Is Our Universe a Fake?

[astr0144]

Some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram — and it's not that far-fetched

Some physicists actually believe that the universe we live in might be a hologram.

The idea isn't that the universe is some sort of fake simulation out of The Matrix, but rather that even though we appear to live in a three-dimensional universe, it might only have two dimensions. It's called the holographic principle.




RelatedThe Large Hadron Collider is starting back up. Here's what scientists hope to find.
The thinking goes like this: Some distant two-dimensional surface contains all the data needed to fully describe our world — and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. Like the characters on a TV screen, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth.

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS SEEM TO MAKE MORE SENSE WHEN WRITTEN IN TWO DIMENSIONS THAN IN THREE

It might sound absurd. But if when physicists assume it's true in their calculations, all sorts of big physics problems — such as the nature of black holes and the reconciling of gravity and quantum mechanics — become much simpler to solve. In short, the laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three.

"It's not considered some wild speculation among most theoretical physicists," says Leonard Susskind, the Stanford physicist who first formally defined the idea decades ago. "It's become a working, everyday tool to solve problems in physics."

But there's an important distinction to be made here. There's no direct evidence that our universe actually is a two-dimensional hologram. These calculations aren't the same as a mathematical proof. Rather, they're intriguing suggestions that our universe could be a hologram. And as of yet, not all physicists believe we have a good way of testing the idea experimentally.



Where did the idea that the universe might be a hologram come from?
The idea originally came out of a pair of paradoxes concerning black holes.

1) The black hole information loss problem

In 1974, Stephen Hawking famously discovered that black holes, contrary to what had long been thought, actually emit slight amounts of radiation over time. Eventually, as this energy bleeds away from the event horizon — the black hole's outer edge — the black hole should completely disappear.



black hole
An illustration of radiation escaping from a black hole. (Communicate Science)

However, this idea prompted what's known as the black hole information loss problem. It's long been thought that physical information can't be destroyed: All particles either retain their original form or, if they change, that change impacts other particles, so the first set of particles' original state could be inferred at the end.

As an analogy, think of a stack of documents that are fed through a shredder. Even though they're cut into tiny pieces, the information present on the pieces of paper still exists. It's been cut into tiny pieces, but it hasn't disappeared, and given enough time, the documents could be reassembled so that you'd know what was written on them originally. In essence, the same thing was thought to be true with particles.

But there was a problem: If a black hole disappears, then the information present in any object that may have been sucked into it seemingly disappears, too.

RelatedStephen Hawking's research is more accessible than you think. Here's a guide.
One solution, proposed by Susskind and Dutch physicist Gerard 't Hooft in the mid-'90s, was that when an object gets pulled into a black hole, it leaves behind some sort of 2D imprint encoded on the event horizon. Later, when radiation leaves the black hole, it picks up the imprint of this data. In this way, the information isn't really destroyed.

And their calculations showed that on just the 2D surface of a black hole, you could store enough information to completely describe any seemingly 3D objects inside it.

"The analogy that both of us independently were thinking about was that of a hologram — a two-dimensional piece of film which can encode all the information in a three-dimensional region of space," Susskind says.

The entropy problem: There was also the related problem of calculating the amount of entropy in a black hole — that is, the amount of disorder and randomness among its particles. In the '70s, Jacob Bekenstein had calculated that their entropy is capped, and that the cap is proportional to the 2D area of a black hole's event horizon.

"For ordinary matter systems, the entropy is proportional to the volume, not the area," says Juan Maldacena, an Argentinian physicist involved in studying the holographic principle. Eventually, he and others saw that this, too, pointed to the idea that what looked like a 3D object — a black hole — might be best understood using only two dimensions.

How did this idea go from black holes to the entire universe?
None of this was proof that black holes were holograms. But early on, Susskind says, physicists recognized that looking at the entire universe as a two-dimensional object that only looks three-dimensional might help solve some deeper problems in theoretical physics. And the math works just as well whether you're talking about a black hole, a planet, or an entire universe.

In 1998, Maldacena demonstrated that a hypothetical universe could be a hologram. His particular hypothetical universe was in what's called anti-de Sitter space (which, to simplify things, has a curved shape over huge distances, as opposed to our universe, which is believed to be flat):




Anti-de Sitter space (left) curves in on itself. Our universe (right) is believed to be flat. (The Physics Mill)

What's more, by viewing this universe in two dimensions, he found a way to make the increasingly popular idea of string theory — a broad framework in which the basic building blocks of the universe are one-dimensional strings, rather than particles — jibe neatly with the well-established laws of particle physics.



And even more importantly, by doing so, he united two hugely important, disparate concepts in physics under one theoretical framework. "The holographic principle connected the theory of gravity to theories of particle physics," Maldacena says.

