It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:13 AM
I am replying to the Original Post at the moment, so please excuse me if I bring up things which have already been answered. It's a big topic, so I think it's best if I address in order.

You've said some interesting things, but can I perhaps try and expand on a few things for you?

First and foremost. Time. Is time real? Or is it a construct of our reality? And what makes time? You hinted on the answer slightly in your post, when you said in the end, only lack of knowledge will exist.

But, it is the lack of knowledge which creates time to begin with. Meaning, if all is known and you were truly omnipotent and such, then time does not exist. Because then you would be 100% in knowledge, and nothing new could happen. As nothing new could happen, nothing could change, and time does not exist.

Einstein hits on this with relativity. The concept of a "time line" for example, is to take what is known and view it all at once. So, you have to start looking at the universe beyond "time". Time is merely an illusion brought forth as a result of limited knowledge. You are recognizing this as a scarcity.

The easiest example for showing this is a movie film. Now, if you take that movie film and you stretch it from end to end and view the entire movie at once, there is no change or time in that movie. All is seen and known at the same time. It's static and so forth.

But, when you take that same movie film, and you take and cut it up into frames(creating scarcity as you say). Suddenly the movie has change and time. All as a result of what? Limited knowledge. Or to be more correct, limited perception.

However, to be truly knowing of all, that means that not only do we have this existance. But every possible existance(quantum physics). And so rather than a single movie film, there is film "on top" of film and on and on. Each film almost exactly like the one next to it, but only a small little difference.

What you are really talking about is the father and son relationship. When you talk of the being which is omnipotent and such, that is the father(god). When you talk of the being which is living in scarcity and such, that is the son(us). Consciousness is not part of the physical universe, but that is another discussion(important one, but something you have to really find on your own). Father and son are 1 in the same, the difference is perception/knowledge.

So reality actually comes from that which is unlimited, omnipotent and so forth limiting itself into "scarcity" as you call it. In order to gain have the experience, which can only come as a result of scarcity.

Take for example the idea of reincarnation into an animal. Now, if you reincarnate into a bird with previous knowledge of this current human life. Then it is not truly the experience of being a bird. The only true way to experience being that bird is to be that bird and that bird only in knowledge. The moment you have memory/knowledge of this human existance, you are then actually a human in a bird body. The knowledge and perception changes the experience completely.

I think you might enjoy this book:

The God Theory

I've really only touched the tip on these things, I can go in deeper if we are on the same page, understanding each other and such and you are interested. I'm a programmer and came to alot of understanding from trying to find logic behind true intelligence for AI, rather than artificial intelligence of unconsciousness patterns(I failed, but gained much more understanding of myself and reality).

[edit on 11/6/2009 by badmedia]

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:19 AM
if you don't mind me saying, the concept is beautiful but i think the language is getting in the way. you're cramming a lot in and my brain keeps blipping out.

i think i'll need a note pad to get my head around this.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:39 AM
I dunno. I think life, and actually the universe itself, is naturally reproducing. I don't think there is need for a so-called "reset" - whether that would mean a whole different universe or destruction and re-generation of this one.

Just as a tree grows, sheds it's leaves, to feed it's own roots, or even spawn a new sapling ... I think life itself feeds its own existence through the experiences and strife we create in our own existence. I don't think life can max-out ... even if we expand our civilization to the edge of the known universe. No matter what we learned to manipulate through technological discovery.

Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, the universe is made up of and ruled by energy. Everything is a constant.

I think the perfect example is our planet Earth. Life here ... and least it's most dominate species: man ... continues to this day to fight themselves - for control of energy. If the dominate species on this planet could have gotten their act together 5,000 years ago and learned to live in peace amongst each other, we'd already control our own solar system and possibly be trying to reach others.

Even if we reached the edge of our universe, and had been there for billions of years, I think there would be quite enough turmoil in daily life (whatever that existence might have become) to feel that existence was a value unto itself.

If there are other species in other galaxies, I'd be apt to think that they are going through, or had gone through the same obstacles that have plagued man. Perhaps, even, they have overcome such obstacles hundreds of millions of years ago. I'm sure there are still obstacles in everyday existence. You have to wonder; how long did it take that civilization to break beyond it's own solar system. Better yet, how long did it take them to discover another civilization in their own galaxy. Did those two civilizations join together to figure out a way to reach beyond their galaxy? Or did they fight and war each other for another hundred thousand years?

