I comb through BBC News daily and I find today's news (events happened in the last 1-2 days) particularly
interesting, here's some:
This kind of news is beginning to dominate. And if this is announcement of future, of all the
catastrophes, floods will apparently dominate.
Now, many people have announced cataclysms and apocalypses and most of these prophecies include
floods (mine too) and a lot of them are not wrong - what prophets are usually wrong about are
dates.
But who is least likely to be wrong about dates?
I reckon that is the one who is genuinely not biased (belongs to
neutralum species) and employs
scientific methods in research and analysis.
If such one is wrong about a date, it probably won't be far off.
One of such people is Newton, he calculated the apocalypse cannot start before year 2060 (later revised to 2016) and after 2344.
Floods anyone? updated.
Of course, one could argue that, even though Newton has employed sound reasoning, the source material for his analysis (old scriptures forming the bible) is not trustworthy.
However, by my theories and hypotheses on synchronicity and species of homo, here it is not the material that is important - rather who did the analysis. In other words, I believe Newton would
come up with the same or similar dates analysing something else and these would have a good probability of being correct.
People like Newton and Tesla are genuine messengers (or messenger particles/proteins relative to their host or god - Earth in this case). Such people are extremely rare, but their prophecies have
good probability of becoming true.
Note that my theory of complete relativity implies relative causality. This relativity should be strong in neutralums and even stronger in messengers. Thus, in these people, sometimes the result will
precede logic and analysis behind it. In other words - a conclusion or statement based on signals of synchronicity or even intuition alone will generally later be proven to be correct (even if
centuries later).
Effectively, these people can sense future.
This is in agreement with my research too, I initially came up with years 2018 and 2066 but
chose 2018.
However, out of these candidate years, the choice of years 2016 and 2018 here was based on
interpretation of events of synchronicity at the time when the interpreters were [overwhelmed
but] inexperienced in synchronicity.
Synchronicity can be a part of scientific method, but it needs to be mastered to be properly
and precisely interpreted.
However, even mistakes future masters of synchronicity make in their early interpretations are
very relative mistakes.
The surface world did not end either in year 2016 or 2018 but these years are obviously not far
off and I now interpret superposition of these two (2017±1) as the start of the
apocalypse (point of no return), with year 2063±3 as the end. The appearance of two years was
the sign[al] of synchronicity itself - it signals that the apocalypse does not occur in a
single year, it rather has a start and end year with a peak in between (likely year 2048±2).
2024.07.14
Interestingly, J. Bendell is his book Breaking Together provides arguments that civilization collapse has started sometime about the year 2016.
Nothing can happen in an absolute instant of time (interval of absolute 0 length). The larger the energy, generally, the larger is its lifespan and the harder is to affect it globally.
Planets are large bodies of energy and it would take enormous bursts of energy to immediately affect all life on the planet. Mechanisms do exist - eg. emission of radiation by dying stars, collision
with other bodies of similar magnitude of energy, etc. However, on that scale, interval between such events is billions of our years.
It is unlikely that such events happen during extinctions that are less than 100 million years apart, and that includes the major extinctions of Phanerozoic.
Therefore, although explosive or cataclysmic events can release a lot of energy in a short period of time, these will be localized. In example, a large asteroid striking Earth can have immediate consequences
for a large area around the point of impact, but its direct influence on life on the other side of the planet might be negligible. That part of the planet might be influenced indirectly (eg. due to
triggered climate change) and eventually life there might get extinct but this will have to play out over a larger period of time.
Thus, the impulse of energy causing the apocalypse in this century is likely to be spread out over a couple of decades and it is also likely to be fragmented into localized catastrophes of
diverse nature.
It is then more natural to define the beginning and the end of an apocalypse (and, stating uncertainty, spread even these too over some time/space), rather than defining the year of an
apocalypse (at least not our year). During this period there will be sudden cataclysmic changes and megadeaths but global instant wipeout of all life should be unlikely.
On the other hand, if the hypothesized length on the 1st order cycle of the Solar System (4.25 billion years [on average]) is correct there is a good possibility we are at the end of such cycle.
In that case, global wipeout cannot be excluded, however, by my hypotheses, even that event should be preceded by cataclysmic events of smaller scale (the end of a larger cycle is relatively
synchronized with ends of cycles of smaller scale).