Combining these two fundamental ideas into a single coherent theory (often called quantum gravity) remains one of the holy grails of physics. So the holographic principle making it possible in this hypothetical universe was a big deal.

Of course, all of this is still quite different from saying that our actual universe — not this weird hypothetical one — is a hologram.

But could our universe actually be a hologram — or does the idea only apply to hypothetical ones?
That's still a matter of active debate. But there's been some recent theoretical work that suggests the holographic principle might work for our universe too — including a high-profile paper by Austrian and Indian physicists that came out this past May.

Like Maldacena, they also sought to use the principle to find a similarity between the disparate fields of quantum physics and gravitational theory. In our universe, these two theories typically don't align: They predict different results regarding the behavior of any given particle.

But in the new paper, the physicists calculated how these theories would predict the degree of entanglement — the bizarre quantum phenomenon in which the states of two tiny particles can become correlated so that a change to one particle can affect the other, even if they're far away. They found that by viewing one particular model of a flat universe as a hologram, they could indeed get the results of both theories to match up.

Still, even though this was a bit closer to our universe than the one Maldacena had worked with, it was just one particular type of flat space, and their calculations didn't take time into account — just the other three spatial dimensions. What's more, even if this did apply directly to our universe, it'd only show that it's possible it could be a hologram. It wouldn't be hard evidence.

How could we prove that the universe is a hologram?



holometer
Fermilab's Holometer, used in tests that some say could find evidence for the holographic principle. (Fermilab)

The best type of proof would start with some testable prediction made by holographic theory. Experimental physicists could then gather evidence to see if it matches the prediction. For instance, the theory of the Big Bang predicted that we might find some form of remnant energy emanating throughout the universe as a result of the violent expansion 13.8 billion years ago — and in the 1960s, astronomers found exactly that, in the form of the cosmic microwave background.

At the moment, there's no universally agreed-upon test that would provide firm evidence for the idea. Still, some physicists believe that the holographic principle predicts there's a limit to how much information spacetime can contain, because our seemingly 3D spacetime is encoded by limited amounts of 2D information. As Fermilab's Craig Hogan recently put it to Motherboard, "The basic effect is that reality has a limited amount of information, like a Netflix movie when Comcast is not giving you enough bandwidth. So things are a little blurry and jittery."

Hogan and others are using an instrument called a Holomoter to look for this sort of blurriness. It relies on powerful lasers to see whether — at super-small, submicroscopic levels — there's a fundamental limit in the amount of information present in spacetime itself. If there is, they say, it could be evidence that we're living in a hologram.

Still, other physicists, including Susskind, reject the premise of this experiment and say it can't provide any evidence for the holographic principle.

Let's say we prove the universe is a hologram. What would that mean for my everyday life?

Everyday life in a holographic universe. (Shutterstock.com)
Everyday life in a holographic universe. (Shutterstock.com)

In one strict sense, it'd mean little. The same laws of physics you've been living with for your entire life would seem to remain exactly the same. Your house, dog, car, and body would keep appearing as three-dimensional objects, just like they always have.

But in a deeper sense, this discovery would revolutionize our existence on a profound level.

It doesn't matter much for your day-to-day life that the universe was formed 13.8 billion years in a sudden, violent expansion from a single point of matter. But the discovery of the Big Bang is instrumental for our current understanding of the history of the universe and our place within the cosmos.


Likewise, the bizarre principles of quantum mechanics — like entanglement, in which two distant particles somehow affect each other — don't really change your daily life either. You can't see atoms and don't notice them doing this. But these principles are another basic truth that tells us something utterly unexpected about the fundamental nature of the universe.

Proving the holographic principle would be much the same. Living our normal lives, we probably won't think much about the peculiar, counterintuitive fact that we live in a hologram. But the discovery would serve as an important step toward fully understanding the laws of physics — which dictate every action you've ever taken.


http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863/holographic-principle-universe

[astr0144]

Is Our Universe a Fake?



Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the creator, writer and host of "Closer to Truth," a public television and multimedia program that features the world's leading thinkers exploring humanity's deepest questions. Kuhn is co-editor, with John Leslie, of "The Mystery of Existence: Why Is There Anything at All?" (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013). This article is based on a "Closer to Truth" episode produced and directed by Peter Getzels. Kuhn contributed this article to

            --------------------------------


I began bemused. The notion that humanity might be living in an artificial reality — a simulated universe — seemed sophomoric, at best science fiction.

But speaking with scientists and philosophers on "Closer to Truth," I realized that the notion that everything humans see and know is a gigantic computer game of sorts, the creation of supersmart hackers existing somewhere else, is not a joke. Exploring a "whole-world simulation," I discovered, is a deep probe of reality.