That's just my own opinion. There's beauty in every second of existence. Even in ultimate despair, I find it beautiful that a person could experience such strong emotion ... knowing on the opposite of that despair would be an equal amount of love or adoration.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:56 AM
It's early in central Texas and no time at the present to study the whole of the theory and the two pages of wonderfully decent replies that are so rare on ATS subjects.

So is this what it is all about? Is this theory the force behind the New World Order as a new imparitive that the ETs are forcing on our governments?

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:57 AM
reply to post by Xtraeme

Here are some common (today, here, now) examples of this theory in layman's terms:

Question: What is the one place where a human can get water, food, shelter without providing any energy?
Answer: Prison
Meaning: This shows that the even if a society provides the bare necessities, there are psychological needs of an individual that still need to be met.

Question: What do you get the person who has everything?
Answer: Something no one else has.
Meaning: Space Tourism. The newest gadget. The cliche: A new partner/wife/girlfriend. Why financially successful people want more and why they would sacrifice half of their net worth to get a new life partner (divorce the wife, marry the young secretary).

Hope this helps.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by tyranny22

Infinity ends with the end of space, time.
To see past the exisance of time, one would have to have the perspective of the Creator.
The Big Bang, the Big Crunch, Mutiple Bangs, Bang, bang ,Bang, Infinitesimal Bangs.
All things possible have occurred, time does not exist by perspective, the mutiverses over laying each other though not visable.
The Universe becomes somewhat liquid, plastisized.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Xtraeme
So, please, if you can direct your energy towards promoting this - the idea needs its advocates.

The cultural evolution model was dismissed in the early 20th century after studies of tribal groups and a general smacking of scholars to quit thinking that European Civilization was the pinnacle of all human progress.

0 exigency, is the goal (removing all nature imposed exigency)
Infinite value, is the means (which could happen many ways)
-1 good, is the philosophical result (the greatest possible good for the group).

I don't see any of those terms defined... such as "what is good?" Plato himself posed the problem on "goodness"... is it something that a god approves of (or any other power)? In that case, sacrificing your own children to the sun god (Inca culture) is good. Or do "gods/universe/whatever" sort of "intuit" that something is good (a quality that the deity finds pleasing rather than a quality that a deity describes as good)?

What constitutes the greatest possible good for a group? For instance, we breed animals for particular tasks... is our intervention good for the animals? Would it be good to dictate who breeds and who doesn't among humans? If so, who decides what they should breed for and who controls it?

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:05 AM
I really liked this, and liked how you used various worldviews to help explain the model.

You described how various philosophy's fit into it on your model, would you take a stab at this: How would it affect your model if you instead describe everything as the universe itself, instead of this man vs. nature idea. In other words it's all the universe. You don't have man vs. nature, you literally instead have the universe at war with itself during exigency. Universe (A) and Universe (B) Which is really just an illusion and it's all Universe (C).. A + B = C. But I'm just trying to get another angle on it, it's very useful where you explain it from different perspectives (probably how I really started to understand the model)

Because I'm afraid that as we approach C in the picture we get amazingly confused, as if the accomplishments of mankind which we had nothing to do with have anything to do with us personally, as again.. seperate. Back in the early parts of A in the picture we weren't spiritually down on ourselves for the dismal smallness of our society. In fact, right now as we speak there is probably a type 2 or 3 civilization out there, maybe more than one, and it's doing amazing accomplishments. How is that affecting you personally, how is that changing you? Even if you were to somehow convince yourself you are a part of whatever was doing the accomplishing, and managed to find out about it.

Seems like we just turn into machines (Which may be correct, I'm just saying). Sort of like how countries and cities, down to individuals mostly focus on making money, when they should to my mind only be worried about quality of life. In other words who are they working so hard for? What cause? You have erased money entering B, but do you still have people working (slaving) for a cause they view as seperate and greater than themselves?

Also, I can tell you've put a lot of time into this. And I like how you are trying to explain it in the model, as opposed to trying to sell the idea. You've taken the high road here and it's some amazing work, if people take the time to look at it, I probably should read it over again too...

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Novise]

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Byrd

0 exigency, is the goal (removing all nature imposed exigency)
Infinite value, is the means (which could happen many ways)
-1 good, is the philosophical result (the greatest possible good for the group).

