Negative Time

[aoibhghaire]

I am interested in negative time and I have some ideas about negative time, i.e. systems where the response precedes the stimulus. If negative time is confirmed and depending on scaling, you could send back information hours into the past, then we could predict for example natural disasters. Of course, it could up set the whole economic world. For example, the stock markets. Alternatively, in the wrong hands it could be disastrous. For example, predicting war strategies.

There is recent interest in this topic.

It seems scientific teams have noticed the effect (negative time) and the mainstream news is now reporting on it. E.g. Scientific American:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cs-experiment/

Even Sabine Hossenfelder did a recent spot on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErLHm-1c6I4

Negative Time is Real, Physicists Confirm. Kind Of!

Experimental evidence that a photon can spend a negative amount of time in an atom cloud

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.03680

Like Sabine Hossenfelder, the author says no information is transmitted into the past: "Because these photons are not carrying information, this result doesn’t contradict the faster-than-light limitations imposed by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity."


It's also reported in this article

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...negative-time/ .

Consequences/applications of "negative time evidence" article, like time-loop computers breaking most of current ciphers?

https://www.reddit.com/r/timetravel/...s_of_negative/

[ExomatrixTV]

Fascinating topic @aoibhghaire

A long time ago, I thought of doing a group experiment where you can make an appointment with the "future you" sending important awareness/insights back to now (which is "the past" for them) ... You could meditate right now sitting in or near a model size pyramid using a specific scent, unique sounds, maybe holding the same crystal in your hand, being surrounded by the same people on the same time, position of the moon & sun anything that can boost/amplify resonance of the "the bridge" between times.

Knowing we all are multidimensional Souls having DNA that works like a "Fractal Antenna" (to a quantum world?) we should, somehow, be able to receive something from our "future selves!" when our future selves SEES what we did, let's say 1 year before and all is registered on camera << that footage can also be used to send information/awareness/insights back to the receiver.

Creating an intentional time-loop bridge ... Have not yet done this experiment, and it may be "a waste of time" ... even if it is, on a "sub-conscious level" your intent has been planted within your Soul/Being << and because of that >> you might get powerful visionary (lucid) dreams, or you start to "know things" without having a clue where it came from ... Or you do, if you read what I just shared here ... The concept/idea of getting in contact with your "future self" was also shared by Teal Swan and all the warnings & reservations she shared in this video is very similar to what I did before she uploaded her video.

In my view, the Essence of our Soul is beyond time, and the faster we realize & feel that the better.

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[Kryztian]

I don't know if this intersects what you are saying here - I am no quantum physicists - but I have this idea that consciousness lies just outside of the dimension(s) of time. This is, in my grandiose and not very well constructed or tested theory, why some of us are just a tiny bit psychic and have premonitions just milliseconds before things actually happen.

In 2011, the Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem published "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" based on experiments on psi that had been performed. He argued that his findings may have demonstrated that his findings challenge the unidirectional nature to the flow of time.

To give you a personal example, I was once talking to a therapist about some bad behaviors I had at a certain time in my childhood. She started to reply: "That probably meant that ....". Just before she said those words, when I was talking about my childhood, I was pretty deep in thought and my vision probably wasn't focused on anything, but when she responded I looked up and started to gaze at her. As soon as she started to talk, I felt the strangest, most intense, and yet most difficult thing to describe: I can only describe it like a wind coming a slicing right through me, like is was slicing my body in half. It was a very emotional feeling, but I don't think the neurons in my spinal column were doing anything different. Part of me wanted to fall to the floor and start sobbing intensely, however, the intellect kicked in and said "What the hell is this bizarre feeling? What does it have anything to do with the words just uttered?" I felt as though I was reacting to the therapists words, but I didn't even know what those words were. Finally, I remembered the syllables she uttered and then made sense of the words and then tried to turn those words into a meaningful sentence. She has said "That probably meant that you felt you didn't have very much control over your life." Well, it took me many years to see that her comments were right on target and deserved a very strong reaction. But I still do not understand how "part of me" figured out the relevance and significance of her words before my conscious mind had. This experience sent me asking questions about the nature of consciousness, of communication, of time.

It might be interesting for some to know how negative time affects photons and sub atomic particles, but I more interesting in knowing how this plays into human consciousness.

[onawah]

On the other hand:
I spent a considerable amount of time journaling for several years, and once, quite a few years after the fact, I re-read what I had written and was amazed at what a completely different mind space I had been in at that time in the past.
That mindset has changed so much just in the last decade that I really don't think my past self of just 10 years ago would be able to relate very much at all to the mindset I have now.
Indeed, the world has changed so much just in the last 2 decades that looking back at what was, just 20 years ago, seems almost like a different lifetime.
If time is measured by the rate of change/events, then it would seem that time is speeding up exoponentially.