David Brin, sci-fi writer and space scientist, relates the Chinese parable of an emperor dreaming that he was a butterfly dreaming that he was an emperor. In contemporary versions, Brin said, it may be the year 2050 and people are living in a computer simulation of what life was like in the early 21st century — or it may be billions of years from now, and people are in a simulation of what primitive planets and people were once like.



Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, describes a fake universe as a "richly detailed software simulation of people, including their historical predecessors, by a very technologically advanced civilization."



It's like the movie "The Matrix," Bostrom said, except that "instead of having brains in vats that are fed by sensory inputs from a simulator, the brains themselves would also be part of the simulation. It would be one big computer program simulating everything, including human brains down to neurons and synapses."

Bostrum is not saying that humanity is living in such a simulation. Rather, his "Simulation Argument" seeks to show that one of three possible scenarios must be true (assuming there are other intelligent civilizations):

All civilizations become extinct before becoming technologically mature;
All technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating simulations;
Humanity is literally living in a computer simulation.
His point is that all cosmic civilizations either disappear (e.g., destroy themselves) before becoming technologically capable, or all decide not to generate whole-world simulations (e.g., decide such creations are not ethical, or get bored with them). The operative word is "all" — because if even one civilization anywhere in the cosmos could generate such simulations, then simulated worlds would multiply rapidly and almost certainly humanity would be in one.

As technology visionary Ray Kurzweil put it, "maybe our whole universe is a science experiment of some junior high school student in another universe." (Given how things are going, he jokes, she may not get a good grade.)



Kurzweil's worldview is based on the profound implications of what happens over time when computing power grows exponentially. To Kurzweil, a precise simulation is not meaningfully different from real reality. Corroborating the evidence that this universe runs on a computer, he says, is that "physical laws are sets of computational processes" and "information is constantly changing, being manipulated, running on some computational substrate." And that would mean, he concluded, "the universe is a computer." Kurzweil said he considers himself to be a "pattern of information."

"I'm a patternist," he said. "I think patterns, which means that information is the fundamental reality."

How could people know?

If people are in a whole-world simulation, how could they know it? Brin suggests a "back door" in the simulation program that would enable the alleged programmers to control people (much like countries accuse each other of installing "back doors" in code to conduct espionage).

"If we are living in a simulation, then everything is software, including every atom in our bodies," Brin said, "and there may be 'back doors' that the programmers left ajar."

I asked Marvin Minsky, a legendary founder of artificial intelligence, to distinguish among three kinds of simulations: (i) brains in vats, (ii) universal simulation as pure software and (iii) universal simulation as real physical stuff.



"It would be very hard to distinguish among those," Minsky said, "unless the programmer has made some slips — if you notice that some laws of physics aren't quite right, if you find rounding-off errors, you might sense some of the grain of the computer showing through."

If that were the case, he says, it would mean that the universe is easier to understand than scientists had imagined, and that they might even find ways to change it.

The thought that this level of reality might not be ultimate reality can be unsettling, but not to Minsky: "Wouldn't it be nice to know that we are part of a larger reality?" [Incredible Technology: How Future Space Missions May Hunt for Alien Planets ]

For a reality check, I visited Martin Rees, U.K. Astronomer Royal, a bold visionary and hard-nosed realist.



"Well, it's a bit flaky, but a fascinating idea," he said. "The real question is what are the limits of computing powers."

Astronomers are already doing simulations of parts of universes. "We can't do experiments on stars and galaxies," Rees explained, "but we can have a virtual universe in our computer, and calculate what happens if you crash galaxies together, evolve stars, etc. So, because we can simulate some cosmic features in a gross sense, we have to ask, 'As computers become vastly more powerful, what more could we simulate?'

"It's not crazy to believe that some time in the far future," he said, "there could be computers which could simulate a fairly large fraction of a world."

A prime assumption of all simulation theories is that consciousness — the inner sense of awareness, like the sound of Gershwin or the smell of garlic — can be simulated; in other words, that a replication of the complete physical states of the brain will yield, ipso facto, the complete mental states of the mind. (This direct correspondence usually assumes, unknowingly, the veracity of what's known in philosophy of mind as "identity theory," one among many competing theories seeking to solve the intractable "mind-body problem".) Such a brain-only mechanism to account for consciousness, required for whole-world simulations and promulgated by physicalists, is to me not obvious.

I asked Rees whether human-level consciousness and self-consciousness can be simulated.

"That may be the kind of question that would demand a superhuman intelligence to answer," which, he adds, "could be forever beyond our capacity."

Physicist Paul Davies has a different take. He uses simulation theory to tease out possible contradictions in the multiple universe (multiverse) theory, which is his countercultural challenge to today's mainstream cosmology.

"If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations," Davies said, "at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we're just typical observers, then we're overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one."

