Faster than light? CERN findings bewilder scientists
By Eryn Brown and Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times
Physicists at the lab near Geneva say they’ve observed subatomic particles moving faster than the speed of light. If confirmed, it would defy Einstein — and upend our understanding of physics.
The globe of the CERN laboratory shines outside Geneva. A team of experimental physicists there says it has recorded neutrinos traveling 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Albert Einstein had the idea. A century of observations have backed it up. It’s one of the cornerstones of physics: Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
But now a team of experimental physicists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN, says that one exotic particle possibly can.
The scientists reached their conclusion after sending streams of tiny, subatomic particles called neutrinos hurtling from an accelerator at CERN outside Geneva to a detector at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, about 450 miles away.
The neutrinos seemed to get there too soon — 60 nanoseconds too soon, give or take — than they should if they’d been traveling at the speed of light.
That slight edge, if it holds up under scrutiny, has enormous implications for our understanding of the laws of nature, physicists said – More here
“Basically, all of special relativity would be wrong,” said Drexel University physics professor Dave Goldberg, referring to Einstein’s 1905 theory establishing that light travels at a constant speed, regardless of how fast an observer is traveling, and that nothing in the universe can go faster than it. – More here
Scientists Use Brain Imaging to Reveal the Movies in Our Mind
Imagine tapping into the mind of a coma patient, or watching one’s own dream on YouTube. With a cutting-edge blend of brain imaging and computer simulation, scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, are bringing these futuristic scenarios within reach.
Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and computational models, UC Berkeley researchers have succeeded in decoding and reconstructing people’s dynamic visual experiences — in this case, watching Hollywood movie trailers. – More here
I think this dream was a result of a hot white girl with long dark hair, blue eyes and another significant feature, living in my neighborhood, and having heard a Van Helsing son a few days ago and then thinking about that movie and the hot vampire girls in it. Did Kate Beckinsale have blue eyes in that movie? And rather than me thinking the girl was romantically approaching me, maybe it was a reflection of the baby’s friendly inquisitiveness that my mind infused into this bat creature, or a cross between that and romance.
I wonder why the changeling girl that tried to get close to me had brown hair, and not dark? And why a bowl cut? And what was with the red lips? I don’t remember thinking about those things recently.
Oh, I just realize something a little while after copying and pasting this story to here, I think the thought about the changeling biting off my head came from watching V, when I saw that blonde clone girl (with blue eyes right?) bite whatever his name was’ neck. Why did they kill that guy? Maybe he got sick of the show, and wanted to go. Didn’t he have blue eyes too? What about his mom?
I could find any article with a title like that while searching for one on the Internet, but perhaps someone can come up with an alternative history based on the world’s history right up to the point before there were any patent or copyright laws, and after reading these articles on why patents and copyrights are more of a hindrance then a help to the world (and I hope won’t copyright it):
He also said on the show, “They weren’t stupid they weren’t dumb there were as smart as us we are today.” But no one among them was smarter then “the average person”? No one among them could have discovered some clever way to cut and lift giant rock? Are we all of “average intelligence” today?
Kevin asked Tsoukalos about Roswell, and poised a nonsensical questions, that if aliens have come from tens of thousands of miles, they must be pretty poor pilots because they crash a lot.” Where is the evidence they crash a lot? Where is the evidence that only a few come and a lot crash out of the few? So it’s a question based on assumptions and misinformation. Tsoukalos then went off on a tangent and said he was happy to talk to Kevin and then started talking about Chariots of the Gods and the Nazca lines and then finally go to Roswell, to say, “I don’t know what happened… I live it to my modern experts and researchers”. So he really can’t learn about something so significant, because he too busy looking at ancient buildings to tell us, “We were too stupid to build those, too weak, not clever enough, aliens had to help us!”
