Dominion Melchizedek wrote:
> dont agree with multiple time lines, multiple universes but not time lines, that would denote a fracturing in the fractal nature of the universe for it to happen naturally

The argument for multiple timelines from a Consciousness perspective is very convincing.

Let's think about the timelines as eddies or mini-currents in a river. Now, there's the idea that you can't change the World that you are on, but only your viewpoint.

In Masonic Language (just using it because it speaks clearly), you have a boat and you choose which part of the River that you want to be in.

One part may have Rocks, another part Tree Brances, another part calm. What you can do as a Intact Consciesness is change the position your boat (vessel) and paddle it to the spot that matches your belief about how the River should be. Some Timelines will be more positive, others less.

There is a suggestion of repetition. You may perhaps, 'try again' and see all that the River has to offer because it is diverse.

Different people can therefore get a different experience from Reality because there are different segments they can follow around the Torroid of Time.

Dr Lyon, if there were multiple time lines NO ONE could see or predict the future and remote viewing would be an exercise of insanity. how ever sages saw the future thousands of years ago. impossible if there are multiple time lines. if the viewers see it, it is inevitable here in this universe on this time line. there is no other in this universe. on top of that perceptual time is a construct of the mind, the faster your brain wave pattern, the faster time seems to go. in truth there is no time only preceived space. truth being, you are in a computer simulation, other universes are just other memory boards running the same simulation, providing evey pssible out come, there fore no need for multiple time lines.

Yep RVing the future is completely pointless. Daz and Dick with cryptoviewing has pretty much proven it to be true. Better projects that are more relative would be useful. I doubt many of the human news audience is remembering weeks later a line that was said as part of an hr long presentation.

If you believe that time is a stream with many branches, then many of those branches will have "similar events." These events, if large enough, will send out energy in all directions.

Just using a hypothetical example: Someone plants a nuke in New York City. With 7 million people there, there are 7 million different futures. They all go along their pathways.

If the bomb goes off, that will affect 7 million timelines and send out 7 million shockwaves forward and backwards on the timeline. That amount of energy (plus everyone watching on TV. around the world) would have a deep impact.

Someone tapping into that energy would be able to get a "picture" made of bits and pieces of the whole. It would create a mosaic type image. It is my contention that is why so few of these things present a "clear" picture.

Add on top of it that WHEN something major happens, not everyone realizes what is happening at the time. Our memory of 9/11--if you were to draw it--would be more from the images AFTER the event, than from memories of the event. Therefore, they do not emit the same "energy." This confusion--people saying, "What the hell is happening to me" would add to the fogginess of any interpretation of the "viewer."

Finally, the viewer is seeing everything through their prism and experience. I understand they are trained to dismiss those things and be as objective as possible. I would suggest that is not 100% possible. There are sites and smells that once you see and smell them, you will NEVER dismiss them. The smell of burning hair--if you have ever smelled it, it is not something you could effectively dismiss.

So, yes, I think we all agree on the "many futures" lines, but it explains more than it detracts.