So far it's the normal argument.

Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe's physics is a fake. Therefore, Davies reasoned, "We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics." That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity.

Davies concluded, "While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions."

Five premises to the simulation argument

I find five premises to the simulation argument: (i) Other intelligent civilizations exist; (ii) their technologies grow exponentially; (iii) they do not all go extinct; (iv) there is no universal ban or barrier for running simulations; and (v) consciousness can be simulated.

If these five premises are true, I agree, humanity is likely living in a simulation. The logic seems sound, which means that if you don't accept (or don't want to accept) the conclusion, then you must reject at least one of the premises.

Which to reject? Other intelligent civilizations? Exponential growth of technology?

Not all civilizations going extinct? No simulations ban or barrier? Consciousness simulated?

Whichever you choose, it must apply always, everywhere. For all time. In all universes. No exceptions.

That, to me, makes no sense.

Would the simulation argument relate to theism, the existence of God? Not necessarily.

Bostrum said, "the simulation hypothesis is not an alternative to theism or atheism. It could be a version of either — it's independent of whether God exists." While the simulation argument is "not an attempt to refute theism," he said, it would "imply a weaker form of a creation hypothesis," because the creator-simulators "would have some of the attributes we traditionally associate with God in the sense that they would have created our world."


They would be superintelligent, but they "wouldn't need unlimited or infinite minds." They could "intervene in the world, our experiential world, by manipulating the simulation. So they would have some of the capabilities of omnipotence in the sense that they could change anything they wanted about our world."

So even if this universe looks like it was created, neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians could easily distinguish between the traditional creator God and hyper-advanced creator-simulators.

But that leads to the old regress game and the question of who created the (weaker) creator-simulators.

At some point, the chain of causation must end — although even this, some would dispute.

Personally, I do not think humanity is living in a whole-world simulation. But because the simulation argument seems to work, what it seems to do is to uncover deep discrepancies, or fundamental flaws, in how people think about deep reality — about this universe, multiple universes, consciousness, and even inferences for and against theism.

Something's amiss.

http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html

[Gigas]

Without a doubt, YES!

It's like a dream where anything can happen and does. The dream factory is getting sloppy though, were beginning to see it's flaws as it churns out obviously fake melodrama and destruction. Our very reality is on the cusp of creating another version of reality for our current version to play in.

Question is, which version are we currently living.

By all logic and reason our history is created to be spoon fed to our minds in order to keep us from seeing the true reality of our situation. I have come to know when someone picks up the clues and drops the puzzle piece in place the Matrix damage control kicks in and shuts the annoyance down by either ridicule, illness or death.

This place is built upon parameters keeping the pieces as a whole to seamlessly feed the mind streams that have 5 manufactured sense values that enforce the simulations synaptic capacity to make it feel real by either smell, sound, sight, taste and touch. Those are the base attributes to keep it real.

The year is 2050 and super-intelligent robots have taken over the planet.

Except you have no idea, because you're living in a computer simulation, depicting what life was like in 2015.

Everything you see and touch right now has been created by robotic overlords who are using humanity as playthings in their virtual game.

That's the radical theory put forward by a number of scientists over the years, who claim there is a possibility that our world as we know it is fake.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3185261/Is-universe-FAKE-Physicists-claim-playthings-advanced-civilisation.html

It is apparent to those who know it's fake while to those who can't imagine the symptoms of the program, will deny all possibilities of a fake realm of man where they exist as manipulated creations.

[Gigas]

Friday, July 24, 2015, This actually happened.

My sister and I have been shopping for some furniture. I go to a place selling front room furniture 25 miles from home, find a love seat and couch there I like and text my sister who is not far from this location doing work at city hall, to drop in and see this on her way back to her office.

She, my sister, shows up and I am talking with the young guy who manages the store for his sister who adverts on TV with her whole family. I am seated on that furniture I have to have and discussing the quality and maintenance of the furniture.

I ask about saggy cushions and material wear and the guy tells me there is zippers in the couch so if any sagging occurs, they can send me more material to place in the arm rest and backing. I feel back in the bottom of the cushions and sure enough I feel the zippers and see the zippers on the arm rest. The salesmen says they have 6 sets in their warehouse and my sister was sitting there and heard this as well.

I'm liking this furniture but want to look at other stuff in a couple more stores. Now it is the following Sunday after noon and we go back to this store for this furniture after I discuss with my sister how this is the best deal with these zippers in the cushions to get at the stuffing's if it begins to sag from sitting on it.

We go back to the furniture and the guy who manages the place that we talked to the first time there, is there. Talking to him I mention how I like the zipper in the cushions. He looks at me funny and says there are no zippers in the cushions. This is the same couch and love seat from Friday that had zippers in the cushions. My sister goes, you told us it had zippers when we were there on Friday. So she was aware of the zippers in the cushions as well.

