B . L O G

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.

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.

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).