Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mikesingh

---

As a webmaster I know how "Spider-Bots" work. I used to promote websites, meaning I would code the "Meta-Tags" so that these "Spider-Bots" could read information pertaining to the site so it could put it in the search engine. Think of it as this: Google has millions of little "spiders" that they send out and crawl the whole internet every day. These spiders look in the "Meta-Tags" and then return to google with the found results. They then put the site in the search engine with the words that it found. Now, with that said. Do a search on 2012. Look how many sites come up. Now if Google was to send out its spiders JUST to look for 2012 keywords, the results would be astronomic, thus making a "prediction" so to speak that something is going to happen in 2012. If it were to pick up on something that no one knows about or has a website about...then we have a prediction theory. But to say it is predicting by basing the results on something that everyone is already talking about? This is non-sense.

Since the earliest days of quantum physics, a cornerstone of quantum theory has been its statistical nature --the assumption that only probabilities, not actual outcomes, can be predicted. This assumption of fundamental randomness at the core of quantum mechanics (the so-called "random collapse of the wavefunction" due to measurement) has persisted and served well through decades of careful experimental tests (Peres, 1993).

However, in recent years there has also accumulated considerable evidence that this assumption may be incorrect.

In a series of innovative experiments, Schmidt (1976, 1993) found that electronic random number generators could be significantly affected by conscious effort even if the data was recorded and played back at a later time. At Princeton, Robert Jahn and colleagues have conducted experiments over a 25-year period showing consistent small deviations in random bit streams apparently caused by conscious intention alone (Jahn et al, 1997; Radin, 1997).

More recently, it was discovered that a global network of 35 RNGs was strongly perturbed during the events of September 11, 2001 (Nelson et al, 2002). See also Radin’s overview of retrocausal experiments and a recent one utilizing a Markov chain of RNGs (Radin, 2000), and (Radin & Nelson, 1989).