Here are questions for Tsoukalos and his fellow freethinkers to freely think about if they can:
Does no one make any astounding discoveries or are their no prodigies or people who are highly skilled and learned? Do you know anything about Edward Leedskalnin or the ancient Egyptian model plane found in a tomb? Are you aware of books like Forbidden Archeology, which show that mankind rather than being simple and boring as Tsoukalos implies: were primitive and boring and stayed that way till aliens came down to help us them megaliths? Are you aware of the Flood account, not just from the Bible but dozens of surviving tribes from all over the world? Tsoukalos is aware of an ancient plane found in Mexico, or was it South America. He talked about it with Kevin, and Kevin said they didn’t have electricity and didn’t fly and only maybe invented the wheel, but Tsoukalos said that that is what mainstream scientists claimed. Tsoukalos gave evidence that he thought they did make a wheel because they had a game with a hoop and that they should have thought about some other usage for such a circle. By that logic everyone seeing anything round, like the sun, should have made a wheel. That’s a good example of Tsukoloses very shallow, very weak, very arbitrary. It’s the same kind of logic that evolutionists use, “Oh these ancient bones look similar, and the smaller creatures turned into the big ones, and then the big ones got little again because we got hit with an asteroid. Oh wait, new theory: the giant lizards turned into feathered birds. Wait, another new theory: there was crazy evolution of all kinds going on. Let’s watch a Discovery Channel cartoon and Jurassic Park again, it will help take your mind off those stupid fundies and their claims that there is all kinds of easily found evidence to verify the historical records of the Bible, and help brainwash you into thinking we actually have evidence for our theories. We can watch South Park after that and then pass out drunk and spend another five billion dollars on a 10 mile long machine to mash some particles together. Cool right? And those fundies will just waste their lives reading the Bible and trying to control you by hitting your head with it.”
Though Tsoukalos makes his theory to be in and of itself astounding and useful, it falls for short of reality, and reality that is far more amazing then he makes it out to be, so much more, that the Bible says it can’t be imagined till seen.
Tsoukalous said on Coast to Coast AM tonight (25th) that creationists who believed the world is 6,000 years old (it’s actually about 6,500) are wrong about the fossil record, because “why don’t mainstream scientists and geologists in universities (this is literally how this guy talks, in a simpleton’s way of thinking that is) believe this, are they all crazy? I don’t think so.” Yet this is a guy who goes against mainstream scientists AND ARCHEOLOGISTS, INCLUDING BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGISTS (which includes ATHEISTS) and MAINSTREAM GEOLOGISTS every moment with his “ancient aliens theory”! And not long before that, in that same hour, said that his show and website was all about ASKING QUESTIONS, not affirming what is true and what isn’t! What an extreme oblivious hypocrite. And after he said, “ALL WE DO IS ASK QUESTIONS”. This is a confused person who states such and such is true but at the same time uses double speak, by saying nothing can be believed since you have to keep asking questions about the same things he implies. He doesn’t understand the importance of believing what is clearly true, but arbitrarily believes whatever he feels like. This is a truly confused and confusing person. He also, I noted, when referring to GEOLOGISTS, did not say MAINSTREAM and spoke as if there WERE NO SUCH THING AS CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS, OR CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS, THIS GUY IS A BIGOT, A BIGOT DESPITE ALL HIS TALK ABOUT ACCEPTING WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE. Oh and did I mention that after saying we should accept the right of creationists to believe what they want, and “Who am I to say they are wrong” said that their beliefs, in a pretty sly way, was crazy, by saying, “That’s the crazy world we live in”, he said that right after saying we have to accept what they believe. And just minutes before he was done with his interview ended, said, “Nothing is too wild, because we should always leave open the possibility… nothing has been solved. … We should stop to be arrogant (sic), and (accept that nothing has been solved).” LIAR! IF NOTHING HAS BEEN SOLVED WHY DOES HE SAID IT IS CRAZY TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE IS 6,000 YEARS OLD AND THAT MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS CAN BE WRONG?! Why does he conveniently ignore that not all scientists are mainstream scientists when it comes to assessing if Christians are telling the truth or not? Why doesn’t he take into account the obvious: PRIDE AND MONEY?! DID HE NOT JUST SAY BEFORE HIS INTERVIEW ENDED, “STOP THE ARROGANCE (UNJUSTIFIED PRIDE)”?! Don’t all scholars know one of the most basic most influential verses in the Bible: THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!? Horrible!!!!!!!!!
