It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something has changed, timeline?

page: 40
161
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
reply to post by euclid
 

Why do you think he was trying to be insulting? I thought he was going to launch into a theory about subjective psychoactive effects of hormones, antibiotics, etc., in dairy products.


So did I.
I hope s/he does!




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
FYI: I am male and the person in that avatar is me.

@Ian: Just let things go and say something constructive you will feel better afterwords and people will respect you a little more. (don't worry I do it's just this is turning into a mess)

This is usually where I post something constructive but besides WWII dreams and historical errors nothing out of the ordinary so far today.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAstra
 


It was in the evening between about 6 and 8pm about a week ago.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Ian, based on his/her/its posts in some other threads it looked like that post was yet another feeble attempt at malicious sarcasm. Although... Seeing that you actually found HS's babblings interesting..... I'm not surprised you found it intriguing. No offence intended and I wasn't trying to be insulting to death.... Just trying to improve his grammer and syntax so that he could become a more effective heckler.

In the off chance he/she/it was attempting to be serious... My [bow]apologies[/bow].

[SarcasticHumor]
By the way, do you drink pizza or cheese? That may explain a lot......about you.[/sarcastichumor]

-Euclid


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Euclid, please don't take this the wrong way, but you appear to be more irratable lately. More symptoms of time line collapse? Just take a deep breath and relax. I've always considered your posts to be sound and informative, if not enlightening. This change to sarcasm truly bothers me.

I also have been more easily irritated recently. It's almost to the point where I'm not contributing anything due to the level of irritation. Just seems like everything and everyone has been 'getting on my nerves' lately.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
Euclid, please don't take this the wrong way, but you appear to be more irratable lately. More symptoms of time line collapse? Just take a deep breath and relax. I've always considered your posts to be sound and informative, if not enlightening. This change to sarcasm truly bothers me.

I also have been more easily irritated recently. It's almost to the point where I'm not contributing anything due to the level of irritation. Just seems like everything and everyone has been 'getting on my nerves' lately.


darkelf,

No offence taken. I have been feeling rather combative lately. I've been feeling very ticked-off lately
... everything has been bothering me.
And I cannot find documents that I KNOW I had....


-Euclid

[edit on 2-8-2008 by euclid]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by euclid
 

phft, that's all over the place. Even just at this forum it is all about, not just folks being pissy, but even forwarning they are pissy, and don't know why.

Myself included. I have been putting much conscious effort into maintaining my personal level of decorum ........ sometimes I lose.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by euclid
The only reason I know you posted something about this is because I was looking at the thread via my phone's web broswer and it doesn't "block" "annoying users" that I add to my ignore list.

Your quite something, Euclid. Really. You are an impressive person.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean

Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
To simply assume that it does is a gross fallacy of assumption. You may as well just start at any conclusion you like, and assume it, to the same effect.


An interesting and valid point, yet pragmatics must intrude. I think you may be attempting to make a rabbit hole out of a molehill here -- I applaud that, but if we assume complete subjectivity, within this reality, the easiest conclusion, should one experience these 'time-like discontinuities', is that only memory has been affected, nothing else has changed -- as nothing else actually exists. In fact, the act of seeking explanation and common understanding demonstrates, tautologically, that people do not make that assumption, and acknowledge some level of objectivity.

Yes, I agree that, in general, people do make the assumption that they are a part of an objective reality. In my opinion, this is a very serious assumptive mistake. I won't go into great depth about this here, there are libraries full of philisophical arguments regarding the subjective vs objective nature of reality.

The picture that I have been drawing, in previous posts, was one in which there are more than one awarenesses interacting within a shared 'construct', but that 'construct' is actually generated through a set of rules of interaction between participants and is only partially objective along the touch-points between participants. The nature of the construct is such that there is a great multiplicity of plausible subjective explanations for virtually everything, allowing for great divergence even in the semi-objective states within the construct. Paradox resolution does require the reformation of subjective interpretations and, occasionally, nudges in the subjective histories for subjects within the construct. My assertion is that this is what people are experiencing and that it can very easily be misinterpreted as time-stream collapse. Describing it as reformation of memory is as good an explanation as any, as well. Ultimately, it's all just data and what appears to be a temporal experience is simply geometry from the POV outside of the construct.


So, to answer AdAstra's question, about where the 'cracks' and 'fault lines' are, perhaps they are along the lines of those events to which the individual allows and acknowledges a multiplicity of potential intepretation, which can coexist simultaneously -- the line along which coincidence and synchronicity, objective and subjective, external and internal, exist without mental conflict.

This is very insightful.

You brought up in an earlier post the issue of metrics (or distance) between time-streams. The point that you made should be brought back up and discussed in more depth, because I believe it can be used to prove that we cannot possibly be experiencing time-stream collapse. I believe your words were something to the effect of, 'how would reality know to keep alternate-time realities sensible from our subjective points of view, such that when time stream collapses occur, they would only effect our reality in subtle ways, rather than, for instance, turning us all into jellyfish?'