Sunday back at the store I feel back in the cushions and WTF, there are no zippers. I tell the guy we were there Friday and I was talking to him and he was sitting there telling me all about the zippers. He goes, nooo. I go ya. I say then, look, I'm not calling you a lier but we sat right here and two days ago you told me about the zippers and I stuck my hand back in the cushions and there were zippers in the cushions and I saw zippers on the arm rest.

The Matrix changed it, like it has so many times before for me. I get this alot. Anyway, we bought the couch sets and got free delivery. Can't wait to see what happens next. The guy goes, if the furniture has zippers when you get it, let me know right away. I certainly will.

[zorgon]

Early on when I started Pegasus....

The story of the Sundial on the Mars Rover...

Ted Twietmeyer

Years ago he wrote a page at Rense titled something like "I have the PROOF"

What he was on about was the images of the Mars Rover sundial.  He exclaimed that it now has a GEAR on it  when before it was STRAIGHT

Now at the time we all were looking at Mars rover images daily  of COURSE the thing was straight  there was no gear....  so myself, John, Exuberant1 and others who knew the gear was not there looked at all our stored photos..

Well DANG  the gear was in ALL OF THEM



So I wrote Ted at the time and said I and others have had similar things happen. In fact there were several threads on Alpha Tango about such things

It was over this story that Ted signed up (still have a few of his pages on the website)

Okay  I was planning to do a major post on this. collected data and then got side tracked...

I got back into it years later...  I contacted Ted and he said "I have no idea what you are talking about"

Huh?  So I looked at my files.... POOF all gone.  I looked for the threads at ATS   Poof all gone...  I spoke to others that had seen it... some remembered others did not Matyas was one who did not and he had sent me relevant info.  I asked if he still had a copy and he said he didn't know what I was talking about.

Now a straight bar on the Rover sundial or a gear that has no use is a minor thing to be sure  but it is DIFFERENT than many remember it

So when I saw you post today I looked again....

And guess what?



http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/images/sundial1_250.jpg

[zorgon]

Rover Sundial
Survery Concluded
By Ted Twietmeyer
12-31-7

First, I'd like to extend my thanks on behalf of Jeff and myself to all those who responded to the survey.

So what is the purpose of the survey? It is about TIME. Specifically, a change in the past which had appeared to cause a change in the present.

About a week prior to this posting, a change in the sundial on the Rover was suddenly noticed. This design change appeared in the sundial which I've attempted to illustrate in the altered photo below:



Original sundial as remembered by four different people. This image has been
modified in an attempt to show what several individuals remember.




Image of the sundial as presented in the survey

The difference between these two images is the appearance of protrusions near the base of the shaft, which look something like teeth on a gear. These objects were not seen back in 2005 when the book "What NASA Isn't Telling You About Mars" was first published. Apparently, something in the past has caused a sudden change in the present. All known copies of this image, both digital and those in print, have all been changed and look like the image above.

SURVEY RESULTS

None of the nine respondents to the survey has observed this change. Though somewhat disappointing, the survey data must stand as it is. Possible reasons for this may be that three of the four people who observed this change had some extensive involvement with the creation of Mars book, and therefore had a strong memory of what it originally looked like. After seeing this, some Rense readers might also recall the change as well. Almost all respondents referred to a change in color or the lack of dust on small features of the sundial, and only one referred to the ring around the outside which anchors the sundial to the rover as being different. It may be true that this ring is also different as well.

At this point you may be wondering how this change could be possible. Consider that your mind exists outside of space-time. Your thoughts take place essentially at the quantum level, since they consist of electrical and electrochemical actions. Even if the physical world were to change you could still remember something as it originally was. For example, most likely at some point in the past you observed an eclipse of the Moon. This is something no one forgets.

Although that eclipse you remember has long passed and no longer exists, you can recall it anytime like the memory of a photograph or a loved one. If another full eclipse was forecast to take place but when it took place it only partially covered the moon instead, you would know something is very wrong. Likewise, if you saw a photograph of an actual full eclipse in a book which was captioned as a partial one, you would also know something is wrong.

This author was perhaps the first to notice the change in the sundial. It was only after presenting the image to others or discussing it with them, did they also recall that the protrusions around the base of the shaft were not there before.

Did someone go back in time and make a suggestion to Bill Nye ("the science guy") to add the protrusions to the design? He is credited with conceiving the sundial/photometric calibration target combination. Did they suggest to him that these protrusions would enhance it's operation? We may never know. And perhaps Bill Nye may not even know a subtle suggestion took place, if the suggestion was made in a subtle manner. The fact that apparently not one photograph exists anywhere without these protrusions (except the photo specially created for this report) substantiates the fact that every photograph related to this in the present has been changed. Only the memory of the sundial as it originally was designed exists, and nothing else.