On the “NDEs & Open Lines” September 2, 2011 edition of Coast to Coast AM, after Noory interviewed Kathy Baker, he had open lines and spoke with a Mormon grandmother(?) who told him a detailed story. Her story added to the evidence for my claim that demons pretend to be angels and dead humans to fool people into thinking that the Bible (and the religion of fundamentalist Christians that is based on it) are wrong, in other words that you can get to Heaven without needing forgiveness. She told a story about a 5 year old boy whom she took care of who had a mom he hated. I think it was his grandmother. She said one day he said to her that he wanted to die and to make a long story short missed Jesus and wanted to be with him. And the next day said he could travel through time and space and one day found him in a perfect lotus position, and said that angels taught him how to do that. She said that amazed her because she was a Mormon and thought that only her religion was true. That was a stupid statement because simply sitting in a lotus position doesn’t mean there is more than one true religion, it’s just a way of sitting. It’s ironic too since logically she should have seen it as verification of her religion since unlike traditional Christianity, her false version (Mormonism) teaches we are with Jesus before we are born. But Mormons are stupid when it comes to evidence and logic, so no surprise there. It’s also not surprising she was duped into believing whatever it is those demons bothering the kid wanted them to believe, because the Mormon religion is based on a narcissist named Joseph Smith who supposedly received a revelation/having a vision from an angel or angels (and Joseph Smith kept changing his “first vision” story by the way, despite what most Mormon’s claim) or instead God and Jesus who gave Joseph a new gospel, that being that “none of [the churches] are true.” Gospel means “good news” if you don’t know. Great gospel huh? Instead of, “Good news, Jesus suffered and died for sinners making possible their ability to live in peace forever if they repent,” it’s, “You’re all wrong cuz I had a vision no one else saw, and I’ll not tell you why till nine years have gone by while I make my own more exciting Bible to show why you’re all wrong.” So, from the day the the 5 year old said he wanted to die, he got hit by a car 2 weeks later and died in a car “accident”. I suspect rather it was a demon or demons that caused it, he had been trying ever since he said that to kill the boy and possibly get the grandmother, mom and 16 year old guy who hit him, to all commit suicide.
George also let on an idiot called J.C. I think after the Mormon’s woman was on. J.C. is an annoying fool who has been on more than four times, and each time pretends to be a fundamentalist southern Baptist Christian as best I can tell. George said of him that he “cracks me up”. He decided to let J.C. give his usual rants and to do something “different” this time, and let him speak to other guests. The first caller that comes on at that point is a man who wanted to talk about his dead sister and clearly didn’t want to talk to J.C. So what does George do after J.C. trounces on the other caller? Allowed J.C. to move on to another caller while putting the other caller on hold… How about put J.C. the idiot on hold till that caller got to tell his story? Two other calls also didn’t want to talk to J.C. out of three and George finally got rid of J.C. What a fool. Ironically George had asked J.C. if he believed in ghosts, and J.C. said of course and that they were bad spirits. Interestingly he didn’t say they were demons, but implied that they were dead humans who didn’t qualify to get to Heaven. He also seemed to indicate that he had a conscience without saying it when he pointed out that he would seem like a jerk to people listening when the first caller was someone who wanted to talk about his dead sister, which J.C. didn’t realize when joking with him. A person without a conscience wouldn’t have shown concern. So, I don’t think J.C. was “anti-social”. But, that comment about ghosts not being demons, that is unlike a fundamentalist Christian, since F.C.’s believe ghosts are demons pretending to be humans. On top of his usual poor imitation of them, that comment about ghosts he made is evidence to me that he has little knowledge of F.C.s, even if he used to attend some F.C. church. If he did, he must not have paid much attention. His stereotype is very narrow and seems outdated. For example he was saying that he was rescuing some woman from “rock n’ roll” music, which is something unheard of to me. At best a parent will just try and prevent their kid from listening to it, not try to “rescue” them from it. And not many Christians in my experience are against it. The only ones I knew of who were are the ones who follow the narcissist pseudo-Christian Bill Gothard and “orthodox” Presbyterians, not all of whom are against it, but who just have a problem with the lyrics or it not being a style of music that fits their usual moods, just like most people don’t listen to death metal, because it doesn’t fit their usual moods either.
