal, but she is interested in light, sound and form as well in the same view. We're often theorizing about ideas and old hypotheses in hopes of retrieving some kind of truth, whatever it may be.
Last night, while procrastinating packing my
dorm room up, I ran across an alternative science database that I
haven't found before and this article.
The article focused on the age-old idea that the earth is flat. I have
had written ideas before suggesting that the earth/universe could indeed
be flat: Holographic Reality and the World is Flat and the Universe is Flat. Apparently there are a few people out there that still believe that the world is flat.
got into an interesting discussion about the possibility of the Earth
being flat and how it could possibly function as a flat surface.
I posted this link onto my colleague's facebook wall and the conversation began like this:
She commented jokingly, "All photographs of Earth from space are taken with FISH EYE LENSES to TRICK US!!!"
In all seriousness, I then asked, "No, seriously have you thought about it though?"
She responded, "About a flat Earth? Not with
my understanding of physics, which may or may not be faulty. But the
Sun is visibly spherical, the moon is spherical, and the planets I've
seen through a telescope also have the same light shading as a sphere
rather than a disc. I wouldn't consider the Earth to be a special case.
Expanding Earth, that I've considered. "
"But isn't there always a dual
option though in this world? What's the opposite of spherical? Flat. If
everything is an illusion in this manifest world, things that would
appear flat, would be spherical and vice versa, theoretically," I insisted.
She then replied, "I don't really believe the
world operates on duality as much as a refracted spectrum of plurality.
We could divide numbers as even or odds, but we could also
differentiate by multiples of three or fives. I feel it has much more
to do with perspective than duality. All illusions are equally false."
And then added, "Can we count a Mobius strip as being flat?"
"It looks like its technically a spiral, so yes," I answered.
Continuing, she said, "I don't know if there's
physical evidence to support this, but I still think of the universe as
expanding from a central point and collapsing back into itself when its
expansion is no longer enough to overcome its gravity."
"Yes. I've seen that in Tibetan art," I said confidently.
Then I asked, "what if our eyes are natural fish eye lenses?"
She answered, "That's still assuming
physical matter is actual rather than perceptual. But we could also be
light, shining onto inert information and perceiving it as experience..."
I then asked, "Light shining upon light equals what?"
"Experience," she said simply.
Then she added, "We could equate light with attention, as we equate darkness with the unseen. There has to be an interaction of some sort for there to be anything to experience."
"A world between worlds," I said.
Then she asked, "If we perceive no opposition, interference, interaction, can we perceive otherness or plurality?"
"Are we built to do that? I don't think so, if we could, there would be no division," I responded.
"Light absorption," I then added.
"That would be the point where
illusion refracts as a distortion of reality. We can take a flat sheet
of paper and pinch it somewhere, perceiving it as something other than
paper, just because it has an apparent shape other than that which
surrounds it. It's still the same thing though," she responded.
"Exactly," I said.
Then I added, "If we are beings of light,
entering a world of light -- a different kind of light -- we would
distort that reality because the present reality of who we are is
already light ... the distorted reality is the reality we perceive to be
real, as in the world we exist in now."
Continuing, she said, "Holographic apparitions
rather than solid, actually separate entities. Perhaps this is why
dimensions intersect each other at 90 degree angles. It's just us
coming back on ourselves in new ways to experience multiplicity.
So particles are twists of space-time... "
"Intersections of light. And! If absolute zero is no
vibratory motion of any particle, it's because there is no interaction.
It would be uninterrupted flatness," she added.
"Ah ha! Flat," I exclaimed.
Then she asked, "We can extend on forever uninterrupted, but projecting requires an other to bounce off of. 0D as a source?" She laughed.
Laughing with her, I responded, "0D would be light though, it has to be."
Thinking out loud, I said, "but things can't bounce off if there is no density to it..."
"It's pretty awesome that we had the same thought train about interrupted light and projections," she said.
Then she asked, "But what -is- light?
Consciousness? Beingness? That Which Is or the attention thereof? We
seemingly innately equate it with positivity. So that which we see is
light and that which we refuse to attend to is dark? I feel like the
metaphor works in a literal way, I'm just not sure how."
"Oh shiny!!" I exclaimed.
"Actually, I think "oh shiny" may be the answer to your question," I added.
Pondering, she asked, "How does the light in a holograph work? Bounced off of a reflection?"
"What happens when physical
light reflects off a metallic surface? It catches our attention, because
we somehow can relate to it, for whatever reason," I said.
Continuing, she said, "That is precisely why, as
I've gotten older, I've become more interested in sparkly sorts of
things. Every living thing flourishes with light, and many animals
instinctively collect shinies."
Finishing the conversation, I said, "By the way... spirals as expressions of light intersecting with each other? perhaps why they appear -everywhere- in nature?"