At first glance, this might appear to be a very minor issue. But the impact of altering the past which instantly changes the present can be staggering. What other events may have been altered in the past, and who has the technology to time travel?

I would also like to thank Jeff Rense for being open minded on this matter, and for giving me the opportunity to field this survey.

Ted Twietmeyer
tedtw@frontiernet.net
www.data4science.net
www.bookonmars.info


IMPORTANT UPDATE on Survey Results

Thanks to an email from a rense.com reader named Edd(?) we have images of the sundial used on the first rover mission to Mars, known as Pathfinder. This one is quite different from the current rover sundials.




Sundial on Pathfinder [1]


Rover Sundial 2007

Sundial as remembered by several people on Spirit and Opportunity rovers (Above image altered to show it as remembered.)

Note that the Pathfinder sundial does not have the gear-like ring present on the current Spirit and Opportunity rovers. It does have different color reference markers however.



Rover sundial 2007.jpg Actual photograph of Spirit
and Opportunity sundial as it appears today.

Ted Twietmeyer tedtw@frontiernet.net

[1] - http://mars-news.de/life/mpf-anomalies.html


http://www.rense.com/general79/sruvv.htm

[zorgon]

This all started for me when I was looking at TIME and the SCHUMANN RESONANCE

It seems that my memory and the reality are different. 

I started researching how TIME was now only 16 hours a day even though our clocks show the same 24 hours they always have.

This led me to Universities and threads on the subject showing that many serious people were studying this. I saved links, I saved threads I saved papers.

Many people I spoke to have had 'feelings' that TIME is off... many have had stories of slipping between different TIME LINES but most are told they are crazy so they stopped talking about it

Then I get side tracked with other projects until it comes up again (like your post today) and I dig up my old stuff to find it is no longer there

I tried the search terms on shrinking time and other time anomalies and always get different results than I remember.  The US NAVY useed to set their clocks on the Schumann resonance  it was more accurate than an atomic clock. They used to post that resonance on an observatory monitoring site. Its no longer there

I did find a Russian site tracking it but they show it fluctuates and is NOT constant

Why can we even feel the difference> Why can we remember things like the sundial and the zipper? Because part of us exists OUTSIDE of TIME  ( I suppose that is sorta proof of Life after the meat suit )

So lets try again and find the reports. Finding the Rense paper by Ted... the follow up to the original tells me we are currently back in another time line though the sundial still has the gear

Back to the Future Part II covered this exact scenario where Marty returns and everything is normal  Well almost but close enough

[Gigas]

Like in the movie the matrix reloaded where neo goes, deja vue with the black cat and mouse, the little guy gets caught in the room where the matrix changes the windows behind the curtains into brick walls, thus, trapping him from getting out.

I notice this stuff all the time and try to write about it but most the time I'm ignored or ridiculed and attacked. That's why I go through forums like a ghost. Matrix Zombie people do not want to hear the truth. In fact, I believe most people are simply background noise to keep us, who realize the situation, distracted and if we point it out, Matrix damage control kicks in.

I have come to the conclusion some of us are aware and the system has an advantage running the program but because that program, like in the matrix, makes it up like the dream factory I report as the base reality. The thing that worries me is when, as you pointed out, the system not only changes the observation, but, changes the people who are involved in the original observation, so they have no idea what just happened because they are made up to confuse those who pay attention to the glitches.

If you watch to closely one can go crazy which makes me think it's like this; how much can you take, and how far can you take it, before going crazy.

The world we see with our eyes and mind is not what it appears to be. We see the front end where another reality exist hidden by our senses as we think, it really is. We could be alien detainees held in a synaptic dream factory program. The elemental machine could change things and no one would realize it until people who do realize and observe it, report to the less fortunate, somethings wrong.

[zorgon]

Twilight Zone ~1985~ "A Matter Of Minutes"

This one is an old version of the Matrix   LOL

[zorgon]

It is apparent to those who know it's fake while to those who can't imagine the symptoms of the program, will deny all possibilities of a fake realm of man where they exist as manipulated creations.

What I find fascinating is every time this topic pops up and I do a search, things happen   Perhaps I am a System Lord after all and my search requests effect the results. But seriously I have noticed many times in my life when I ask for something it appears.

There are sayings in the past like the Religious "Ask and Ye Shall Recieve" Prayer done right does work SOMETIMES  and the Illuminati method THE SECRET, LAW OF ATTRACTION also works...    SOMETIMES

So perhaps it is a simple matter of when it works, we have found the right path to the Matrix program... 