I noticed that George seemed about to say that the angels the 5 year old had seen, might be demons, but him not being the type to offend, especially since the 5 year old died and the grandmother distraught, didn’t say that, but just, with a contrived tone, pretended they were angels coming to take him away. What was interesting is that when J.C. came on, my perception seemed right, since it seemed he was hinting at what he was actually thinking concerning the previous call, was that those angels were demons, because he asked J.C. what he thought of ghosts. That may seem like a stretch, but the grandmother had just gotten off and might have been listening, and if he said, “What do you think of those angels the five year old saw actually being demons trying to send him to Hell?” might have gotten the grandmother to cry more and upset a large number of listeners.
I wonder if George, who claims to be a Catholic, but who is more like a pseudo-Catholic, ever thinks about this verses in the Bible:
“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” – Paul
“Man shall not live by bread alone, by by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” – Jesus
After writing a grammatical exposition of the controversial passage in Matthew which Catholics claim shows Peter is their Pope, Claudius the Catholic said,
“Now that I have all that grammar out of the way we need to all sit and think about what this all means.”
Sure, now let’s look at your second statement after that one:
“We have the prophecy from Daniel that the Catholic Church fulfills”
So then rather than sticking with that passage you jump thousands of years back to Daniel, well if you can do that I can also refer to other Scriptures on whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church or not. I’m guessing you’re talking about Daniel 2, being that this is the only speech I could find on the net from a Catholic claiming that D2 supported Catholicism,
“It refutes the Protestant and Mormon notion of a “Great Apostasy.” Believers in a Great Apostasy believe that at some point, either Catholicism replaced the True Church, or overran it. Yet Daniel 2′s prophesy says that during the days of the Roman Empire, Christ will set up a Kingdom, and it’ll never “be left to another people.” There’s no room for a New Church or New Kingdom in a post-Roman age (in either sense of “Roman,” there). No need to hypothesize about who the first pope was, or when the Church was formed. Daniel 2 lays the foundation you need, and the New Testament clears up the gray areas.”
The problem with this part of the Catholic’s rant are obvious:
1) The Bible says there will be an apostasy in the New Testament, more than once. So this Catholic like so many others just doesn’t know, forgets or deliberately avoids certain Scripture.
2) He’s forgetting yet another Scripture in which Jesus said that his kingdom should not be awaited, but that it was already here. OBVIOUSLY, there was no Catholic Church at that time, and if Peter was the first pope, he sure wasn’t at that time. So out goes that massive stretch.
3) The Roman Catholic church is not a kingdom. And Revelation does say the Catholic church whores about with them (“seven mountains”, don’t forget).
4) That line about the church not being left to another people as evidence is utterly stupid and infantile and nonsensical: A protestant could easily make that claim as evidence, what does it prove? “Hi, Bible says my church won’t be left to another people, so you Catholics aren’t the true church.” WOW EXCELLENT PROOF! NOT. Really how stupid can you get Catholics? Why not say, “Bible says Jesus is the Christ, that’s means our Christ, so you’re not the real Christians.” Wow, awesome, proved sooo much. Might as well say, “Nanny nanny boo boo we are true not you.”
Yet, if I and other Christians don’t read Catholic arguments like that, we face replies like, “Nanny nanny boo boo I can’t hear you.” (referring to us). But no: we don’t have to endlessly read Catholic claims and defenses, once you read their some of their common replies and claims as to why they are the true Church, whether it has an official stamp of of approval from their Pope or not, and review their TRUE history, whether it has the official seal of approval from their Pope or not, and see the flaws in them, whether their Pope acknowledges them or not, that is enough ignore the Nanny Boo Booers who just want to torment you more for not following them.
What makes the other people claim so ultra stupid, is that it makes no point and the Catholic using it is implying that it’s true just because he says it is (based on his claim that Kingdom = Catholic Church). How is that better than the Mormon babble that he claims is false? Better than their “oh Jesus said he has ‘other sheep’ and ‘other sheep’ is the Indians, bcuz the Book of Mormon said so. Just trust your good heart we’re right, and pray too so you can trust more, and if you don’t trust, well then you must be wrong, because we can see the truth no matter what you say, and truth is our hearts tell us we’re right, and the Book of Mormon too.” Vain, stretched, contrived, absurd, circles.