[Mike Gorman]

Posted by onawah (here)
On the other hand:
I spent a considerable amount of time journaling for several years, and once, quite a few years after the fact, I re-read what I had written and was amazed at what a completely different mind space I had been in at that time in the past.
That mindset has changed so much just in the last decade that I really don't think my past self of just 10 years ago would be able to relate very much at all to the mindset I have now.
Indeed, the world has changed so much just in the last 2 decades that looking back at what was, just 20 years ago, seems almost like a different lifetime.
If time is measured by the rate of change/events, then it would seem that time is speeding up exoponentially.

What you say here resonated with me very strongly, we are dealing with the intangibles here, and the nature of consciousness cannot be prescribed or defined easily, or indeed at all in terms of how the mainstream presents it: our friend Rupert Sheldrake discusses these matters with great eloquence and admirable open-mindedness, it is true that the past 15 years has seen our world change beyond all recognition, even the time since Project Avalon has been around, from 2010, my own state of mind is now totally different to the person I was in that time!

[Michel Leclerc]

Thank you Aoibhghaire, thank you John.

What you describe in your last paragraph, John, is my experience as a “visionary poet” (this term I do not intend/understand as describing a literary “genre” but almost as a tautology: a poet cannot be unless visionary), as well as my hypothesis (which only trust and belief ascertain for me) about the existence/life/adventure of all “real” artists. Stretches of possible time in the future, fragments of future life/experience come continuously – and I believe, as (in my opinion) valuable masters do and recommend, that a basic attitude of acceptance/welcoming of whatever the mind/spirit presents to us is the very core of meditation and hence reject, as they do, “meditating” by “wiping” or “voiding” the mind/spirit – and by accepting to see/experience these possible futures I am able to prevent them from happening when I reject the futures themselves because they are evil. (This is also basic to Don Juan: the brujos’ “seeing” is a way of choosing realisation or non-realisation.)

Artistically speaking then, the constant allowance of being aware (by way of accepting meditation) of the possible shapes of the final painting (to use the art analogy instead if the poetry analogy) – and so to speak, the “play”, the juggling with these possible future shapes, is the realisation of their ultimate, resultative configuration: the work of art itself when created. When one studies the note(book)s of great artists, poets, musicians, dancers, one will time and again encounter statements like the following: “there is no present” (aha! I very much prefer this to the sticky dreams of the “being in the present moment” so dear to New Age (in which I sense the forbidding finger of the "do NOT”: “do not leave the present moment”, “reject...”, “refuse...”, “avoid...” or other variants of the Satanic hatred for the Divine creating..)) OR “the present is the future past”: this notion of Life as continuous (eternal, if you like) “future past” being the real dimension of Life, in which the continuous choice for Good and against Evil can be “played” out.

Elsewhere on PA, we can read about how we can collectively realise a better future by envisioning it – and I can quite well understand it if it encompasses, involves on the personal level this allowing of the visionary (as if our bodily experience were in itself a simultaneous and continuous out-of-body experience) – or, in other words, if it understands "collective” as fully involving, entailing the personal.

This also echoes with the strange story of the “timeline” meme. When I heard Dan Burisch talk about “choosing another timeline” I wondered whether the only reason for using the concept of “timeline” instead of “time” was not really (and only) the "choice” aspect. Is it not clear that whatever we will experience e.g. tomorrow, will just be "time” and not “a timeline”? Whether we choose it or not? But if the choice is essential (and hence the choice between more and less Good – or more or less God because "god" and "good" are etymologically related) then we need to be “presented with” a choice, and this “presentation” is – so I “intuit” – best realised as a visionary experience of possible presents, or, as artistic creators (or mystics) teach us: as possible future pasts. Or, in other words, it is when we accept fully, agree with, welcome living in the visionary space of future past time that we can calm Satanic whisperings (wāswās, as the Qur'ān says) and yield to “angelic conversation”, as Shakespeare has called it.

At the same time, however, there is “in our past” a past which is not a future past – but a “past past”: our life’s or our lives’ “karma” (deeds, choices) and this is the experience which helps us, as a yardstick in a way, when choosing the “better” future past (conversing with the angels) – or, in other words, it is the Purgatory experience which helps us to not carry over the Hell experience into the Heaven experience, making us choosing, if we are aware and “see”, the Better “timeline” as a matter of course. (Think of how in the Divina Commedia, “ironed” and “icy” “stories” gradually fade away and are replaced by fluid and happy “visions”...).

How interesting then, how neat that “light does not carry information” — as information would only feed the space of facts, i.e. of past past – so that light could better be described as the “matter” of “knowledge” or “wisdom” or “vision” coming “from the future” and “presenting” itself to us ..“to make us happy”..

[leavesoftrees]

The famous line from The Emerald Tablet:
That which is above, is as that which is below
And that which is below, is as that which is above
for the performance of the miracles of the One Thing

Can also read:
That which is in the future, is as that which is in the past
and that which is in the past is as that which is in the future

The past determines the future and the future is determines the past

The oak tree is in the acorn, and the oak tree influences the acorn to get where it is today

[aoibhghaire]

Its understood now that negative time, as observed in recent quantum physics experiments, is a phenomenon where photons appear to spend a negative amount of time interacting with atoms. This concept challenges classical ideas of time and light-matter interactions, highlighting the probabilistic nature of quantum systems. While it may seem paradoxical, negative time values are a measurable aspect of quantum physics, offering insights into reviewing the fundamental nature of time and reality.

So how do these recent announced discoveries of negative time relate to time itself.


Is time real, or just an illusion? The link below demonstrates the groundbreaking philosophy of Henri Bergson, a modern-era thinker who argued that time, as we know it, doesn’t truly exist. While we’ve been conditioned to see time as a linear, measurable entity, Bergson challenges this with his concept of “duration”—time as a continuous, subjective experience.

The philosophical debate between Bergson’s view of lived time and the clock-driven reality we’ve all grown accustomed to. The past and future might be mental constructs, how our perception of time varies in different moments, and what it means to live fully in the present.

Bergson may be closer to truth of time than Einstein. Duree (see note) is more about pointing to how we experience past and future as interpenetrating with the present - not as separate sequential moments. It's interesting to hear about the debate with Einstein, but it's Husserl (SEE NOTE B) who takes both perspectives seriously and finds a way to reconcile the subjective and objective aspects of time. In similar vein to Bergson, though not denying the reality of an objective time, argues that the subjective sense of time is more fundamental. Husserl also argues, as apparently Bergson did, that time and consciousness are deeply interrelated.

NOTE A. Duration (French: la durée) is a theory of time and consciousness posited by the French philosopher Henri Bergson. Bergson sought to improve upon inadequacies he perceived in the philosophy of Herbert Spencer, due, he believed, to Spencer's lack of comprehension of mechanics, which led Bergson to the conclusion that time eluded mathematics and science.

NOTE B. Husserl the founder of Phenomenology, a method for the description and analysis of consciousness through which philosophy attempts to gain the character of a strict science. The method reflects an effort to resolve the opposition between Empiricism, which stresses observation, and Rationalism, which stresses reason and theory, by indicating the origin of all philosophical and scientific systems and developments of theory in the interests and structures of the experiential life.

Time Doesn’t Exist? Unlocking Bergson’s Mysterious Theory

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6VEJpu0TYoQ

[Kryztian]

Physics? Philosophy? How about poetry:



Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

- - - T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton, (No. 1 of 'Four Quartets')
http://www.davidgorman.com/4quartets/1-norton.htm

[Agape]

Under linguistic attack at the moment so unintentionally busting my favourite science topic ["hope that's well said"]
but may come back to it later.

On light note, it seems to me that the moments of Time when we actually move ahead are called "historical moments".

Most of the rest of time general human mind and existence are dragged to past and repetitions of past,
search for "precedence" and past models of solutions or workable constellations , quite like a game of chess with very large yet limited number of possible moves.

Which definitely attests to negative flow of time being present as living phenomenon we participate with while we struggle to work "against it" towards the new , happy, advancing future we would create otherwise.


✨

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
Thank you Aoibhghaire, thank you John.

What you describe in your last paragraph, John, is my experience as a “visionary poet” (this term I do not intend/understand as describing a literary “genre” but almost as a tautology: a poet cannot be unless visionary), as well as my hypothesis (which only trust and belief ascertain for me) about the existence/life/adventure of all “real” artists. Stretches of possible time in the future, fragments of future life/experience come continuously – and I believe, as (in my opinion) valuable masters do and recommend, that a basic attitude of acceptance/welcoming of whatever the mind/spirit presents to us is the very core of meditation and hence reject, as they do, “meditating” by “wiping” or “voiding” the mind/spirit – and by accepting to see/experience these possible futures I am able to prevent them from happening when I reject the futures themselves because they are evil. (This is also basic to Don Juan: the brujos’ “seeing” is a way of choosing realisation or non-realisation.)