IF indeed the Universe is fake and  and as Quantum Entanglement is showing that we do indeed have the power of Mind over Matter to some degree... then the SECRET has to work at some level

Can we move mountains like Jeus said with a mere thought? Can we lift that spaceship out of the swamp like Yoda did?  So far only a few people have managed to move objects with their mind after much effort and only small objects.  Is it really simply a matter of BELIEF in the ability like Jesus says you must have faith and Yoda chides Luke for not believing which is why he fails?

Or are we missing a link to the Program?

In any case I found THIS today

Are Humans Really Part Of A Game For Robots? Scientists Claim The Universe Could Be FAKE

Everything you know may just be part of a Matrix-style simulation, according to physicists who claim that we could all be part of a giant GAME.

A new theory has suggested that our entire lives and memories may not be real, instead being part of a computer programme played by advanced robots.

The so-called 'simulation argument' has been theorised for several years, with noted academics including Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, suggesting that the plot of The Matrix could be closer to real life than we think

In the sci-fi classic, humans are bred in vats that are fed with simulations that make them believe they are living an ordinary life.

Scientists say that we could all be living in the future, and our life in 2015 is nothing more than a series of numbers in a computer programme.

It may sound like science fiction but scientists believe they may actually be able to PROVE that what you know isn't what you know.

Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of artificial intelligence (AI) thinks that there may be tell-tale signs if the programmer of our mass simulation "has made some slips".
He said that some laws of physics that "aren't quite right" could be the start of being able to prove that the universe is a simulation.

Silas Beane, from the University of Bonn, suggested several years ago that if humans were to build a small-sale simulation of the universe we would be able to identify any constraints.
These constraints would include a cut-off in the spectrum of high energy particles - exactly the kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic rays.

This would be the start of proving that our universe is not what it seems - and that it is part of a giant construct.

These theories are not the first time that humans have debated whether we are actually real - French philosopher Rene Descartes theorised that nothing we perceive is true except our consciousness being aware of itself and its doubts - which is how the phrase 'I think, therefore I am' came about.

However, some believe that thoughts can also be part of a simulation or programme that is being controlled by robots or aliens.

So if you're having a bad day today, it could just be some advanced robot in the year 2300 having a bit of a fun with the character on his PlayStation 29.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/humans-really-part-game-advanced-115946819.html#2ZcQb6g


So... it seems more and more scientists are discovering that the Universe may indeed be FAKE

Going to hunt ATS for those old comments about changed events. Since the Ted/Rense article reappeared maybe they did too

Just an FYI this is the FORTH TIME I have tried this. Maybe if we do it enough times the memories will over ride the program 

[zorgon]

Theoretical Physicist James Gates finds computer code in string theory equation. Specifically; Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code. WTF?
Submitted by IWB, on July 18th, 2015

"Relatively recently, whilst exploring the mathematics of string theory, Theoretical Physicist James Gates and his researchers discovered something rather interesting buried deep within the mathematical equations of super symmetry.

They found computer code.

And it isn't just random 1's and 0's either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software.

Specifically; Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code.

So what does this code do?

Computer code is just instruction for a processor – Information.

When transmitting information from one computer to another, there are fluctuations that happen (static in the line for example), that can alter the original information sent.

Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Codes are vital in the exchange of digital information as they monitor code sent and measure it against what's already know, self-adjusting as required in order to accurately transmit and receive the correct information."

Ok so yeah this is from April of 2014.

But, since there are many that haven't heard of this, here is an excellent video. Watch starting at 2:10

In this video they will recap how this particular code was invented in the 1940's by a certain individual.

Now does this blow your mind or what? They are finding code invented in our past.... This is a lot more complex than the Matrix. For all we know, Earth is gone, and we are seeing a simulation utilized to preserve a long lost civilization. Or right now, we are part of a more advanced sims game with humans watching our every move. We may not actually be human!

http://investmentwatchblog.com/theoretical-physicist-james-gates-finds-computer-code-in-string-theory-equation-specifically-block-linear-self-dual-error-correcting-code-wtf/

[Sinny]

Friday, July 24, 2015, This actually happened.

My sister and I have been shopping for some furniture. I go to a place selling front room furniture 25 miles from home, find a love seat and couch there I like and text my sister who is not far from this location doing work at city hall, to drop in and see this on her way back to her office.

She, my sister, shows up and I am talking with the young guy who manages the store for his sister who adverts on TV with her whole family. I am seated on that furniture I have to have and discussing the quality and maintenance of the furniture.

I ask about saggy cushions and material wear and the guy tells me there is zippers in the couch so if any sagging occurs, they can send me more material to place in the arm rest and backing. I feel back in the bottom of the cushions and sure enough I feel the zippers and see the zippers on the arm rest. The salesmen says they have 6 sets in their warehouse and my sister was sitting there and heard this as well.