Moving on, what about Revelation? Why do Catholics keep avoiding that Book? The Catholic Church is CLEARLY being referred to in Revelation, CLEARLY fulfills the prophecy of the whore that rides the beast and the reference to the seven mountains makes it almost plain. No other entity fits that prophecy, despite the repeated fallacy made by Catholics when they refer to Protestants as a single entity, even though they contract themselves by trumping up the divisions between them! You can’t have it both ways Arbitrary Church.
Concerning the grammar? As usual, we only need to refer to other passages of Scripture. Over and over God and Jesus are called the Rock of eternity, and Jesus the foundation. ALL the apostles are referred to as the foundation, not just Peter, and obviously God does not mean bedrock it’s on or whatever is holding the foundation together (obviously that would be God, not Peter or the apostles). And anyone who has studied Protestant arguments on this matter, if they aren’t a newbie, knows the argument that Peter does not nearly contribute as much as Paul did, and it would make more sense to call Paul the foundation of the church. Peter supplemented Paul, not the other way around. So then it’s not unreasonable just based on that fact that Jesus wasn’t calling Peter a cornerstone or secondary foundation and the apostles playing inferior roles. Another Protestant argument is that Jesus pointed to himself, which some Catholics think absurd or unrealistic. BUT IT ISN’T, because Jesus gave a riddle to the Pharisees in which it clearly states he was referring to himself, rather than what they thought he, to them, appeared to LITERALLY mean, and so Catholics are being arbitrary with how they are literally interpreting the “and on this rock” passage. Further, NOTHING in that verse says anything about Peter being a Pope, or that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Any idiot can proclaim, “Peter was our pope, here’s proof: other members of the Catholic Church agree” or “Oh these Christians said so” and NOT bring up the CHARACTER of those people they use as witnesses, something clearly not Biblical to do. You don’t just trust anyone, that is ARBITRARY, it’s “picking and choosing”. It’s evil. And Catholics hate to hear this:
“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
But the arbitrary Catholic defense to that is, “Everybody sins dupe de dupe.” Oh yes, you’re right, “no biggie”, “everyone does it,” “But Dad, Johnny Calvin also put his hands in the cookie jars, so look at him not us, and just keep letting us sin.” And you sure can’t speak of Protestants as a single entity, because as you yourselves say of us, “Oh you Protestants are evil terrible horrible, ur the evil doers!” Because as you yourselves say, “They are divided into so many Churches! They can’t all have the Holy Spirit!” Yes, you’re right, they can’t all, and you are included among the division, or did you forget the Protestants DIVIDED from you? Once again: Arbitrary Arguing. And so, answer your own question, judge for yourselves, if not all can have the Holy Spirit, then who does? Maybe instead of repeatedly looking in the mirror and make vain repetitions to convince yourselves that it’s you who have it, like narcissists, maybe examine the deeds of other churches, maybe consider the true Church doesn’t go by a single name, like a business corporation, some magic name that makes you saved, some magical club name, but that they can be KNOWN BY THEIR FRUITS, their deeds, not “A NAME.”
I’ve read Robert Sungenis’ argument on the “Petra/Petros” argument too, and found his argument nonsensical and contradictory. James White does too: 
And one last thing, the Bible forbids logomachy (arguing over words), which is what you Catholics are doing when you strive over petra and petros, and put into question the trustworthiness of Scripture like Muslims and Mormons do, when you pretend there is another translation that justifies you. “Trust me,” said Joseph Smith, “Put you’re trust in me when I tell you that God chose me and that I speak his will and that these golden plates I translated and am hiding under this cloth really are under this cloth. And look at me, am I not beautiful, loving, and well spoken? And therefore I tell you the Bible has been corrupted and would support me if we had the originals and if those prophets weren’t so sinful and rebellious, unlike me. Trust my revision and divine interpretations of it, or else, you can’t be apart of the true church and you are going to Hell and you will never have the Spirit. Keep my covenants.” “Trust us,” said the Muslims, “Trust that Christianity is wrong because you’re Bible has been altered. It doesn’t preserve God’s word accurately, our Quran is superior, it’s better than the original. The original Bible would have supported what we say if there was a perfect copy. Those Jewish prophets couldn’t be trusted with the pen the Bible says. The real prophets were Muslims, Abraham wasn’t even Jewish.” And like them, you beg the world to believe in your invisible contradictory evidence too. You too are a cult, whose religion centers around mere men, and like Mormons, gods, gods you pretend to merely venerate. Like the Pharisees, the leaders of the Catholics withhold the knowledge of the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and give them false keys instead, your tradition, tradition that negates the word of God.