Artistically speaking then, the constant allowance of being aware (by way of accepting meditation) of the possible shapes of the final painting (to use the art analogy instead if the poetry analogy) – and so to speak, the “play”, the juggling with these possible future shapes, is the realisation of their ultimate, resultative configuration: the work of art itself when created. When one studies the note(book)s of great artists, poets, musicians, dancers, one will time and again encounter statements like the following: “there is no present” (aha! I very much prefer this to the sticky dreams of the “being in the present moment” so dear to New Age (in which I sense the forbidding finger of the "do NOT”: “do not leave the present moment”, “reject...”, “refuse...”, “avoid...” or other variants of the Satanic hatred for the Divine creating..)) OR “the present is the future past”: this notion of Life as continuous (eternal, if you like) “future past” being the real dimension of Life, in which the continuous choice for Good and against Evil can be “played” out.

Elsewhere on PA, we can read about how we can collectively realise a better future by envisioning it – and I can quite well understand it if it encompasses, involves on the personal level this allowing of the visionary (as if our bodily experience were in itself a simultaneous and continuous out-of-body experience) – or, in other words, if it understands "collective” as fully involving, entailing the personal.

This also echoes with the strange story of the “timeline” meme. When I heard Dan Burisch talk about “choosing another timeline” I wondered whether the only reason for using the concept of “timeline” instead of “time” was not really (and only) the "choice” aspect. Is it not clear that whatever we will experience e.g. tomorrow, will just be "time” and not “a timeline”? Whether we choose it or not? But if the choice is essential (and hence the choice between more and less Good – or more or less God because "god" and "good" are etymologically related) then we need to be “presented with” a choice, and this “presentation” is – so I “intuit” – best realised as a visionary experience of possible presents, or, as artistic creators (or mystics) teach us: as possible future pasts. Or, in other words, it is when we accept fully, agree with, welcome living in the visionary space of future past time that we can calm Satanic whisperings (wāswās, as the Qur'ān says) and yield to “angelic conversation”, as Shakespeare has called it.

At the same time, however, there is “in our past” a past which is not a future past – but a “past past”: our life’s or our lives’ “karma” (deeds, choices) and this is the experience which helps us, as a yardstick in a way, when choosing the “better” future past (conversing with the angels) – or, in other words, it is the Purgatory experience which helps us to not carry over the Hell experience into the Heaven experience, making us choosing, if we are aware and “see”, the Better “timeline” as a matter of course. (Think of how in the Divina Commedia, “ironed” and “icy” “stories” gradually fade away and are replaced by fluid and happy “visions”...).

How interesting then, how neat that “light does not carry information” — as information would only feed the space of facts, i.e. of past past – so that light could better be described as the “matter” of “knowledge” or “wisdom” or “vision” coming “from the future” and “presenting” itself to us ..“to make us happy”..

God similar to Good? Like many similar-sounding words, it's a complete coincidence. God comes from the Proto-Germanic gudą, and good comes from the Proto-Germanic gōdaz. In related languages, they're still similar but slightly different, e.g. German gut and Gott. So no.

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
Thank you Aoibhghaire, thank you John.

(...)

“to make us happy”..

God similar to Good? Like many similar-sounding words, it's a complete coincidence. God comes from the Proto-Germanic gudą, and good comes from the Proto-Germanic gōdaz. In related languages, they're still similar but slightly different, e.g. German gut and Gott. So no.

(sigh) No Mr Duyer, you are mistaken.

Maybe you, especially you who wish to turn upside down all possible mythologies and/or translations of the Ancient East — the critical attitude behind it which I endorse but not necessarily its results – might try and understand the reasoning behind it – in just of jumping immediately on what an etymoloical dictionary suggested to you?

As it stands, it is a bit cheap and may mislead a superficial reader.

Both words – “good” and “god" may have a Nostratic origin, reaching far earlier than (Proto-)Germanic, and far earlier than (Proto-)Indo-European even – or, in which case, on the basis of my tentative hypothesis for the timeframe of Nostratic, they would predate the 10th millennium before the catastrophe – or, in a more romantic phrasing: they would belong to the language of Atlantis.

Now the question is: are they related and as such that old?

You might have a point when reaching back in time a lot, because Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary itself does not consider them related.

So the question arises whether they were recognisably related by the Indo-Europeans; to put it “romantically”, whether they where spoken on the Rivieras of the Black Lake (the forerunner of the Black Sea).

In such a case any “non-relatedness” might be the result of a non-recognition by Germanicists (specialists of Germanic) who do nog go further back than the 5th/6th millennium being not that very well versed in Indo-European (they can’t go that far), and on the other hand it is not recognisable either to the eyes of Nostraticists who ga back to the 11th millennium.

But in between, in (proto-)Indo-European (let’s say 8th to 6th millennium BCE), the various roots start to look very similar.