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I don't get this thread to be honest, well from the few pages I read so far...I'm assuming it has to do with the 2012 phenomena and this zero point merge with timewaves or timelines, but all of this talks of...

"hmm, well I was sure this guy die some years ago..." or "hmm, that guy is still alive.." or "I work of feeling bad and felt something was wrong or missing.."

...seems more to do either poor assumption/knowledge or false memory, than signs of parallel worlds are merging.

Don't get me wrong I believe in the 2012 phenomena, but I feel people are making something out of nothing in this tread.....

Then again I could be wrong, but this is my stance on it now....I would think merging timewaves would have more to do deja vu and those related phenomena.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
i get the exact same feeling every monday when i wake up to go to work i keep saying its not time to go to work its still sunday



Keeper



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
I had the strangest feeling today. I woke up this morning. And the first thing that came to my mind was that something was different. Like there was a change in the timeline and when I awoke I felt the change.


Since about February of this year I've had the feeling that our timeline has diverged from a relatively linear forward moving situation to a chaotic turbulent bubbly contorted timeline. I keep experiencing precognitive dreams, Deja Vu,
flashes into the future, frequently.

And other things, like people I thought had died years ago coming up alive, false memories I suppose, except that I've talked to others and found they shared the same memories about the same individuals.

Things are definitely getting interesting.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
It might be due to me having very bad insomnia but I have similar feelings. When I do get sleep, I wake up with this horrible stomach turning feeling as though I have forgotton something very important or that something very unpleasent is going to happen that day.

I often have bizarre feelings though. I get deja vu at least several times a day and I often get the feeling that I am distorted from reality, as though I'm on earth not as a participant, but as a spectator



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity
 


Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
You brought up in an earlier post the issue of metrics (or distance) between time-streams. The point that you made should be brought back up and discussed in more depth, because I believe it can be used to prove that we cannot possibly be experiencing time-stream collapse. I believe your words were something to the effect of, 'how would reality know to keep alternate-time realities sensible from our subjective points of view, such that when time stream collapses occur, they would only effect our reality in subtle ways, rather than, for instance, turning us all into jellyfish?'


Well, my speculations are an attempt to resolve an apparent paradox.

The evidence in this thread, and others, is that a significant percentage of people have different memories of the sequence of past events, that do not correspond to obvious evidence that can be presented to the contrary. Examples include events in the lives of famous people (most notably, deaths), and the exact times of culture milestones (the space shuttle Challenger). Anyone up to making a summary list, from this thread?

The easy explanation is false memory. But, that's a little unbelievable, too, that multiple people have the same false memories! I can understand a commonality when confusing, for example, evangelical preachers (Graham vs Faldwell), but Nelson Mandela?

So, the paradox to consider would be that both sets of memories are 'true' -- the ones that can be evidenced, and the 'false' ones, with their eerie similarities.

What theories could possibly explain that? I know this might annoy both of you guys, but as I see it, both you and euclid's theories are actually quite similar.

Both posit the possibility of multiple 'world-lines', in which events unfold differently. Both posit that there may not be complete separation between those world-lines at all times.

Euclid proposes multiple, parallel possible world-lines, in which the 'active' (or 'real') experienced world-line can jump, from one to another, via some external triggering event. When a new world-line becomes the 'real' one, all events of the past have changed, too. He theorizes that certain individuals are 'sensitive' to this effect, and that their past memories are not entirely replaced, as past objective events are; they retain 'echos' of the previously active world-line, and this explains the commonality in past memory.

You propose that multiple possible world-lines are simultaneously real, within the subjective realities experienced by different individuals. When those individuals interact, and to the extent that they interact, a 'new' world-line, in which more 'objective' experience can be expressed, is formed, such that the previous 'realities' of those individuals conflict as little as possible, both in the new 'shared' context, and with regards to their past experiences. That this process isn't 100% effective causes past memories to not match-up entirely with the new context, and explains the 'memory drift'.

Both processes involve the concepts of conflict of subjective memory, which I'm identifying as the point of 'least stress' when potentially allowing paradox via world-line change/formation. In the case of unprovable subjective memory, the possible consequence of discontinuity is minimized, to more or less extent.

To give example of this, say we suddenly woke up tomorrow morning, and half the population was of the distinct impression that Al Gore was president of the US, and the other that George Bush was president. And all objective evidence pointed one way or the other, without ambiguity. The consequence of that subjective memory change would be enormous! Clearly, that particular change would radically change the 'new' world-line! But, if the 'memory drift' were a little smaller, such as "oh, I thought that person died in 2001, not 1999", the changes would not be drastic, and perhaps not even noticed at all. The 'new' world-line would go rolling merrily along, with the introduced-paradox causing no significant difference between a world-line with the memory drift and one without such 'paradox' (both with the same 'objective' events).

Both theories, if they can incorporate a concept of 'significance of difference', and relate it to predicitions of exactly what world-line jumps/changes would or would not be probable, depending upon some measure of external force or necessary pressure, could, in my opinion, be valid ways of viewing this 'paradox', and predicting its behaviour.

Having, myself, not experienced such 'retcon' with events of the popular culture (beyond what I consider reasonably explained by inexact memory), I find this an interesting intellectual exercise in unifying possible belief-systems and epistemological theories.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by euclid
Reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Ian, based on his/her/its posts in some other threads it looked like that post was yet another feeble attempt at malicious sarcasm. Although... Seeing that you actually found HS's babblings interesting..... I'm not surprised you found it intriguing. No offence intended and I wasn't trying to be insulting to death....


Yes, perhaps I'm a little weird in that I consider 'fun' the challenge to understand and attempt to make rational, in my own interpretation, what others might consider the most 'outlandish' of theories. It's one of the reasons I like ATS, there's no lack of non-mainstream theories, here.

One thing that Harmonic is correct about is the subjective/objective thing -- there isn't a way to 'prove' an objective reality, from within the context of objectivity. Euclid, I know you're focusing on physics right now, but have you considered applying yourself to more philosophical subjects, such as epistemology (concerning the nature and scope of knowledge)? With your abilities, I have a feeling you would eat that subject for lunch.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Ian, there is no "paradox" as such.... it is called quantum deviation. In most of the scientific literature the world-line deviation equations deal with very specific experiments in particle physics that include tidal forces in blackholes, et cetera. Taking that into consideration then; all one needs to do us extrapolate the implications of these experiments/hypotheses and apply those results to what what those quantum processes do at the macro-level of existence. One can easily make the logical deductions of how those super-positioned quantum states update all shared-history (quantum information patterns) in the merged/collapsed world-lines.

Here is a google search where you can read up on it:

www.google.com...

The arxiv.org site has a lot of good papers on QM.

livingreviews.org also has many good science papers that are continually updated by the authors:

relativity.livingreviews.org...

And here is a very interesting paper on world-line deviations at the quantum level:

arxiv.org...

Remember, these papers deal with quantum world-line deviations (micro gravity and tidal forces as such); you then need to extrapolate how those effects will translate into the three dimensional (or if you prefer four dimensional ->> 3 space + 1 time) reality. Remember if it happens at the quantum level there is a direct correlative process that occurs at the macro-level of reality; world-line collapse at quantum level = world-line collapse at macro-level.

-Euclid

[edit on 4-8-2008 by euclid]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Ian,

Subject/Objective reality check:

1. When Euclid goes to sleep at night do I (Ian) still continue to exist?

Select case:

A. I continue to exist when Euclid goes to sleep at night
B. I do not continue to exist when Euclid goes to sleep at night

If you chose "A" then that is proof that there is objective reality outside of the processes/feelings/beliefs that are going on within your brain. As I have stated "subjective" reality is "only" that which occurs within the "mind" of the sentient lifeform that is perceiving an objective reality that exists "outside" the temporal/physical/psychological self of that lifeform.

-Euclid

[edit on 4-8-2008 by euclid]

[edit on 4-8-2008 by euclid]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Something weird happened today to me... I was outside on the front porch looking at the sky(a thunderstorm was moving in and I like watching the clouds) and when I came back in my SO was on the phone. He was talking to Direct Tv, we've been disconnected from their service for a few months now, and my SO called to get it reconnected. After it was done, he said we have tv again... I asked him how much it cost and he said he didn't know that I had paid the bill on Sat. I have no memory of doing this, I don't even know the password or login ID on directtv. It's in our account as being paid, and he told me he came home on Sat and I told him that the bill was paid. I'm flabbergasted right now... all I know is on Sat I was really really tired, and took a nap on the couch, which is something I never do.

I don't know if I was just seeing things or what, but this morning around 3am I saw a faint transpanant shimmer of blue for a second or two.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
A bit OT, but why is the moon in the west at 8:45 pm in the NE of the US. I have NEVER seen the moon rise, or be in, the west at 8:40 pm. My understanding is East to NE, depending on the phase, etc. for rise.

Anyone Else seeing it? Even DH is a bit freaked out.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by euclid
 


You're still arguing from an objectivist framework, which make certain philosophical assumptions -- one of which is that the 'world outside' my individual perception actually exists, distinct from the 'world within' my perceptions. Your example contains a logical flaw: what you would presume it could disprove is assumed, when weighing the 'validity' of the evidence of my observation. Specifically, I could just as well be imagining you, asleep, your existence and hypothetical waking state a projection of my imagination, and nothing more. In such a case, nothing would be proven or disproven.

You seem to have the logical chops; try disproving solipsism first, then go from there. Also, since this is getting a little off topic, you might start a thread in the philosophy forum, claiming to have proven objectivism, and present your case there -- that would be fun.


PS: Thanks for the research links in your other post -- I've studied QM, but it's a huge field of course and more information sources are always welcome! Also, you do realize that extrapolation of quantum effects to a macroscopic level, outside of theoretical models, is very controversial (as in, evidence thereof)? From what you're saying, I seem to hear you implying that it's implicitly evident.

Edit: err, 'evident', not 'evidence'.


[edit on 4-8-2008 by Ian McLean]




top topics



 
161
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join