Lucid
My guess a bubble in a bubble bath....
a drop in the ocean
an individuated part of the whole

OKOK- the universe is expanding at a rapid rate- it is alive
so there muct be more bubbles that are being created in the
lightyear now
Some inhabited

Funny but I always knew there were others (no, no abductions here)
Mostly it just stands to reason...common sense

Also I knew early on that God would never leave 3/4 of the world out
just because they saw Jesus as a teacher (Buddha, Krishna etc) mentor
and was, blessed be, self realized by 33- only to be killed by the
state.

Here's one for the group that I have been coagitating on- as Curtis
recalls in his writings he knows he's had a few twists and turns in
his life already...in other words he's changed things...and can
remember it

Lately for me- well I'll give you an example...I housesit...I am
watching a favorite doggy friend of mine (black great dane) it's
been 4 days since I've been home and I swear ti seems like the other
life doesn't exist. Like I've passed thru some wormhold of
existence into this life...

before that I have been moving once a year for 3 years- and It's
like some part of me falls away with each successive move- before
that the least time I'd been anywhere was 5years and before that 10
years- nNow its all swirling around me like none of it ever existed?

I think this may have something to do withliving in the moment.

9th
(the rude one)


> Interesting article from msnbc.com
>
> Robert
>
> MSN Tracking Image
> MSNBC.com
>
> Time-travel physics: Stranger than fiction
> Physicists say future tests could tell whether we can change the
past
> By Alan Boyle
> Science editor
> Updated: 3:18 a.m. ET Nov 21, 2006
>
> That time-honored standby of science fiction — traveling back in
> time — has come back into fashion in Hollywood, on the big screen
> ("Deja Vu," premiering Wednesday) as well as the small screen
("Day
> Break," which made its debut last Wednesday on ABC).
>
> The plot twists have their parallels in classics as old as H.G.
> Wells' "The Time Machine" (1895) and as recent as Bill Murray
> in "Groundhog Day" (1993). But is there really anything new under
the
> sun in time travel lore, or are we caught in an infinite time loop?
>
> Despite years of debate, scientists still haven't completely ruled
> out the possibility of going back in time. "Many physicists have a
> gut feeling that time travel to the past is not possible," said
> Columbia University theoretical physicist Brian Greene. "But many
of
> us, including me, are impressed that nobody's been able to prove
> that."
>
> Over the next few years, some experiments hold out a chance of
> finally being able to show whether or not time can move backward
as
> well as forward. Theoretically, at least, it might be possible for
> the future to influence the past, said John Cramer, a physicist at
> the University of Washington. He and his colleagues plan to try
just
> such an experiment next year.
>
> Cramer acknowledged that the concept of retro-causality doesn't
seem
> to make sense, "but I don't understand why not."
>
> Both Greene and Cramer know the science as well as the fiction
side
> of the time-travel issue: Greene is the author of "The Elegant
> Universe," a best-selling book on string theory — but he also
played
> a cameo role in "Frequency," a time-travel movie released in 2000,
> and served as a scientific consultant for "Deja Vu."
>
> "It was a kick to be in the room with [producer] Jerry Bruckheimer
> and [director] Tony Scott and the writers, talking about special
> relativity and general relativity and wormholes," he told
MSNBC.com.
>
> Cramer, meanwhile, has done research into ultra-relavistic heavy-
ion
> physics at CERN and Brookhaven National Laboratory — but he's also
> written two science-fiction novels and pens a regular column for
> Analog magazine called "The Alternate View." If his experiments
show
> that retro-causality is a reality — that one event can determine
the
> outcome of another event taking place 50 microseconds earlier — it
> could lend support to the ultimate alternate view of quantum
physics.
>
> "It opens the door to doing all kinds of really bizarre things,"
he
> said.
>
> It's all relative?
> Over the past 100 years or so, physicists have come to understand
> that time travel is all relative: In a sense, we're all traveling
> through time, and depending on your reference frame, some would
seem
> to be doing it more quickly than others. For example, astronauts
> returning from a space station mission might find that their
watches
> were a few nanoseconds behind earthly timepieces, thanks to
> relativity.
>
> But most time-travel plots involve more than just slowing down or
> speeding up the forward pace of time. What we're talking about
here
> is reversing time's flow, and perhaps influencing the stream of
> causality to follow another course: one in which, say, Hitler died
in
> childhood, or 9/11 never happened, or Britney Spears stayed
happily
> married.
>
> If you assume that such reversals are possible, Greene said
physics
> would allow for two possibilities:
> # Nature would conspire against changing causality, something
> Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking has called the "chronology
> protection conjecture": For example, if you tried to shoot your
> father before you were born, somehow the gun would fail to go off.
> # Causality can be changed, sending the universe down different
forks
> in the road. You could go back and shoot your father, creating a
> universe where you were never born. But it wouldn't be the same
> universe you came from. You'd just be an alien visitor from a
> different reality, living out a scenario that's called the "many-
> worlds interpretation."
>
> Without giving away the plot, Greene said that the writers of
> the "Deja Vu" movie "took a very creative approach. ... They
> said, 'This is an open issue. Let's allow both of these
possibilities
> to have a little bit of play.'"
>
> Reality checks are in the works
> Sometime next year, Cramer is hoping to nail down one of those
> possibilities — or at least find out why those possibilities are
> actually impossible.
>
> The experiment he's devised to test for backward causality plays
off
> the idea that the states of two photons can become "entangled":
Even
> if the photons are separated by great distances, what happens to
one
> photon is reflected by the other one.
>
> Einstein called this behavior "spooky action at a distance," and
held
> it up as evidence that quantum physics was wrong. However, in
recent
> years physicists have shown that quantum entanglement is indeed an
> actual phenomenon.
>
> Cramer and his colleagues propose using a special lithium iodate
> crystal to create two streams of photons. First they would conduct
> what Cramer called "a rather simple tabletop experiment" to
> demonstrate quantum entanglement with a two-slit screen and two
> detectors, much as other researchers have done already.
>
> If they're successful with the first experiment, they would try a
> more elaborate demonstration: One stream would be sent directly
> through the screen to a detector — while the other would be split
by
> the slits, then take a detour through two 6-mile (10-kilometer)
> lengths of optical cable before reaching a second detector.
>
> The researchers would adjust the position of the second detector
to
> find the spot where the stream changes from a fuzzy diffraction
> pattern to a more defined, wavy interference pattern.
Theoretically,
> because the streams contain entangled photons, the first detector
> should register the same changes 50 microseconds earlier.
>
> Cramer said some unanticipated factor could spoil the experiment
he's
> planned out. "It's fairly likely that we've missed something
> someplace that is going to prevent this kind of measurement from
> being possible," he told MSNBC.com.
>
> But if the entangled photons act as theory dictates, that opens
the
> door to the kind of paradoxes usually found in time-travel
> fiction. "What happens if you receive the signal that's supposed
to
> be sent 50 microseconds later, and you decide not to send it?" he
> asked.
>
> In the end, Cramer might find new twists in quantum theory that
make
> retro-causality impossible. "You can't have inconsistent time
loops,"
> he said. "It's called a bilking paradox. ... The general consensus
is
> that nature refuses to be bilked."
>
> But sometimes nature turns out to be stranger than fiction.
>
> More fuel for fiction
> Over the past few years, advances in quantum theory and string
theory
> have provided plenty of additional fuel for science-fiction
> speculations. One emerging view holds that time as well as the
three
> spatial dimensions we perceive are all embedded in a higher-
> dimensional space. If this is so, the universe next door could be
on
> another "brane" just a fraction of an inch away — but in the
> direction of another dimension we can't sense directly.
>
> Greene says physicists are just beginning to work out the larger
> implications of brane theory.
>
> "None of it has been parlayed into any stunning revelations about
> time quite yet," he said. "I think that's the next revolution."
>
> Greene is looking forward to results from Europe's Large Hadron
> Collider, due to begin operation in 2007, as well as data from the
> Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Planck satellite,
which
> are studying the afterglow from the universe's first moments of
> existence.
>
> Such observations were unlikely to provide direct evidence whether
or
> not time can flow backward as well as forward. However, if they
point
> to the existence of new classes of supersymmetric subatomic
> particles, or extra dimensions, that would tell physicists that
the
> workings of time — and the universe itself — are more mysterious
than
> scientists thought.
>
> "What they would do more directly is allow us to understand these
> questions about the origin of the universe," Greene said. "Did
time
> begin with what we consider to be the universe? Or is our universe
> just one bubble in this big bubble bath?"
>
> An earlier version of this report listed the incorrect network
> for "Day Break."
> © 2006 MSNBC Interactive
>
> URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817394/
> © 2006 MSNBC.com
>