I don't see any of those terms defined... such as "what is good?" Plato himself posed the problem on "goodness"... is it something that a god approves of (or any other power)? In that case, sacrificing your own children to the sun god (Inca culture) is good. Or do "gods/universe/whatever" sort of "intuit" that something is good (a quality that the deity finds pleasing rather than a quality that a deity describes as good)?

What constitutes the greatest possible good for a group? For instance, we breed animals for particular tasks... is our intervention good for the animals? Would it be good to dictate who breeds and who doesn't among humans? If so, who decides what they should breed for and who controls it?

I have to take a friend to the hospital so I have to make this brief. The definition for "life as a good" can be seen in the primary graph (take a peek at the bolded section that reads Y-axis). Rather than saying what is good I defined who it was good for, in the sense that life can either be a good for yourself or a good for the group.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:19 AM
Now I'm going to reply to the things which are political in nature in the OP. I have some disagreements with you there.

As a programmer, I design systems for a living. Part of designing a system is to not only envision that system in the best of conditions, when the users are acting 100% according to how they should be, but to also try to take into account every possible thing a user will do, no matter how stupid and dumb it may see. Oh the hours I spend doing nothing more than making sure the user doesn't do stupid things.

As well, just because a system may appear to work, doesn't mean it's doing the best job and so forth.

And when you are talking about politics, you are talking about systems. And a big disagreement I have with your assessment is that all systems have a place and time - no, they do not. In most cases the systems #1 priority is to maintain the system, which means to maintain the status quo.

What separates what I would say are acceptable systems and unacceptable systems is decentralization or centralization of power. Centralization of power is what creates an elite class. Because the system by default gives these people the power. However, under decentralization of power, the power is not consolidated and therefore is in the hands of the people. Power to the people. Any system which does not respect this is not acceptable. Because history has proven in each and every system that when you give that much power to an elite, bad things happen. The only possible way to not have this happen is to have decentralization.

But, under decentralization you can still have each of these systems. However, the system the people choose should be of choice, and of different options.

Meaning, if a community wants to live in a more socialist manner - they should be free to do so. If a community wants to live in a more libertarian type community, they should be free to do so. The problems arise when 1 person, or 1 community thinks they know best what to decide for the other community.

The base of all society is found in the individuals. And each and every government and system which has failed has failed because that system forgot about the individual. It became what you said is "Sacrifice" for the system. And the individual became slave to the system, and thus slave to the elites who ran the system. Because they eroded the base of their society, the individual. Take out the bottom floor of any building, and every floor above it will come tumbling down.

Thus the only way to get a strong base in society is to give the individuals the power. Otherwise known as freedom. America proved this as it became a world power under it, only to have slowly eaten away at it with centralization over the past century.

Furthermore, there is the problem of money and banking. #1 Fractional banking, and loans at interest must be outlawed PERIOD. It is theft, it has been called theft for over 2000 years and yet we still have it. There will be no real advancement in society with a debt based economic system. It enslaves the people, and that will never change. You can kiss any prosperous future goodbye.

The Constitution had it right. Failure to uphold it has been the demise of the US. Let me break that down, and show how it allows for all of the above - these are what I consider to be requirements for any bright future.

1. A limited federal government. When the constitution was being written, there were 2 arguments. 1 side didn't want to list rights at all, because they feared that if they listed rights, then some day we would be reduced to only those rights. The other side wanted to list the most basic rights, as insurance that they were never trampled on. The solution to this problem was the 9th and 10th amendments. The 9th amendment said you can't add anything which takes away a previously given right, and the 10th amendment says that anything not specifically listed in the constitution is by default handed down to the state and individuals. The 10th amendment = decentralization.

This is important, because it means that the job of the federal and biggest government is very limited and specific in it's role. As such, when we vote on these people, it is supposed to be for very few issues. It's alot easier to find and hold a guy up for things when the amount of issues is limited. Versus the centralization of today, where if you want economic freedom, you gotta vote for the pro war guy, but if you want to end the war(supposedly), you have to vote for the more socialist guy. It should be, voting on the president because of foreign policy, not because of domestic policy, which is largely reserved for the local governments.

So the amendments are not limited rights like we have today, but they are actually the list of things the federal government is supposed to make sure the states and local governments don't infringe on. A good example of this working properly is the civil rights movement in the 60's. The federal government had every right and it was their job to go in and make sure those people were allowed to vote. That is what they are supposed to do all the time. Not the people trying to take it away.

We have now shifted the bulk of the power to the states. Decentralizing the power a good bit. Each state also has it's own constitution, and it works again in the same way. They take up limited and listed things, and make sure they aren't infringed on. What they don't take up is then again passed down to local community, and then to the individual, for personal choice.

So, the bulk of the power is on the local community and the individual. It is on the community and individual level that the above kind of systems can live. Because then if an individual doesn't like it, then they have plenty of other communities in the country to move too. And they do so and still maintain their basic rights as citizens, not having to worry about that.

As well, the individual has much more say in what happens on a local level. Lets take a look at voting.

You vote on a local level quite often, and even vote on issues directly and such. Your 1 vote makes up a smaller number people, thus you have a higher % of say in the issues. You can even run for office in a community and win etc.

On the state level, your 1 vote makes up a less % of the total votes, meaning you have less say. On the federal level, hardly anything - which is exploited into getting people to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

But there is more. When issues are decided on the federal level, that means 1 program for the entire country. If you want to change things, then you have 1 vote in so many, and vote once every few years. So if a program does something bad, like in GWB then everyone suffers. There are no alternatives, and it takes a long time to try new ideas.

Take that down 1 level to the state level. Instead of 1 program, there are now 50 programs. Each program would be working for the best, because that is what we all want. If 1 program does something bad, then only that 1 state suffers. But they have 49 other programs to look at to improve with. And if 1 program does well, then every other state is free to adopt those practices. This allows for the ability to try new things more often, and leads to faster progress on any issue or program that may be needed.

But you can then take it down to the community level, and rather than 50, you have thousands of programs. And the people will have more say in them, they can get change in them quick, they can try new things and adapt quicker.

And under this system, the US was at one time #1 in math and science in the world. Didn't drop until they started centralizing all the programs, and the more they centralize, the more it drops. Meanwhile, smaller countries which by default have some of the benefits of the above system due to size are kicking the crap out of the US. And then people say oh well lets do that, but then they want to do it on the large scale and it breaks.

The more you pay attention to the base individual, the better society will grow. The more things are centralized and framed as being for the "good of society and the system", the more you will get corruption and the more you will enslave the people.

If an individual community wants to put their resources together and live in a more socialist manner, that is fine and dandy, might move their myself since I will have a good say in things. And if I don't like it, I'll move. But when people want to start putting those things on the large scale, it is always bad news.

This was the draw of small towns back in the day. The smaller the community, the more say you had in things, and thus the more freedom you had.

So I think the system does matter a great deal. Most modern day systems are a way of treating humans as resources for the system, and those who control the system and that can't be acceptable.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:22 AM

I believe humanity needs to go toward a Resource Based Economy, unless we want to destroy ourselves.

Money rewards scarcity. Abundance, efficiency, and sustainability are enemies of money for money does not reward a company that makes a car that lasts 100 yrs and gets 500 miles per charge. There would be no "turnover".

Money is a scam. Old systems of Money, Religion, and Politics needs to end and Science, Nature, and technology need to emerge as the new paradigm for humanity.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by Byrd

I'm not quoting anyone else, but I suppose you could replace Truth with Good.

There are ultimate Truthes. (Good)
This Ultimate Truth only exist in the presentation of this reality, these Truthes would be part of structure of this reality.
Going beyond this reality, to the real ulitamate Truth none of this matters and there is only the One.
Your visions of reality comes from, the dualality, mutiplticity, not the True Singlularity.
In dealing with this existance the Truth, is Strength, Knowledge and Power, but then you are dealing with stucture, once beyond this, nothing much matters, it simply is the One.
This that you experience is the One becoming Many, beyond the exsistance of time, all thing have already occurred, every possibilily has taken place, the Univese is like fluid, with the Muiltiverse over lapping yet not visible, the ulitimate Truth is before you the choice is yours.
There is reason for all things, The Nothing is very boring place, this is the Gross Physical, Cause and Effect, this is where it all crunches together, the balance of Yin and Yang.

Rama exhale Rama Inhale

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by Xtraeme

Holy explative, I think you've got it. Funny thing is, I've felt this way about "progress" for a while, and have tried to explain my feelings to friends through songs I write and philosophical conversation, but I always get labeled as an "idealist." I really don't mind that label though. Im not a mathematician, but now I have something to show others about the reality of what true progress means. My capitalist friends wonder how I can believe in progress without what they call "incentive." My answer is that progress IS the incentive. If everyone could eat, stay healthy, and become educated without having to jump the tall social hurdles or "pay" for these things, we would have so many new technologies and ideas we wouldn't know what to do with them.
Amazing post. Truly insightful and insightfully true.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by Xtraeme

WOW! Thank you for being so thorough and well spoken. You made it very easy to understand your ideals. S&F!

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by Xtraeme

Nature imposes scarcity for a reason, and that is something mankind is light years away from conquering. Sure, humans can believe that natural laws do not apply to them, they can put themselves on a pedestal and think that somehow, of all of Natures creations, they are somehow excluded from it. But in the end, the Universe will settle the score....... The Universe always, settles the score.

Rather than attempting to be Nature's master, Mankind needs to realize that it is natures companion.

Nature is the ultimate free market. Perfectly symbiotic, inter-dependent, and completely unregulated. What happens when Man tries to intervene and control it? Chaos : Famines, drought, dust-bowls, genetically modified food that poison the entire ecosystem. Environmental policies that create endangered species.

What is the lesson? As Ayn Rand said, (in contradiction to what you just did) A=A, or, a thing is itself. Evolution is a thing does does not stop, a point illustrated by your post. If evolution is largely based off of things such as beauty, strength, speed, and survival, then competition is something that will never cease. Indeed, it is something that is actually required to drive the evolution of any species forward. Mankind is not done evolving, not by a long shot.

Stabilization is chaos.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by aravoth]

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Koka
reply to post by Xtraeme

Are you saying that a fundamental step in our ability to evolve, psychologically, is to remove the self imposed boundaries we place on that which we deem to have a higher value?

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Koka]

I think you just did. Think of the fish tank experiments where a fish is placed in a normal tank with a divider pane of glass in the middle. If the fish already swam in the full tank, when you place the glass, the fish will simply stop trying to swim to the restricted area. Once removed, the fish will return to its old behavior of swimming the length of the tank.

If however, the fish is placed into the restricted tank and is allowed to acclimate for a short time, once you remove the glass, the fish will not cross the now open boundary. If you take that fish and manually place it into the forbidden area, it will naturally acclimate and will begin to swim the entire tank.

People have been acclimated to a very narrow perspective of the world. We are the height of Human civilization, the way our world is, has always been that way, and it is perfectly natural to allow a select few make the decisions that rule our lives. Many on ATS see our current situations as natural and can even vent great ridicule and anger towards those who think differently.

There is no metaphorical glass for us, it never existed. We have collectively forgotten the past, and who knows what is out there for our species. Those who individually break this barrier, can end up dead. Not all the time, but if you are handing out the free resources the governments need to charge you for in order to stay in power, your life isn't worth much.

When things change, a great deal of people will not acclimatize enough to survive, I fear. If they don't have the Simpsons, AC/heat, their favorite vehicle, and a regular work routine, people will revolt at nothing.

We see it all the time at grocery stores, where if the exact brand of soap, or food, etc. is not on hand, instantly, people will become violently angry, and can even resort to physical violence. Holidays are the worst. It's just crap made in China. Yeah that is worth killing an old woman for. With a great society change, many people might just turn beastial as they scrounge for whatever scraps of their creature comforts remain.

If you can remove your personal boundaries that have been imposed on you (the glass), you can avoid the fate of living in a rotted out BMW surrounded by ten year old candy and burger wrappers. Don't think this is a joke, I bet for every ten people on ATS that dismiss all evidence off hand, one person would not be able to exist without Mt. Dew (or another product of choice), no matter what.

If the lack of a high caffeine diet seriously infringes on your desire to live, then you are no longer capable to responding to environmental changes. I knew an obese woman who actually acted this way, I do believe she finally pulled her life together, once she had a child, which is a life changing event.

However, for a good, long time her entire life revolved around food and product merchandising. She had a foul temper as well, and her behaviors infringed on her entire life. She was over 300 lbs and had society collapsed, she simply would have been a victim of the loss of TV, processed foods, and her vast anime/junk collection.

There are too many people who are completely unable to exist if society changes, at all. Removing these barriers is the first step to being able to exist without this decaying monstrosity of a society. You got the answer to your question by asking the question in the first place.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:38 AM
This is mind boggling. No wonder people are postponing their thoughts to grasp a very well articulated thread. Impressive indeed.

You are the reason many of us come to ATS!

Supposing we do not annihalate ourselves before achieving a type 1 civilization; what would be the hypothesized timeline growing to type 2 and beyond? Maybe I missed something or did not carefully read.