I’m chosen by grace, not by works, and the faith I have that saved me wasn’t of me, but of God. And remember: God’s will be done, on Earth, AS IT ALWAYS IS, in Heaven.
“If someone is insulted by my using a label that attributes two nice adjectives to myself, to bad. Want insulting? See “I am a member of the one true religion.” (“Jehovah’s Witness”, “Church of Christ” etc.)” (source)
Me: “etc” meaning what? What does “etc” include Darrel? Why would someone who believes they have the absolute truth be “ABSOLUTELY insulting” Darrel? So if someone believes they have the truth they should always qualify it with, “But I could be wrong and you could be the one with the absolute truth, oh Darrel the atheist.” What with your double standards and insanity? So if math teachers say, “10 X 100 = 1000″ they are insulting for stating it as a fact? Or far more complex equations that are flawless?
And in response to Darrel’s, “Considering most people associate it with eating babies, yes, it’s pretty bad.”
Do you know what a strawman is? Who thinks atheists eats babies? How is that not insulting to say to those who disapprove of atheism or think that they are wicked? And hypocrite, they might as well eat babies: forcing abortions on the Chinese, aborting babies every day (that includes atheist Buddhists) WITHOUT ANESTHETIZING THE BABIES, and brutally murdering them.That’s not including the 500 million killed in the past 110 years by atheist leaders and those that went along with their “progress” and “evolution” or the atheists that supported the DDT ban and who continue to spread myths about DDT and all kinds of other lies that rob people of their health, wealth and life.
Don what Christian (not living in desperate poverty or far from a city who lacks an education) has never met an atheist or been informed that there are many of them? Oh the two-year old ones right unfunny, genius joker? Ever heard of the Internet either? Oh yeah no one ever meets an atheist on the Internet… So I shouldn’t think atheists are very dumb (at times), because? Though up until I read that part this post was unusually insightful for one made by an atheist. I found it by typing in that I thought the term freethinker stupid and insulting to Christians.
It’s thoughtless truth-careless hypocritical answers like yours Darrel, one that over looks the gross immorality of atheists over their blooming in the past 110 years, and which is in our faces every day, that many people consider atheists baby-eaters. You’re worse than that: you cut them up mercilessly and trash them or promote taking advantage of them even after that by trying to use their pieces murdered of them for the benefit of sick people psychos like yourselves, who defend all that evil. You are the ones who deserve to be cut up with anesthesia and trashed in Hell forever. Like it or not Darrel, absolute truth doesn’t agree with your lies, and it isn’t a sin to say that you know and understand God and that he loves you and that God doesn’t approve of “whatever” or only Darrel’s absolute truth, only Darrel’s fundamentalist, only what atheists believe is true. Just because atheists are offended, doesn’t mean the ones who offended should change their behavior beliefs or words, or now is “offense” the standard for truth, what offends atheists? Aren’t you blind and arrogant? Who made you God or our gods? How is it you don’t see design anywhere? Since you don’t see the obvious, it’s obvious you will have trouble seeing your own hypocrisy either.