Those roots adduced would have all started with a "gh" sound (think of it as the sound of English “cater” but with the "g" of "gay” to start with), and then they are all (except for one) followed by an "e" sound, which corresponded more or less to the English "ay" sound in "way" and.. well.. “gay”.

I am saying soundS because there are many. The various roots concerned in Nostratic, so a few millennia earlier than (proto-)Indo-European mean (1) gh-e-u: invoke, invite ; (2) its variant gh-a-u: invoke, invite (!) with its past participle gh-u-tu (!the direct configuration of good); (3); (3) gh-e-d (notice the dental suffix d as in gh-u-tu: good), (4) again gh-e-d: good (!), and finally (5) gh-e-r: desire (related to the German begehren and Dutch begeren, and of course English yearn, desire).

This last verb with a final "r" (an onomatopoeic element common to many verbs expressing food ingestion, think of devour, tear etc.) stands just a little apart, but the others are clearly part of each other’s conjugation system: (1) good is definitely a past participle, i.e. of the verb gh-e-u – and means what is wished for, invited, invoked (at the altar) – and would be prepared by (2) the invoker’s emotional state of desire: as animals we would grumble for the food coming soon (we still do, don’t we, when the BigMac is served) – and that which is given by the God(s) to ourselves as satisfaction of our craving is also (3) that which gives: also the god is the invoked ánd giving one.

One may wish to call such scenery “primitive” but I would not agree. When Divinity gives Himself as food to His adorers.. not too primitive a religion has been built on this concept to start with – as, besides, so many, older, myths have, as you will concur, Mr Duyer.

So, linguistically speaking, we have a verbal stem "to invite, invoke” (a Divine being), we have a “nomen agentis” ending in -r (the name for the instance with agency) who desires and hence invokes/invites, and we have a past participle in -d/-t meaning invited, invoked, desired: goodness, the result of it all.

To me, Mr Duyer, that is highly significant and sufficient.

To add something you may not know: this gh-e is the same root at the source of "gather" and "together".. because when sacrifices are performed, the presence of many is sound economy.

And finally, in the times when the relatedness of "god" and "good" used to be felt or recognised a little better than by the people whom you quote (I suppose), the Germanic verb which in Dutch is gieten, Swedish gjuta and German gießen is also adduced, meaning to pour, because it was said that sacrificing animals (?) to the gods was not easily done without spilling blood.

It is less popular among etymologists now, but who would defend that science should be done without imagination?

[Michel Leclerc]

Posted by aoibhghaire (here)
Its understood now that negative time, as observed in recent quantum physics experiments, is a phenomenon where photons appear to spend a negative amount of time interacting with atoms. This concept challenges classical ideas of time and light-matter interactions, highlighting the probabilistic nature of quantum systems. While it may seem paradoxical, negative time values are a measurable aspect of quantum physics, offering insights into reviewing the fundamental nature of time and reality.

So how do these recent announced discoveries of negative time relate to time itself.


Is time real, or just an illusion? The link below demonstrates the groundbreaking philosophy of Henri Bergson, a modern-era thinker who argued that time, as we know it, doesn’t truly exist. While we’ve been conditioned to see time as a linear, measurable entity, Bergson challenges this with his concept of “duration”—time as a continuous, subjective experience.

The philosophical debate between Bergson’s view of lived time and the clock-driven reality we’ve all grown accustomed to. The past and future might be mental constructs, how our perception of time varies in different moments, and what it means to live fully in the present.

Bergson may be closer to truth of time than Einstein. Duree (see note) is more about pointing to how we experience past and future as interpenetrating with the present - not as separate sequential moments. It's interesting to hear about the debate with Einstein, but it's Husserl (SEE NOTE B) who takes both perspectives seriously and finds a way to reconcile the subjective and objective aspects of time. In similar vein to Bergson, though not denying the reality of an objective time, argues that the subjective sense of time is more fundamental. Husserl also argues, as apparently Bergson did, that time and consciousness are deeply interrelated.

NOTE A. Duration (French: la durée) is a theory of time and consciousness posited by the French philosopher Henri Bergson. Bergson sought to improve upon inadequacies he perceived in the philosophy of Herbert Spencer, due, he believed, to Spencer's lack of comprehension of mechanics, which led Bergson to the conclusion that time eluded mathematics and science.

NOTE B. Husserl the founder of Phenomenology, a method for the description and analysis of consciousness through which philosophy attempts to gain the character of a strict science. The method reflects an effort to resolve the opposition between Empiricism, which stresses observation, and Rationalism, which stresses reason and theory, by indicating the origin of all philosophical and scientific systems and developments of theory in the interests and structures of the experiential life.