I feel that if we were to reach a type 2 civilization, we would exponentially excellerate; as did our technology over the last one hundred years.

Certainly humans are going to merge with technology that will make all of us humans "Einsteins" before we drop from the womb before we reach a type 2 civilization.

Your thoughts? I'm just a simple layman. Please take it easy on me.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by brilab45] Spelling errors

[edit on 6-11-2009 by brilab45]

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:54 AM

One has to thank the OP for his thoughtful and altrustic motives in posting this thread. In consideration of the idea, one has to consider a wide variety of issues and concerns that any theoretical civilization whether they be in the nascent stage or a type 3 and beyond.

In the above treatise there is an inferred correlation between environmental realities such as availabilities of consumables (or scarcity thereof) to a societies developmental progress. In most similar theoretical exercises, there is some level of appeal on paper that does not get completely translated into proper functionality when attempted to be expressed in realtime/spacetime environments.

One of the difficulties in social theorizing is (as sociologists, anthropologists, paleo-anthropologists, political scientists et al will attest) is that social/political/economic dynamics are incredibly complex, and are a notoriously difficult thing to define with any certainty (assuming certainty is the goal of the given treatise).

As an example, look at the vast number of ways humans from the multitudinous regions of the earth respond differently to similar environmental challenges their respective locales present. These differences can be social in nature, driven by the specific personal or societal personalities of that locality. They can be politicaly driven, as in the case of people living under variant political systems with their inherent varieties of freedoms or the lack thereof. There are many many more examples (religious, historical etc) of how and why people respond differently to their enviromental challenges and its effect on the greater societal good.

All treatise come from certain perspectives based on certain assumptions or truths held by the author, some valid, inclusive, and factual, others not as much.

The solution you are positing orients around the ideal that everything is a commodity of sorts, even life itself, and that its intrinsic value calculated as it were based upon supply or scarcity is the primary issue of concern for a society. This is a highly materialist view that makes a number of assumptions about the nature of the universe and about the nature of humans that undermines the premise.

Let me provide an example. As a physicist and engineer, I often note the declarative statements coming from electrical engineers about what is or isn't possible in the development and application of certain technologies. They will make what they consider to be well reasoned arguments based upon what they consider to be "empirical evidence" that to them leaves little room for discussion. However, empiricism also, like any other approach, makes certain assumptions, which in a growing number of private, public, and restricted research projects are shown to be inadequate. For instance, it is assumed in the creation of controls for any experiment that at some point everything that can be considered and known, and compensated for is, and they proceed with the experiment with protocols designed on these assumptions.

Take for example the electrical engineer that assumes that standard electrical engineering model that is over a century old understands everything there is to know about electromagnetism, electrodynamics etc. He will design circuits and applications that are all highly entropic because of inadequate understanding of the point of intersection between the scalar field and classical EM dynamics. His circuits, experiments, and applications are all limited to highly entropic functionality by his assumption that everything that can be known about EM dynamics is already known. This of course can give rise under a number of circumstances to phenomena that are inexplicable, but due to reputation issues he will not pursue even if he is inclined to because of funding concerns.

(continued in next post)

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Shendrin]

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 11:04 AM

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

Also Google Video/ Youtube (search terms):

Dale Pond Keely SVP
Marko Rodin (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein Vector Based Geometry

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Americanist]

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Xtraeme

But whatever this thing is that causes the change will not only be world altering - it will very likely affect our very nature.

Sometimes I wonder what will happen when humans master genetics. Will we be able to stop death from any disease, cancer or even old age? What happens after that? Are we going to be forced to stop having children because of over population? Will children become the most valuable thing on the planet? Will we stop doing things that can cause accidental death? Like driving a car at high speeds? Or even riding a ride at an amusement park? One thing that bothers me is the fact that evil people would stop dying. Once someone has become evil and enjoys it, will they ever stop and become good one day? Or will they just be forever evil? I read your theory but to be honest, I don't have the intelligence to understand it. But I did enjoy reading it very much. It looks like you put a lot of thought into it. I guess I lost faith in human beings. I would love to see us become a species that stops war and basically stops being "evil". How that will be accomplished, I don't know. I'm not a scientist but I do believe in the theory of the universe resetting itself. Right now we are viewing the big bang and all matter is flying outwards then billions or trillions (or more) of years from now, it will all come back together again for the "big reset". Thanks for your thought provoking theory.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in