I'm liking this furniture but want to look at other stuff in a couple more stores. Now it is the following Sunday after noon and we go back to this store for this furniture after I discuss with my sister how this is the best deal with these zippers in the cushions to get at the stuffing's if it begins to sag from sitting on it.

We go back to the furniture and the guy who manages the place that we talked to the first time there, is there. Talking to him I mention how I like the zipper in the cushions. He looks at me funny and says there are no zippers in the cushions. This is the same couch and love seat from Friday that had zippers in the cushions. My sister goes, you told us it had zippers when we were there on Friday. So she was aware of the zippers in the cushions as well.

Sunday back at the store I feel back in the cushions and WTF, there are no zippers. I tell the guy we were there Friday and I was talking to him and he was sitting there telling me all about the zippers. He goes, nooo. I go ya. I say then, look, I'm not calling you a lier but we sat right here and two days ago you told me about the zippers and I stuck my hand back in the cushions and there were zippers in the cushions and I saw zippers on the arm rest.

The Matrix changed it, like it has so many times before for me. I get this alot. Anyway, we bought the couch sets and got free delivery. Can't wait to see what happens next. The guy goes, if the furniture has zippers when you get it, let me know right away. I certainly will.

Had the almost exact same scenario happen to me and my flat mate last year, on a number of occasions.

The most obvious one was: I was upstairs in my room, doing whatever it is that I do, and my flat mate has come into my room after just getting back from work and he demands to know where the shared phone charger is.

I inform him that I left it down stairs in it's usual plug socket, knowing that he'd need it when he comes in.

He angrily states that 'no it's not, I've just looked for it there'

I'm like, 'I swear to God, I know I just left it there, and I know I haven't forgot to leave it there, because the only other place it would be is next to my bed, and look it's not here'

So we both decend the stairs, and I walk over to the plug hole... Guess what's there, the charger, as I said it would be.

My flat mates face just dropped and looked ashen, he says 'I know your gunna think I'm crazy, but I swear to God, that charger was not there 5 minutes ago'

I told him to relax, and I that believed him.

We had a similiar issue a few days before but in role reverse, where what I was looking for wasn't there, and then after bringing him over to inspect, it was there - I looked like a forgetful idiot (which I am anyway), but this time around he could appreciate that some other force was friging with us both.

Deja Vu, and premonitions... Had them both, believe them both to be glitches in the matrix.  Premonitions, the wrong word, I've seen the future before it happend.

[Gigas]

I know system lords and system lord Z of planet Pegasus, is one.

That's what made me like you so dearly back in Alpha Tango Spookz rabble rowsing dayz. You had information brought to you and you shared some of it.

System lord Z was always out there feeding the hungry while fighting the matrix control system.

You know your on the right track when they try to shut you down.

Anyways, talking with my sister over lunch today she told me what the salesman said to us that Friday to confirm it occurred as I recalled. I didn't mention this part to her talking about this before, but she did repeat it back to me today. She said the sales guy told us if the backs fail, he would send us new material and we could put it in the cushions and if we had trouble, they would help us and give a number to call. She has no doubt the sales guy and I were talking about zippers in the cushions because she heard him telling me about the zippers.

Our TV and theater create the reality for us and most times deliver the future versions that eerily become reality. Like THEY LIVE. In that 1988 movie we are shown a large part of the population is homeless living in camps on the street. Then, the authority comes in to break up the camps like they are doing now.

Some people can see the reality of the situation and it's alien. People are getting rich if they join up with the aliens and those who don't, will be exterminated.

And now, another matrix moment.

Couple a years ago I had a car mechanic that exclusively did all my work on my car. I had bought a ford excursion and wanted him to fix some little problem. I make an appointment and drive over, check in, hand him my keys. He drives the car in, then comes out to tell me he can't work on it because his lift won't raise the car.

I know somethins up. Then it begins to get weird. I'm seated in the waiting area behind his office and can see the office window where people check in. I'm looking at him from behind and he is suddenly way taller with a bald spot on the back of his head. Now, this guy and I are both the same height. He was way taller now with a bald spot on his head which normally the guy has a full head of hair down around his ears and neck and NO bald spot.

In shock as to what I am seeing and hearing, He hands me back the keys and I ask can you get the door code number from beneath the dash and he says no. This was not the mechanic I new so well. the matrix changed that day and him. Why, I have no clue.

[space otter]

Is our universe FAKE?

hell no       we've made it as real believable as we can

all those little blips that don't fit..those taps on the shoulder are just to make you think it's fake

...

hear the laughter....?

[Sinny]

Oh yea, in regards to time speeding up.
I feel like it's going so fast I can't keep up.
I also feel like there is an AI intelligence keeping tabs on us,just like Mckenna said.