Like many others, I continue thinking about how long it will be before the AntiChrist shows up, because after his 7 year terror, the world will finally, mostly, have peace. The Bible teaches things will get worse in the last days. Though things may have gotten better in that God raised up millions to be saved, and saved them, at the same time it could be said things were getting worse, because the world has been deliberately fighting against whatever true evidence came up for the true religion, and not just that, but in certain ways, became more rebellious. For example, many atheists arose and murdered hundreds of millions, and many people with so called “anti-social” personality disorders have appeared, and because of Satan blinding the minds of the world, instead of a decrease in mental disorders, there is an increase. Anti-social people are like viruses, who, by their actions spread their bad behavior. And as the world gets worse, decent and righteous Christians will get more worn down, more drained of money, and the churches of the fake ones will also fall apart under the strain and be out to save themselves by evil means, and that will like putting fuel on the fire. Crime/lawlessness will get worse and worse, and stuffing people in jail or prison will also make things worse, because it will increase bitterness and put more money into the hands of corrupt police and corruptions officers and the jail owners. And more children will be left without good parenting. I think like computer chips doubling in power every few years, so the wickedness of the world also doubles every few years. At some point, it will get so bad, that the governmental systems of the world will begin disintegrating. Because of that, there will be even more rulers. Because there won’t be enough money for large governments, and because of the mistrust people will have of them, they will want something simpler, kings, dictators or generals. And many will prefer anarchy because of having no more trust in any kind of government authority. During this breakdown, production of technology will slow rapidly, and there will be even more poor. Eventually, bullets and guns will become rare, and knives, swords, spears, staffs and clubs will take their place. The rich of the world will probably be living in glorious high tech cities, and because many of them will be narcissists, they will not try to help the poor outside of their cities, but be happy to ignore them for some supposed good cause. They will either actually believe that their cause is just, like depopulating the world to save it from global warming, or pollution, or babies being born miserable because of poverty, or will instead be deliberately crushing the poor and “common people” for pleasure. The breakdown will also be due to the Bible being ignored, because it is the best book to heed for self-control and progressing. There are no comparable alternatives to the Bible. And once preaching of the Bible becomes rare, the world will have reverted back to the way it was during ancient times, but in a worse way, because many hundreds of millions among the world, will know right from wrong, meaning, the commandments, but will ignore them and do as they please instead. God will also harden the hearts of the Gentiles/world, so that few to none will be saved till he returns. Any young children growing up at this time will probably have very little knowledge of the Bible. And when those children grow up and hear Christians pointing out to them that the AntiChrist has come to power in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, one of them being that evidence for the world leader being the AntiChrist is that his name adds up to make 666, will be laughed at as desperate conspiracy theorists of religion near extinction.
There’s another reason that I think there’s only a few decades left: there exists information regarding how to create energy sources greater than a typical nuclear power plant, greater than the planned fusion reactors, and the ancient knowledge of how to levitate objects. If someone discovers how to levitate objects, meaning neutralize the effect of gravity on them, it would cause a panic of the ruling rich of the world, who would fear that they could be toppled with such knowledge. They would in my opinion try to accelerate the collapse of the world economy and try even harder to vacuum in the wealth around them. The Vatican would be one of those vacuums from Hell. I have more insight into what would happen, but I’ll save that for later.
I finally got done watching the so far last episodes of Stargate Universe and the actors did an excellent job completing the rest of the episodes. It was unfortunate that the claims of cancellation and the really bad episodes in between were coloring how I was watching the last episodes, putting me in error-looking mode, which killed a lot of the enjoyment I think. It was too odd, yet clever how they managed to squeeze in the dead hotties for one more episode, but unsatisfying as to how it was resolved, and the explanation for how the dead scientist in the computer was done away with was an obvious after-thought, poorly executed by a one-liner from Rush. What should have happened was, instead, him doing it for the episode, meaning cutting the dead guy off in that show, rather than, “you missed that significant part, now just watch the rest of the show.”
I think the show ended well though, it was a clear loser, but cleverly ended so that it was like a short story rather than a churn mill for whatever could be dreamed up and rehashed till the audience got burned out on the characters. I thought the other Stargate Series characters were also mostly annoying and shallow, way more shallow now that I think about it that the SGU ones, so, they were superior characters, and the acting was better, even if they were given bad story lines to act out. The time travel part was confusing though, why wasn’t Rush shown getting into the shuttle to escape? And then there was some myteryishness thrown in by making it seem as if Rush might be lying. It was as if the show was being made up without pre-planning or being changed all the sudden, and coming up against a deadline maybe so that they had to skip parts that obviously should have been shown. For now it’s left to the imagination as to how it would have ended, to storybook writers and someone willing to come up with the money to finish it off. I think it would be worth the investment for a spectacular third series, carefully planned so that logical errors and oversights are eliminated. I just hope there is no more evolution garbage thrown in, like was done in the V remake, which came out nonsensically and was evidence as to how poorly people understand the evolution propaganda they listen to. And please, no more ascended masters garbage if a season three is made. Oh: that city made by the family of the crew was awesome. If only there really were such a city on Earth as that, now that would be a place to live.