Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Courtney Brown: Multiple Universes

  1. #1
    Tony Guest

    Default Courtney Brown: Multiple Universes

    Courtney postulates that data obtained when the target is sandwiched in a time stream between the viewing and the tasking supports the Multiple Universe theory.

    Assume a viewer "Steve" is told to do a session in February and completes it. Later in April a tasker selects a target consisting of an event which took place in March. Suppose the tasker selects an incident during which Steve, playing volley ball, breaks his arm.

    Now if Steve is successful in gathering enough congruent data to determine that it is he the target is describing and decides to lay off volley ball in March, then how is this paradox resolved? The event surely happened in our time stream. Is Steve fated to miss the target or not realize it is him? Or does he go on to play and injure himself?

    This dichotomy seems to indicate that Courtney's placement of the target doesn't eliminate probable realities in a time stream even when the tasking occurs after the target event. Although it may lend further support to Everett's Multiple Universes theory.

  2. #2

    Default

    I think that we can only identify the most probable reality. As the event gets closer you should view it again in my opinion. As the day gets closer, Steve himself could do some small thing that would change the reality you viewed two weeks ago. Maybe he buys some new sneakers or something that prevents him from falling and etc.

  3. #3
    Tony Guest

    Default Courtney Brown: Multiple Universes

    But the incident definitely occurs on a date certain in March. It has been documented or else the tasker would not have selected it in April. In fact he may have been a witness to the event.

    If Steve is able to change the reality, then the incident and all the attendant circumstances would have to disappear, eg. ambulance , hospital records etc. etc.and Steve would have created a parallel time line. This is what it seems Dr. Brown wants to avoid in this design.

    Further if we could change an event that has already occurred with knowledge gained by remote viewing prior to its happening, then all kinds of bad things could be avoided -- accidents, terrorist attacks.

    And if an event is changed then the tasker would not have selected it and it would not have been remote viewed in the newly created reality. Paradoxical.

  4. Default Aloha Tony...

    Aloha Tony,

    You ask a very interesting and relevant question. I believe that the paradox will minimize and not disturb the continuity of the environment/Universe in which the events unfold. It is only an issue of time really as we for some reason think a parallel of time requires another Universe. Déjà Vu could be a parallel of time that presents the solution to such a paradox. The reverse of déjà vu would be a sense of two outcomes after only one outcome resolved. The memory of the other event would present a temporal conflict which would resolve upon recognition of the reality that emerged. It would be important to note that this would only be experienced during and after the event while déjà vu would be before and during the event.

    Just because a possible outcome does not resolve is no reason to believe that it didn’t happen. I believe the riddle is one of time, and not Universes.

    Glenn

  5. #5
    Tony Guest

    Default

    Aloha Glenn,

    In a practical sense what would happen if the launch of the Delta ll rocket targeted by Lyn Buchanan failed for a reason detectable by a viewer and this viewer resolves to pass on the nature of the failure to the techs who have the ability to correct the malfunctioning unit. Or in your tornado target, given sufficient data is obtained by viewers, could warnings be given to the town which would minimize the damage.

    To generalize, can information from future to past be used to impact the future.(sounds like a positive feedback loop).


    Tony

  6. Default Aloha Tony...

    Aloha Tony,

    When we think of the future or the past or present we seldom take a perspective that is non-relative. We consider that time is a sequence along a continuity that leans forward and we look back and forward from our perspective in the evolving present. In reality time is a dimension and while it may be vectored to flow forward there are a few considerations. If time only flows forward as a complete dimension then there must be a single point from which it flows. Somewhere in this Universe is a time kernel spinning or throwing off the flow of time. If our Universe is merely bathed in time from a source outside the Universe then it is more of a broadcast that we cannot escape and do not possess the technology to shield against.