Time Doesn’t Exist? Unlocking Bergson’s Mysterious Theory

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6VEJpu0TYoQ

Thank you – how excellent, yes, Aoibhghaire... the heroic endeavours of Bergson and Husserl.. the strange thing is that although they were both very great innovators.. they till somehow remained attached to the idea of philosophy as science – and hence of the intellectual – not entirely scientific let alone mathematical – possibility to bridge the gap between “modern” etc. science and philosophy (the great desire and temptation of the ancient Greeks!)..

and exactly when they were at their apex came Wittgenstein who broke his teeth on this "mathematical reduction of philosophy” (in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) to then choose the road of an almost conversational, peripatetic exploration of philosophy and language through language –

..which then opened the door for the breakthrough “beyond the perfectibility of science” that Gödel realised – dumping all "essentialist" definitions of science (we are or should still be eating Gödel’s bread (we could still see him walking considerately side by side with Einstein in Nolan's Oppenheimer!))

– and of course Heidegger who insisted his life long on the idea that thinking itself needs to go beyond language while at the same time remain within it... a road which more modern philosophers like Derrida and Deleuze have followed since.

And now intellectual standards are collapsing so fast that hardly anybody can still follow what they were thinking ——— and the “burning desire” to resolve our problems is fading away..

..brains beyond repair..

?

[ExomatrixTV]

• For all people who are really "ahead of their times" ...
  

Who will be known to be vindicated in the (near) future many times, may already feel that specific vibe right now, thus strengthened by it ... So much so that there are no real "worries" about "being laughed at" ... As it will be their karma not doing anything about the insights that turned out to be correct.

Let's say somebody assumes "you can not prove anything you claim", meanwhile it is happening ... unfolding day by day ... Why on Earth does that person refuse to ask: "How did you know?" ... What psychological mechanism is at play here? ... Especially when you get vindicated, so many still refuse to apologize nor want to find out more about your "visionary" gifts.

Some of the "key ingredients" of having such a gift are in my view: 01. Living in self-honesty, 02. Always having antenna open that things could be different from what it appears to be ... 03. Willingness to learn new insights ... 04. Not lying to yourself ("to fit in") 05. Having a genuine inquiring mind. 06. Not mind being corrected if need be (learning from mistakes) 07. Not being afraid to be different from the vast majority. 08. Truly care for people's well-being 09. Having an authentic sense of wonderment (like a child does) 10. Not projecting own shortcomings/incompetence/fears on others.

• Now imagine that the "future you" is all that and the "present you" too ... if you receive anything from your "future (multidimensional) you" it has to be like that.

In my view, anything less would not work ... and anyone who does not have these standards may not want to find out how to live like that because it can be very confrontational to live like that... it takes tremendous courage and sometimes big sacrifices to be able to stay in your integrity ... which is almost always connected to how you see yourself in all that is happening in our world.

So, the question about "negative time" ... What is your "state of being" reading the 10 points (there are actually more) now that can be picked up in the past and months later from now the same question remains and years later same question! ... See, we all can start making a feedback loop depending on your "state of being" taking more responsibility for your quality of thinking, reasoning & "judging".

• When people are in a state of fear, they may occasionally predict/foresee future events correctly, but that is not what I am talking about.

What I am describing here is a multifaceted process of all levels of "being" ... including doing "rational based" research, including verifying things, including triple checking assumptions, including seeking contradictions when they appear, including questioning own assumptions ... When doing that, some of it will be "guided" through intuitive means and that is 100% connected to the 10 points I just shared here

Hopefully people can relate and resonate what I am trying to explain today, because I feel strongly connected to my "future self" every day, which is (also according to Teal Swan) not always "fun" to have ... it takes a lot of self-knowledge, knowing your weaknesses and working on it to overcome them! ... Am sure that I am not the only one that acts like that or feels that way.


"Negative time effects" meaning picking up VIBES that really happened in the future BUT does not have to happen when you/we make different choices! Yet, the feelings/emotions & raw trauma-like vibes can still be felt authentically in the present and IF you do not know how to deal with that it can make things worse. Hence, "negative time effects". But I found many ways how to transform/convert/deal with it in a more pragmatic way and LETTING GO of it ... That takes training, just like "Remote Viewers" are trained!

Imagine an "honest" skeptic is convinced of my abilities and want to have them too, "to get rich", "to get famous", "to be special", "to use it for outclassing enemies", to ... etc. etc. you get the picture here ... Then I say to that hypothetical person, how much of the 10 points I gave you do you really embody? How much of that is pure when you live all 10 of them? ... Because if he would, he would not bother to think on a lower mind-set to be what you're suppose to be!

cheers,
John Kuhles 🦜🦋🌳
Dutch NDE/Asperger

[Michel Leclerc]

John thank you. I resonate with everything you have written down here. I especially like the 10 points which are quite complete – which because they are so “rich” prevent one from congratulating oneself too easily.

