Originally posted by Pauligirl
Originally posted by thoughtform
There seems to be a divergence of what the manifestations of a timeline shift would be.
If we, for sake of argument, agreed that a timeline shift had occurred, all empirical evidence would instantaneously change to the characteristics of
the new timeline. So, requiring a map demonstrating the changes doesn't seem to make sense in the context of a shift. As well as, all
understanding of traits, characteristics of people, animals, or things; all awareness and concept of these things will be instantly altered to a new
timeline memory and reflect the characteristics of the new timeline.
If all awareness is instantly altered, why are people saying they remember something different? And why the position of land masses? Why not
something like yesterday my pet was an aardvark and today he's a hedgehog.
I don't subscribe to exactly the same vision of what a "time shift" is that is being depicted here.
All the same, for the sake of argument let us run with it.
Most people when given choices where one is distinctly held as being correct by a majority of their peers, a person will decide to eschew what they
know and instead agree with the majority. This is well founded human behaviour by now.
So even if people NOTED differences, they would not SAY so. They would not risk it. Even if they knew that everyone was "wrong" they would not.
Sociological experiments have demonstrated this several times.
This is still not exactly the point I am making but might explain why people do not speak up. They assume that they are just wrong. And even if they
know they aren't, they will submit to the will of the group. Which means they aren't going to admit it or invite "shame" upon themselves.
That being said - a database can hold different "states" or a history of an object, and even hold two complete different variations of an object at
Not all databases can do this. Some of them will reject that an object can be both A and B due to their underlying relationships.
However, one CAN program a database to hold multiple version of an object without rejecting any of them, and still have an internally consistent
object relationship model. The problem is that more complicated relationship and data requires more processing and more storage capacity. Processing
that extends beyond the objects components having only two states.
If you presume that a brain can be a sort of quantum computer, and a quantum database, if that brain has the right relationship model it might be able
to expand and accept storing and processing several variations of any object/data at a time.
So while one "variation" may not be existent (and never was in some ways), the "historical" records exist in the exact same place as the existent
(I'll stop now so that the few people who are enraged can stop being red, and everyone else can mop their brains off the floor.)
[edit on 2010/3/6 by Aeons]