My LinkedIn article below refers to the ‘nonsense of numbers’ and the relatively slow speed of light, when we consider simple accepted real phenomena such as zeitgeist, reiki healing, and the shared emotions of a crowd in a sports stadium or music event.
These sensory experiences
are infinitely faster than light because they are a permanent connection.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alchap_which-is-greater-the-number-of-atoms-in-activity-7146451104992526336-uiMV
We are educated and raised to believe an entirely false series of interpretations and explanations, that become our adult assumptions about what is real.
We are energy not atoms, except for a very tiny amount of atoms and subatomic particles.
Our energy organises our interpretations of subatomic particles or atoms (definitions here, of ‘subatomic particles’ and ‘atoms’, are essentially the same nonsense, based on numbers and also words) so that what we think is reality is instead entirely what we make it mean in our imaginations.
And if you need any further persuasion about this, consider the realities that you experience in your dreams.
Love, Alan
“relatively slow speed of light” - relatively to what? We cannot measure shared emotions, telepathy, synchronicity or any other phenomena. Since they cannot be measured, any comparison is unfounded. The “speed” at which non-local experiences travel may be a subjective opinion, but nothing more.
“infinitely faster” would suggest that we have a meter that is calibrated to the speed of light units - which we do not.
The official speed of light is yet another scientific fantasy - we have no means to measure it.
We have simply adopted the phrase as a synonym of something unreachable and unbelievable. How true, in both cases.
The issue of the transfer of “something” across the borderline between the tangible world and its perception is interesting, though. Again, we have no means to capture it or analyze in any way. If any device is built some time in the future, it will be tangible, which means that its very structure will be biased towards materiality.
The whole thing is a useless and futile pressure on the “scientific” view of life. Why would you need it? Measuring the inner world in the units of the external “reality” is unnecessary.
However, we do try to penalize the inner perceptions by making them liable for events in the tangible world. “I thought…”, “my impression was…”, “I believe…”, “I don’t recall…” are all references to the impossibility of bridging the two “worlds”.