I would tend to slightly alter one of your points – and if you find the time for that you may give it a thought. It is not meant as criticism but points more to a slight hesitancy of mine (because as Gaston Burssens wrote so strikingly: pondering about the sea, "toen zagen wij dat zij nog anders was”: “then we saw that she was still different”).. just this..:

I am no so sure about my future multidimensional self.. that is because I am strangely, oddly persuaded that we already overlap in this life.. as I said/wrote elsewhere: “we are each other”, or “we are dividuals”.. the phenomenon of frequent doppelgangers (and tripelgangers?), of quite frequent "spiritual doppelgängers”, of simultaneous reincarnations (of one person in two), of (more or less) simultaneous reincarnations who even meet each other ——— makes we wonder whether the "I” that sends me messages to turn my present into a future past is not something strange in between a We and an I....

I have hunches, not even an idea...

[ExomatrixTV]

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
John thank you. I resonate with everything you have written down here. I especially like the 10 points which are quite complete – which because they are so “rich” prevent one from congratulating oneself too easily.

I would tend to slightly alter one of your points – and if you find the time for that you may give it a thought. It is not meant as criticism but points more to a slight hesitancy of mine (because as Gaston Burssens wrote so strikingly: pondering about the sea, "toen zagen wij dat zij nog anders was”: “then we saw that she was still different”).. just this..:

I am no so sure about my future multidimensional self.. that is because I am strangely, oddly persuaded that we already overlap in this life.. as I said/wrote elsewhere: “we are each other”, or “we are dividuals”.. the phenomenon of frequent doppelgangers (and tripelgangers?), of quite frequent "spiritual doppelgängers”, of simultaneous reincarnations (of one person in two), of (more or less) simultaneous reincarnations who even meet each other ——— makes we wonder whether the "I” that sends me messages to turn my present into a future past is not something strange in between a We and an I....

I have hunches, not even an idea...

I am going to quote: "Brother Ralphos" from Ireland 🇨🇮 who was a long time PalTalk Chat friend and "co-admin" of my PalTalk UFO "Untold Mysteries" Chat Room in the early 2000s:

He said:

"I am you, you are me, the future & history"

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

• source

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
Thank you Aoibhghaire, thank you John.

(...)

“to make us happy”..

God similar to Good? Like many similar-sounding words, it's a complete coincidence. God comes from the Proto-Germanic gudą, and good comes from the Proto-Germanic gōdaz. In related languages, they're still similar but slightly different, e.g. German gut and Gott. So no.

(sigh) No Mr Duyer, you are mistaken.

Maybe you, especially you who wish to turn upside down all possible mythologies and/or translations of the Ancient East — the critical attitude behind it which I endorse but not necessarily its results – might try and understand the reasoning behind it – in just of jumping immediately on what an etymoloical dictionary suggested to you?

As it stands, it is a bit cheap and may mislead a superficial reader.

Both words – “good” and “god" may have a Nostratic origin, reaching far earlier than (Proto-)Germanic, and far earlier than (Proto-)Indo-European even – or, in which case, on the basis of my tentative hypothesis for the timeframe of Nostratic, they would predate the 10th millennium before the catastrophe – or, in a more romantic phrasing: they would belong to the language of Atlantis.

Now the question is: are they related and as such that old?

You might have a point when reaching back in time a lot, because Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary itself does not consider them related.

So the question arises whether they were recognisably related by the Indo-Europeans; to put it “romantically”, whether they where spoken on the Rivieras of the Black Lake (the forerunner of the Black Sea).

In such a case any “non-relatedness” might be the result of a non-recognition by Germanicists (specialists of Germanic) who do nog go further back than the 5th/6th millennium being not that very well versed in Indo-European (they can’t go that far), and on the other hand it is not recognisable either to the eyes of Nostraticists who ga back to the 11th millennium.

But in between, in (proto-)Indo-European (let’s say 8th to 6th millennium BCE), the various roots start to look very similar.

Those roots adduced would have all started with a "gh" sound (think of it as the sound of English “cater” but with the "g" of "gay” to start with), and then they are all (except for one) followed by an "e" sound, which corresponded more or less to the English "ay" sound in "way" and.. well.. “gay”.

I am saying soundS because there are many. The various roots concerned in Nostratic, so a few millennia earlier than (proto-)Indo-European mean (1) gh-e-u: invoke, invite ; (2) its variant gh-a-u: invoke, invite (!) with its past participle gh-u-tu (!the direct configuration of good); (3); (3) gh-e-d (notice the dental suffix d as in gh-u-tu: good), (4) again gh-e-d: good (!), and finally (5) gh-e-r: desire (related to the German begehren and Dutch begeren, and of course English yearn, desire).

This last verb with a final "r" (an onomatopoeic element common to many verbs expressing food ingestion, think of devour, tear etc.) stands just a little apart, but the others are clearly part of each other’s conjugation system: (1) good is definitely a past participle, i.e. of the verb gh-e-u – and means what is wished for, invited, invoked (at the altar) – and would be prepared by (2) the invoker’s emotional state of desire: as animals we would grumble for the food coming soon (we still do, don’t we, when the BigMac is served) – and that which is given by the God(s) to ourselves as satisfaction of our craving is also (3) that which gives: also the god is the invoked ánd giving one.

One may wish to call such scenery “primitive” but I would not agree. When Divinity gives Himself as food to His adorers.. not too primitive a religion has been built on this concept to start with – as, besides, so many, older, myths have, as you will concur, Mr Duyer.

So, linguistically speaking, we have a verbal stem "to invite, invoke” (a Divine being), we have a “nomen agentis” ending in -r (the name for the instance with agency) who desires and hence invokes/invites, and we have a past participle in -d/-t meaning invited, invoked, desired: goodness, the result of it all.

To me, Mr Duyer, that is highly significant and sufficient.

To add something you may not know: this gh-e is the same root at the source of "gather" and "together".. because when sacrifices are performed, the presence of many is sound economy.

And finally, in the times when the relatedness of "god" and "good" used to be felt or recognised a little better than by the people whom you quote (I suppose), the Germanic verb which in Dutch is gieten, Swedish gjuta and German gießen is also adduced, meaning to pour, because it was said that sacrificing animals (?) to the gods was not easily done without spilling blood.

It is less popular among etymologists now, but who would defend that science should be done without imagination?

SIGH .... Nostratic - the still controversial hypothesis of a language family of northern Eurasia.
Unfortunately, it was proposed to fill in holes that admittedly exist, but the holes are only there because the mainstream scholars will not acknowledge that there was a language in use during the period of those who painted the cave art in France - at least some 28,000 years ago and perhaps further back.
And why do they refuse to look for this evidence? Because it upsets their religious beliefs is one reason and because they would have to rewrite all of their textbooks is another.
I have translated them, they exist from artifacts unearthed in Russian Siberia through to Portugal and some in southern Scotland. Later versions of this language was used by the people who flourished before the doggerlands went under water.

Top linguists refuse to even entertain the idea, even when provided with the evidence. So it's a no-go for the common folk to change those ideas, but that does not make them any less valid.

[Lunesoleil]

The discovery of "negative time" hints at a hidden layer of reality where time can flow backwards, at least for quantum particles. This astounding discovery could unlock the secrets of faster computing, unbreakable communication, and even reveal new ways to control the very structure of time.
Quantum experiment highlights existence of 'negative time'

In Astrology, I talk about what I know best, this negative time, this return to the past is used with the converse progressions, one day before the birth is equal to one year, and in this way we can go back in time.
We still have hypnosis, is it another way to go back in time and even to go into the future in this way we would talk about positive time?

[Ewan]

[QUOTE=Michel Leclerc;1637876]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)

God similar to Good? Like many similar-sounding words, it's a complete coincidence. God comes from the Proto-Germanic gudą, and good comes from the Proto-Germanic gōdaz. In related languages, they're still similar but slightly different, e.g. German gut and Gott. So no.

(sigh) No Mr Duyer, you are mistaken.

[QUOTE=Jim_Duyer;1637959]

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)

SIGH .... Nostratic - the still controversial hypothesis of a language family of northern Eurasia.

Might I offer a suggestion in all humbleness. That a new thread could be started enitled....

The Leclerc/Duyer Debates

Or even....

The Duyer/Leclerc Debates

...where the two of you can debate back and forth to your hearts are content. I dare say I will not be the only reader as the topic is not without interest.

However this particular topic is 'Negative Time', which is what I've literally just undergone typing out this response.

[aoibhghaire]

Negative time research experiments are getting closer to a reality.

Scientists have long known that light can sometimes appear to exit a material before entering it — an effect dismissed as an illusion caused by how waves are distorted by matter.

Now, researchers at the University of Toronto, through innovative quantum experiments, say they have demonstrated that "negative time" isn't just a theoretical idea, it exists in a tangible, physical sense, deserving closer scrutiny.

The findings, yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, have attracted both global attention and skepticism.

The researchers emphasize that these perplexing results highlight a peculiar quirk of quantum mechanics rather than a radical shift in our understanding of time.


https://www.voanews.com/a/scientists...s/7909397.html