    We do know that gravity and mass can distort time and that gives us our first reassuring clue that it is more than likely a component of the fabric of our Universe and not an outside influence. Thinking about time as a dimension in our Universe we still must confront the forward arrow of its orientation. We have never been able to see the smallest possible increment of time so we believe it to be infinite. If we could see it then we could devise a means to slow it down, or reverse it at least locally. There are conditions in which we can see certain time reversals and these are different than turning the clock back.

    These small reversals are fleeting and seem to be associated with waves and very low frequencies. These are more than likely reflections from some quantum skirt near the plasma of “mass” and “no mass”. The point of interest is that given certain conditions data in waves can flip for brief periods of time and run against times flow. RF Wizards consider them anomalies and design special circuitry to avoid them all the while ignoring the bigger secret. We see conditions in our Universe where time is different in relation to points of observation. Some places time flows faster and some places time is slower.

    So time is really relative to where you are. So there is an infinity scale of time which must include “No Time” and “backwards time”. If you were to offset your observational perspective of time then you create a parallel of time if only for those few moments of time. Yesterday is in a different place or location than the now of our place in forward time. While we cannot map it and see the logical pathway to yesterday, we can travel there via consciousness and in those brief moments we are in two locations with different timelines. It is only parallel because we observe it so and the nature of the Universe is to leave past time in its wake and push forward. The future is a bit different and when we think forward we must exit to a different observational point and then ask the question “has the future already happened”? If it has already really “All” happened then parallels of future time are possible. If it hasn’t “All” already happened then it is something entirely different.

    If in the global state of Universal Time the future is still a soup yet to solidify then it becomes more of a selection of possible timelines and not true parallels. Time is linked not only to mass and space but to observation and in this case we are observing without the weight of the mass or space. We have only launched a few waves forward and what we see are potentials of the possible state of mass and space. It is a mirage of sorts, a mélange of spatial trigonometry. The pool player makes the bank shot because he knows the angles of the table. When we look forward “our Angle of look” may just create the future reality. I think Courtney is trying to prove just that.

    It is possible I believe to change potentials by observing them, so if a viewer perceived a future event then he or she has already changed it to a degree. It could be the smallest of things that change that rewrites the code for the future. If no one did anything the future would still come, it would still evolve upon us and become a past as we continue to push forward. That timeline is the template the Universe lays out before us. It is a road of premise and not precision, a road to travel but not one that must be traveled. It is possible that just a very few thinking forward will create the reality we must all face. I am reminded of Dick’s recent presentation at the Irva conference where he stated his preference to be the puppeteer and not the puppet and I must agree with him. There is a future for us and it contains many things we may prefer to avoid. If we get our minds right I believe we can.

    Glenn

  7. #7

    Default Katrina

    Just think if we could have remote viewed Katrina. How many things could they have done besides repairing the levy.

    Beyond all the obvious humane activities that could have been accomplished, what about business. Didn't Katrina wipe out an oil refinery? That could definitely been hardened up and gas wouldn't have gone sky high.

    What about speculation on the stock market. You can't move New Orleans and you can't stop the hurricane. I think in the future this is where private industry will want to work with remote viewers. At the very least, they can try to protect their own investments.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn B. Wheaton View Post
    Aloha Tony,

    I am reminded of Dick’s recent presentation at the Irva conference where he stated his preference to be the puppeteer and not the puppet and I must agree with him.

    Glenn
    I would say that it really depends on who is pulling the strings.

  9. #9
    Tony Guest

    Default

    Thanks Glenn.

    There is a film which deals with changing the past from the future and the creation of several time lines. The technical advisor was Brian Greene, theoretical physicist and string theorist. The film is "Frequency" and stars Dennis Quaid as a New Yawk fireman and James Caviezel as his son.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_(film)

  10. Default Aloha Michele...

    I think in this case pulling the strings is very appropriate. I am thinking of how information passes between particles that are entangled. I think how to pull the strings is what we have been trying in the recent efforts to place a message in the past.

    Glenn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •