Number study.

God knows himself as he is, unlimitedly, including what is hidden from us. We experience him always within limits and partially. We use names because lexical strings can be used easily to invoke something far greater or even indescribably great (the map is not the territory). This means that the unity of God as he experiences himself is mediated to us by a diversity of names and of simultaneous experiences.

Trinitarian creeds express a definitional core for this unity and diversity, and should be upheld fully; yet, because often charged with contradiction or incompleteness, they can be and are supplemented with unofficial helpful explanations. They are not insufficient, but we can amplify them by resorting to additional Scriptural background. When we seek this resolution we find that God uses numbers in many more ways than Trinitarians.

1> "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6:4). Most have no problem with "Yahweh is our God is Yahweh is Unity". But he is no monad or concrete block; he displays diversity, and most unitarians recognize this backhandedly. We focus on diversity thoroughly, but must begin by affirming all is core unity.

2> "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me" (John 8:17-18). Before we talk threeness we must admit the Lord uses the concept "two" about himself and not directly "three". The Son is himself the "One" (the Unity) in the same way the Father is Unity; but he is "not alone" because he does what the Father does. So here Scripture assigns names to the one (Yahweh) that are given the concept two (Unity and Father). Ancient of Days interacts with Son of Man, without always mentioning the Spirit that flows between them. However, logically, a duo always implies a relationship, and that relationship can be counted as a third; thus this picture gravitates back to trinitarianism without fully recognizing it.

Each number has special meaning that is both implicit and traditional; all creations of God reflect his nature. Expressions of twoness include male-female, right-left, heaven-earth, human-divine, but all show a complementary unity that reflects the unity of Father and Son.

3> "Every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses" (Matt. 18:16). As anti-Trinitarians note, God never uses the words "person", "trinity", or "three" with respect to himself, unless the indirect association of this verse with John 8 is admitted. There are many triads, starting with Matthew 28:19 (Father, Son, Spirit) and always answerable to that formulation, but the word "three" is missing. The conclusions are of course sound that Father is God, Son is God, Spirit is God, and these are distinct; but we do best to talk about God the way Scripture talks about him when our secondary formulations are challenged for insufficiency.

An important point in these Scriptures, and Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, is the "fuzzy math". "Two or three", like "six or seven", is an idiom for an inexactly counted number. Sometimes God wants an inexact metaphor so we recognize math is not complete either. As we go on, more reasons for fuzziness appear.

Here patterns include body-soul-spirit, past-present-future, length-breadth-height, sky-land-sea, father-mother-child, thesis-antithesis-synthesis: among some pairs there is a tertium quid that comes naturally. We observe philosophically that the mind naturally turns pairs to triads but does not so easily turn triads to quartets; why? I can only say it makes sense because the increased relationship of a fourth to all three priors (e.g. tetrahedron) is not so easily envisioned as pairing off all four more distantly (e.g. square). A Catholic illustration places the four words Father, Son, Spirit, God in a tetrahedron rather than a square, because the joins to the word "God" are intended to emphasize the relationship of "is", while the joins among the three vertices are intended to emphasize the relationship of "is not". While this is accurate in itself and reinforces the creeds and Scriptures, it invites the question of why "God" is not a fourth in the Trinity. The answer is that "God" is a title that is typically presented in unity, or (as "Elohim") in indefinite diversity, and is not often presented as only one in a plural transaction. When that does happen (as in the creedal "God of God, Very God of Very God"), all in the transaction share one Deity.

But God does associate himself with larger numbers as well; and it's possible to see his diversity in these ways as well, without losing anything else we have gleaned from Scripture or creed.

4> "A stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal. And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures" (Ezekiel 1:4-5). The greatest description of the appearance of the enthroned, joined with several other testimonies, gives him four constant attendants that constantly exude fourness, even as they chant the threefold "Holy" (Is. 6).

Man loves God with heart, soul, and might (Deut. 6:5, Mark 12:30), corresponding to heart-soul-body; but this is sometimes shortened to two, heart-soul, and Luke thought it necessary to translate "soul" with two words meaning soul and mind (Luke 10:27), making man fourfold with heart, soul, strength, and mind. I don't think this teaches man has four discrete levels, but I do think that the soul level has observable subdivisions. Similarly, I don't think the four living beings are God himself, but I do not know that I can simply prove the contrary directly from Scripture. I note that the translation "creatures" is incorrect, because in both Hebrew and Greek the word means "living ones", "lives", and I note these beings are frequently referred to. As righteous sentient expressions they always speak for God rightly and are inseparable from him. The easiest fast conclusion is that they are like his robe or his throne, completely possessed by his will, but separable in the mind from the form that the person of the Ancient of Days takes. We would be wise to follow Ezekiel, who saw a vision that drove others mad, and multiply words for caution's sake, saying, "Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD." Glory has likeness, and likeness has its own appearance, all for the sake of revealing one God showing himself and communicating within himself.

There is enough material on fours in Scripture that all relate to these living ones that it could occupy an entire book, from the four Rivers of Eden to the four Horsemen of Apocalypse. Details are left for now as an exercise.

7> "Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness" (Rev. 1:4-5). Skipping over the more distant relationships of five and six, we come to this very explicit passage very often ignored. Some solid testimonies to it still appear, such as the original lyrics to Be Thou My Vision. We are not going the way of the false teaching "There's nine of them!" by calculating God as being 3x3 or 1+7+1, but we are going to explicate a passage that needs it in order to prevent others from doing so. This is still God expressing himself in the nominal triad of I Am, Spirit(s), and Jesus, but now, instead of focusing on the unity of the Father or the God-Man dual nature of the Son, we are given a heptad of Spirits. Isn't there one Spirit?

Yes, there is, like there is still one wind when seven hurricanes appear, and there are still "seven Seas" when we call them all "the Sea". Because the Spirit manifests as an uncountable (wind, water, fire), we can sometimes count occurrences of Him, as we will see below. What John saw was a heavenly menorah of seven branches that was the pattern for Moses's construction (and also for the seven lampstands of Revelation 1, a separate vision), and he intuited that the seven flames he saw were the one Spirit, but that he was to describe them as the seven Spirits (flames) to allow us to make that connection. The point for now is that the Christian God of the Scriptures and creeds does not deign to call himself directly three, but does repeat that his Spirit can be called seven. But like the ten fingers of Jesus, what we see always operates in unity.

Seven may be associated with perfection because of its unique place among the primes as a just-comprehensible but ever-ineffable collection of units. Its association with God throughout Scripture is well-known and needs no advertisement. I will emphasize one heptad that includes the Trinity yet shows God's greater diversity without admitting new "Persons" thereto. It is the seven unities of Eph. 4:4-6: Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, Faith, Baptism, Father-God.

10> "He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (Exodus 34:28). The one time God speaks from heaven to all men he gives (literally) "ten words", which can be pictured as the one Word dividing himself up into ten expressions. Being the count of fingers or toes (important in Daniel's and John's prophecies of the end), "ten" is often inexact in Scriptural colloquialism. It was used just as we use "dozen" roughly today, and in fact "ten or twelve" is often a range of fuzziness and a good paraphrase of Scriptures that mention e.g. "ten days", "ten times".

But here we have the ten words enumerated that are God's expression of himself (see our sidebar); five about "the LORD your God", and five about man, namely what "you shall not". Tens have several unappreciated tie-ins. God first expressed himself in a Creation account including the phrase "God said" ten times: he created Light, Space, Land, Plants, Lights, Swarms, Beasts, Man, Dominion, Gifts. This corresponds to M-theory in physics, in which the best mathematical description of the universe has ten dimensions (one time, three space, and six spatial but basically inaccessible due to size). Interestingly, just as some isomorphic versions of the theory use 11 dimensions for math purposes even though the 11th is unpopulated, so too does Genesis 1 contain an 11th instruction differently introduced, God's blessing on the animals. In creating the mouth, the Lord made it capable of ten to twelve different vowels (all languages are conformable to this structure): Hebrew uses nine vowel symbols but they have ten or eleven sounds depending on system. (I like to count the basic phonetic alphabet as 12 vowels and 30 consonants, but again due to fuzziness this can all be counted under tens.)

In 384 AD, Jerome passed on a tradition (Letter 25, to Marcella) that the Lord has ten basic Hebrew names. An accurate Latin transcription is: El, Eloim, Eloe, Sabaoth, Elion, Eser-Ieje, Adonai, Ia, Jod-He-Vav-He, Saddai. My modern transliteration would be: El, Elohim, Elohe, Zevaoth, Elyon, Ehyeh, Adonai, Yah, Yahweh, Shaddai; these can be translated: Deity, Godhead, God, Power, Greatest, Existent, Lord, Self, Self-Existent, Sufficient. This tradition is widely reported and the list varies; I've also seen Chai (Life), Daath (Judgment), Gibbor (Strength), and Melekh (King) as base names added to this tradition. One reliable source is Hebrew4Christians by John Parsons, who groups nine of these together and lists other names. Another tradition comes from Pseudo-Dionysius (6th century), who finds ten types of angels in Scripture: Seraph, Cherub, Throne, Dominion, Virtue, Power, Principality, Archangel, Angel, Guardian (the last two may be joined, leaving nine). In each of these cases, as with those of other numbers, believers are seeking to categorize God's revelation in new systematic ways, and to recognize God's rulership through various names, whether they refer to his direct revelation of himself or his general revelation through creatures. We take caution never to idolize a system or a referent, but always to seek the one God who reveals himself in the systems.

13> "[1] The LORD, [2] the LORD, [3] a God [4] merciful [5] and gracious, [6] slow to anger, [7] and abounding in steadfast love [8] and faithfulness, [9] keeping steadfast love for thousands, [10] forgiving iniquity [11] and transgression [12] and sin, [13] but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation" (Ex. 34:6-7). Like the Ten Words, the 13 Names were given on Mount Sinai. The count is traditional and follows Hebrew rules, even if counterintuitive to us. Each is a characteristic of God that interacts with the others, even the two occurrences of the same name Yahweh, and the extended description of his justice. We shouldn't neglect that Moses wrote this as the sublime revelation of God's name, and that later analysis is intended to stimulate our thought, not to analyze God to death, or to substitute some tight attribute set and worship our or another's understanding of it instead.

72> "[19] Then the angel of God who was going before the host of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them, [20] coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. And there was the cloud and the darkness. And it lit up the night without one coming near the other all night. [21] Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided" (Ex. 14:19-21). While mentioning diverse names of God, it's important to properly understand this passage's relationship too. As a student of wordplay I can explain that scribes noticed this climactic demonstration of the Angel of the Lord's power as being written in three verses of exactly 72 letters each, taken as forming a rectangular crossword. The 72 three-letter strings formed were taken as secret names (a few are real Hebrew words, but any Hebrew triliteral can be given meaning). This requires caution because it invents new words and risks missing the forest for the trees (existing revelation); but if we name the true God afresh with designations that reflect his own names and uphold revealed truth, that is not sin in itself.

120> "The company of persons was in all about 120 .... Divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one" (Acts 1:15, 2:3). Finally the One Spirit accommodates 120 or any number of believers. It is my hope that worshipping him, the Unity in all Diversity, can be heightened by recognizing the Scriptures, creeds, and traditions in their fullness.

Being asked to look up one hoax about Jews reveals many more. A long outlier pattern of circulating false stories about Jews with racial implications, when demonstrations of their falsity create sympathy for the Jews by contrast, suggests that two paths are taken by opponents of truth: circulating a bald lie about a perceived enemy, and circulating a bald lie that one's enemy circulates bald lies. Simple dedication to truth defeats both enemies undifferentiated. Consider this theme, reviewing evidence just from Scored presentations I looked into and always found needed debunking.

1. Bible misquotes: Too many to review here. Bible speaks for itself and is appealed to when someone doesn't take it in its intended grammaticohistorical sense. This category is mentioned first simply because frequent narratives flatly say the Bible says in context what it doesn't say. Most notably, it says the synagogue of satan is not composed of Jews, but is quoted as if saying the opposite. Nor does it apply negative titles to the Jews as a whole, but applies a number of positive titles to them.

2. Talmud misquotes: Too many to review here. Nicholas Donin converted from Judaism to Catholicism in the 13th century and got the ball rolling, exposing Christianity to Talmud without benefit of understanding the context. This led to continuing notion of blasphemous Talmud (e.g., it does contain one dirty joke using a nickname that might apply to Jesus, which was misquoted here 50+ times). Peak in 19th-century Germany: several authors attempted to quote Jewish sources as despicable, when quotations themselves were so poorly translated and sourced they are often unrecognizable to Jews. This telephone game continues today. One misquote kept getting rephrased to sound more evil about "power over" "blood", except its ultimate origin was merely the Christian-accepted verse Ps. 105:44!

3. Foreknowledge of 6 million deaths: Renegade Tribune: "Ancient Jewish prophecy had promised the Jews their return to the Promised Land after a loss of 6 million of their people. According to the book Breaking the Spell by Nicholas Kollerstrom, publications and speakers had referred to the death or persecution of 6 million Jews on at least 166 occasions before the end of World War II." That claim is false. The first sentence is sourced from Benjamin Blech, The Secret of Hebrew Words; what Blech actually says is that "tashuvu" (the last "ye shall return" in Lev. 25:10) is a variant lacking a central waw. After 1948 it was noticed that the gematria for this word, 708, corresponds currently to 1947-1948, and that the missing waw, 6, to a missing 6 million. This is not a prophecy that promised anything, this is a mathematical synchrony found after the fact that is not specific enough to give the detail stated in advance to anyone. Secondly, cherry-picking of text searches prior to 1945 for "six million" and "Jews" together cannot indicate foreknowledge of Holocaust death toll. "Six million" was arbitrarily selected whether it meant: estimate of Bar Kochba deaths; total world Jewish population; Russian Jewish population; Russian Jewish family count; European Jewish population; Jewish population represented at a global conference; or dollar size of a Jewish fund (yes, reference to the Jews in proximity with six million dollars was included as proof of foreknowledge). Germar Rudolf in intro to Don Heddesheimer's First Holocaust gives actual results of searches for millions of Jews from 1 to 7: "three million" is the most common number cited, despite Rudolf backpedaling by treating the data differently even though the generic nature of the data remains constant.

4. Star of Remphan: Many sources propose "star of Remphan" is a hexagram or star of David. That claim is false. There were no hexagrams for another 250 years in that region after the term "star of Remphan" was reported, but those words translate a text from Amos 750 years earlier that calls it the star of gods like Chiun (Saturn). So Remphan simply means Rephaim (Titans, sons of Saturn); the star in question, given Amos's context, is most likely the spirit associated with the bronze serpent Nehushtan that had become an idol. So the "star of David" cannot be called the unique star of Remphan. However because of recent association it may be considered one of many stars of Remphan of varying historical quality, including T-and-O symbol, pentagram, uroboros, tinseled trees, and most notably the poled snake incorporated in logos and in the modern dollar sign.

5. 1,030 Jewish expulsions: An anon called 'Lord Molyneaux' (including the apostrophes) published the samizdat The Complete List of the One Thousand and Thirty Jewish Expulsions in Human History. Misleading claim, perhaps intentionally so, because after this bold analytical title he immediately backpedals in the first expulsion, "This first entry may in fact need to be omitted due to the fact that it is largely mythological." I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't 1,030 after all. #2 and #3 are the same captivity, the partial and the full wave in Assyria; #5 under Haman wasn't carried out at all and wasn't because of Jewish criminality. If we compared this to expulsions of Roma people or Christians, or the national curses of Amos 1-2, there'd be nothing special about the list. It also has several severe methodology problems. The author engaged many hours of research in a poorly conceived project that led to an excessively ineffective data set. On many pages the same action in ten cities described by one source was counted as ten expulsions (other actions in many cities were counted as single expulsions for lack of lists). The author must not have liked the Holocaust, because he felt he had to include it but said nothing more about it than the generic "Jewish expulsion" description he used a hundred times. The work sure doesn't lead to the conclusion that racism is right, that the Jews have been justly judged en masse by a competent formal authority, or that these selective windows in history prove a conclusion beyond the Jews getting in trouble a whole lot with no control comparison.

6. Edom is Jewry: "Esau-Edom is modern Jewry" is said to be found in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5, p. 41. That claim is false. The image of this page is public and does not contain this text. The closest to the alleged quote is the historically accurate statement, "The Edomites ... by John Hyrcanus ... were then incorporated with the Jewish nation," far different from that claimed. It appears that the version above is a corruption of vol. 5, p. 208, which says, "'Esau' (=Edom) later represents Rome." I saw intermediate links suggesting that this short form evolved into the form allegedly quoted, via the unproven idea that Rome is controlled by modern Jewry; and this original stylizing explains the oddity of phrasing when punctuation is simplified.

7. Baruch Levy: La Revue de Paris (June 1, 1928) stated it had obtained an 1879 letter to Karl Marx from "Baruch Levy", a "Neo-Messianist" who was quoted as saying that the Jewish people would attain world dominion by a detailed plan. That claim is unsupported. No other evidence indicates that such a one ever existed; article is completely consistent with fabrication of an identity to propagate an idealistic narrative. Sure, satan does plan to attain world dominion through whomever he can use of any race, and that plan is carried out along the same lines as the alleged letter, but that is not related to race but to satan's career as Biblically described; so, no, the system is not intrinsic to a particular people.

8. Rabbi Reichorn: A quote from "Rabbi Reichorn" at a funeral of "Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah", allegedly 1869, states, "We have forced the Christians into wars without number." That is a fiction. Interesting tracking, but it ultimately arises from Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (pen name John Retcliffe), 1868. Goedsche novelizes the idea of Jewish representatives meeting secretly in the Prague cemetery in 1860. The text appears in The Jew in the Modern World, 1995, and includes the reference to the tomb of "Grand ... rabbi Simeon ben Jehuda" and the concept, "how to turn to the advantage of our cause the great errors and sins which our enemies the Christians never cease to commit." This was echoed and modified by French periodicals Le Contemporain (1880) and then La Vieille France (1920-1921) until it reached the "Reichorn" form. (Some versions say Emanuel Reichhorn was chief rabbi of France, which is also untrue.) So, no, this claim arises from an exaggerated fiction, though the satanic plans are relatively accurately stated.

9. Schneersohn in Slavyanin: A long article (meme-quoted), apparently from the obscure Russian "newspaper" Slavyanin in 2001 but not citable until a 2014 blog, has Rabbi Schneersohn saying Khazaria is Israel in 1994. This appears a minor tabloid found running "anti-Semitist" articles generally with little evidence of its existence online. The meme matches the 2014 translation except for minor grammar; it appears to cite uncritically publishers with no journalistic duty to accurately quote the dead. It says it quotes a letter published 2001, though Schneersohn died in 1994, indicating the problem. Further digging shows Schneersohn was unable to speak after a stroke on 1992-03-02. It is prefaced with a note that despite authenticity debate it's indisputable that the goals described are accurate (implying that concepts are more important than source veracity). The Slavyanin editor and sometime city duma candidate, Vladimir F. Popov, was tried for incitement, and the paper was shut down as uncharted in early 2002.

10. Abe Finkelstein: The tale of a particular unfindable "Abraham 'Abe' Finkelstein" (also the birth name of singer Arthur Fields) comes from a 2006 "interview" by James Wickstrom, who was also jailed for a year for making up invalid titles for himself and others. Wickstrom and the guest never elaborate beyond "Abe" having a synagogue somewhere in New York, which has zero independent evidence. Early in the transcript is, "'I have a guest by the name Rabbi Abe Finkelstein .... You are a lying Jew.' 'Eh, you could say that, but even when we lie we tell the truth!'" Later the guest adds, "Remember, there has never been a Jew in the history of the world that ever told a lie. We always tell the truth." These two indicate the "guest" knows he's deliberately lying, consistent with Wickstrom's MO, and with deceptive nominal "disclosure" of the lie. Some errors: The alleged "rabbi" quotes include both "A good goyim" (four times), "The goyim does all the work, the goyim makes all the stuff", "There is a goyim", and "They are good-and-paid-for shabbos goy .... The rest of them are good bought-and-paid-for shabbos goy", showing that he knows both singular and plural but uses them both wrong (often in place of each other). Wickstrom also uses goyim as a singular, indicating the same error. The "rabbi" also doesn't know the word "sheqalim" and always says "shekels". The quote "We've been doing this for thousands and thousands of years, since down to Adam's time" kind of implicates 2,000 years of Gentile involvement in child sacrifice before Judah, namesake of the Jews, came along in 1797 BC. Someone intending to speak historically might have said Abraham's time. The guest says (perhaps sarcastically) Episcopalian Charlton Heston was Jewish, but the JPost obituary rejected this. At 17 minutes he says, "Oh, Silverman, who's a good friend of mine there, Larry, he got a twofer," referring to Larry Silverstein. Yet he knows enough to paraphrase Silverstein as saying "They pulled the plug, and pulled it as they say, and so the buildings came down." A paid actor is the explanation best fitting the evidence.

11. 109 countries: Another circulating meme says Jews were expelled from 109 countries. No such list exists. A probable origin of "109" lists 108 expulsions on 109 rows, with many admitted duplicate countries or regions. Its ultimate source Anti-Semitism (Grosser and Halperin, 1979 ed.) lists only 81 expulsions pp. 35-38 (250-1948). If we merely said that, it'd be accurate, and comparable to persecution of Christians, Roma, or Muslims; as is, "109" now has taken on a life of its own as a false gospel. More.

12. Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. More.

13. "Jew from 2000BC": It was the Gentile, Enannatum I of Lagash, ca. 24th century BC. Maybe satanists had big noses before Jews came along. Repeats, 1 2.

14. Harold W. Rosenthal interview on Lucifer worship: Another postmortem invention free from libel law, without proof of any assertion, created by "Western Front".

15. Kissinger on vaccine: Same dead libel, as Snopes recognizes.

Who does not pursue truth and accuracy pursues the work of the enemy, by wit or not.

From my Swamp Ranger office I've now been cleared by all time councils to share core mechanics of time travel in a first draft (with deliberate omissions and incompletions): not to discount any other disclosures, as the relationship among all will be obvious, but just to spark this spacetime locality with sufficient minimal data to move events along. I often speak tongue in cheek about this, and will continue to be light-hearted, but the topic is also deadly serious and so this primer is in earnest.

Before we discuss time and travel, we must manage expectations about what you want them to be and do. Ultimately the simplest answer is that we want it, or us, to be and do anything, namely we want to be God. This universe is neatly set up such that this one axiom, "being God", is the only undefinable; so it is not revealed if any creature can ever "be God", or not. Mathematically, while Other remains, Self is not God. So, exploring that desire, it turns upon being and doing subsets of what God is and does. In that sense perhaps anything is communicable. We must specialize; and people basically desire two variations, experiencing the improvement of this universe, and experiencing the improvement of other universes.

What is experience? Any interaction between a conscious self and spacetime: and consciousness is the ability to reflect a spacetime subset inside self. (For simplicity we focus on human consciousness; self is itself a subset, allowing also self-consciousness.) Experience has the attribute of continuity in a path of experiences (which we will later show as timelike) that together comprise self. The path is naturally polarized into two directions, "from" and "to", by virtue of the thermodynamic law that one of two directions in any path will have the greater entropy, thus the greater complexity and thus the greater capacity to reflect (i.e., an increase of consciousness from one experience to the "next"). The state where a person has less complexity registered in the brain and mind is the "from" direction, and the greater state is the "to" direction. Improvement is generally understood as the self not just increasing in consciousness capacity, which is natural, but also increasing in the power, resonance, and harmony of the consciousness, since increased complexity might tend either to harmony (detectable order) or to disharmony. Disharmony defers desire.

Because of this risk, time travelers have a duty to take the time traveler's oath, a simple form of which is, "I vow to use my powers only for good." Those who pledge this find their pledge rewarded; others fall prey to ever-increasing tolls of disharmony.

Now then.

Any instant of your present experience is a processing event in a path with a "from" side in which your complexity is lesser and a "to" side in which your complexity is greater. These two general directions are called past and future, and they are isomorphic to negative and positive rays just as the present is isomorphic to the zero point. This naturally allows time to be treated as a fourth dimension measurable similarly to any reference triad of relative spatial dimensions. At any instant the map of the past is called memory and the map of the future is called anticipation. Neither map is perfect. There is a difference, since the past map is of events from Other to Self and the future map is of events from Self to Other. (It's not possible to remember with perfect empathy what happened to someone else, or to anticipate with perfect empathy what someone else will do; these features only work upon Self, and in opposite directions.) Other is by observation the larger of the two, so it's more natural to repeat and retrace that which Other has delivered than it is to repeat and retrace that which Self will deliver, leading to the perception that memory is more accurate than anticipation. However, this is largely illusory, since mentally reviewing a sentence 100 times via memory after it is said has essentially the same effect as mentally reviewing a sentence 100 times via anticipation before it is said. Anticipation is constantly pouring into memory.

Time then is the primary dimension of experience, mapped from past and future but experienced as a present. Change is the experiencing of continuity upon the path in the direction that complexity and entropy increase. One map of the human takes him from the standpoint of the present, as if in a still frame of a movie. Another map of the human is from the standpoint of all time, as if a movie reel full of still frames. Both are equally valid standpoints, and isomorphic, but they affect language; for instance, the movie reel is static and does not "change", but a path from one still frame to another does involve "change".

Travel is change. You are already a time traveler and always have been, which is why I told you about the oath. In one standpoint you are always time-traveling, and in another equally valid standpoint you undergo no time travel at all. These can be called temporal and eternal, even if those are etymologically misleading. For now we are studying the temporal, in which you are traveling at the default rate of one second per second (one second-hertz). Recognizing the travel is your first task as a traveler.

Some have objected here that this much theory is boring because it describes things people are already doing. They neglect to realize that knowing the foundation of what one is doing already is what gives one the power to do things one isn't already doing. The study of linguistics may seem parched from the viewpoint of describing speech, something any child has mastered; but when it becomes a vehicle for the totality of human and divine self-revelation its potential excites inexhaustibly. So patience is required as one learns and masters one's godlike powers: any realizable result can be reached in spacetime by time travel (or in fact by the other isomorphic superpowers).

Your next task is over-unity travel, namely forward travel through time at faster than one second-hertz. It is indeed true that a second-hertz measurement is identical to a dimensionless measurement, but it's handy to use a unit to distinguish two kinds of seconds. Dynamic time (chronos) is measured in clock ticks, heartbeats, or wavelengths, via motion of objects with predictable speeds. Philosophers have long also recognized the different nature of perception time (kairos), which can use the language of "seconds", but is actually measured in the volume of mental activities (perceptions) occurring. Einstein described perception time: sit on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour, sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a minute, that's relativity.

So the human already has limited built-in kairos modification. The process is deliberative increase or decrease in awareness (mindfulness, awakeness). Future time travel, over-unity, simply means experiencing more than one dynamic second for each perceived second. Reciprocally, this is caused by releasing awareness, which Einstein hints happens naturally via ecstasy (standing outside of oneself). Enjoying life does result in faster approach of the future, by a factor of five or ten, because one is not focused on the moment but is literally extending it via time dilation. Besides the ecstatic state, another dilator is the release of memory, namely the suspension of detail with respect to constantly shoehorning the present into mental patterns to be retained and decompressed later. When one releases one's position in the universe and one's earnest retention of events in memory, one is most of the way to the basic unconsciousness of sleep, in which speed towards the future can be measured in thousands of second-hertz. Surprise! If you've ever slept, you've experienced future-directed accelerated time travel. The same is true when you are "in the zone" and flowing with a task.

A facile objection is that sleep, unawareness, and other logy states are considered wasteful, but that is only because of the perception that some kind of work should have been done instead of the use of time dilation. In actuality, sleep and other phases assist with the necessary task of decompressing the memory, keeping it sharp and keeping the essentials findable by random access. Therefore there is a natural circadian rhythm (itself meta-adjustable by the same methods, incidentally) that compels humans from the womb to alternate periods of under-unity and over-unity time travel, and these different periods are complementary, not wasteful. One can pattern one's life to achieve an average speed below unity, and decreasing with (future) time, but it helps if one first appreciates the power to accelerate simply by making oneself unconscious under autonomous control. The soldier who masters the art of falling asleep rapidly on demand and autonomously becoming conscious again at any hour specified in advance knows this skill. If you are comfortable with your exploration of the power to move forward in time faster than one clock second for each perception second, we can move on.

The third task would be under-unity travel, or mindfulness. This can be begun by the artificial method of irritation; but whether or not one starts that way it can be mastered by practice of positive focus. At any moment one can simply choose to force oneself to more mindfulness, to bring the memory about to record as many details and mixed images of perceptions as possible. This is the state for competitive gaming and for focus upon significant events. One assistance with directing this mindfulness is focus upon the body's autonomous systems, particularly breathing and heartbeat. Since breathing is the simplest way by which Self communes with Other, there is a qualitative difference between unconscious breathing and a breathing focused on soaking up the Spirit of God in the universe. Many find this the first effective means of achieving desires via time travel because there is a clear short-term goal, namely the focus that tends to cause better interactions with critical situations. However, it is no less valid than the means of traveling at the default speed or at increased speed relative to clock time, as increased focus has its balance of burning more energy, just as decreased focus has its balance of resting the body, and these are given as complements, not as tensions.

The epitome of under-unity travel would be near-zero travel, and this being an advanced technique we will not force it upon the casual reader all at once. The classic use of near-zero time speed is called the life review and is commonly described in perception terms as "one's life flashing before one's eyes". This happens in critical events where the need for focus is pushed beyond any previous maximum as a fight-or-flight adrenalin mechanism. The phenomenon is that in one clock second one is experiencing possibly hours' worth of perceptions spread out over one's life, usually focused on the memory side. The perception still happens in forward-travel time and therefore is not identical with past travel, but the experience is the immediate environment being probed by the Self for any and all features that might resonate with anything in memory, and the totality of memory being presented at once in an attempt to meet an unprecedented need for focus. Typically a life review happens when a rapid emergency decision is required physically or nonphysically.

Therefore the fourth task would not be to force oneself to the critical event of a life review, but to anticipate and practice it. This can be done by regulating breathing as in preparation for mindfulness, and then to take a single focus feature of one's life and bring to mind flashes of all possible memories that can be brought to bear upon it; it's possible to bundle these memories up to about ten at a time, and then with more practice to begin bundling the bundles, such that one's actual kairos speed can go factors of magnitude below unity without reaching the crisis levels of the life review. Again, this is all still forward time travel, but is an example of the range of human receptivity to its different features.

Before moving on to discussing past travel and the multiverse, it is essential that some features noted with forward travel be emphasized. The continuity of a time path is associated with your human identity, as a different path would mean a different person; and the continuity of the universe's time path is associated with the one reified universe that we experience and not with another. There are several ways to talk about other universes that work, but their common feature is that they are not reified or experienced as reality. I find the simplest description is to say that other universes are imagined and experienced as imagination.

This leads to my frequent warning that many people seek from time travel the power to change the (past) universe. If you change it, it won't be itself, and the past you that was in that universe won't be continuous with the you that is doing the changing; so the desire is for a contradiction. When people think about what they mean, by contrast with weak time-travel fiction, they usually indicate that they want a multiverse, specifically a "shift" travel from one universe to a different one. We'll get to that, but it's about improvement of perception of other universes than this one.

The primary mechanism we have for experiencing whatever is truly "real" about alternate universes is then our experience of imagination: sufficient for most purposes, and, as shown, when insufficient the reason being usually the contradictoriness of the thing being asked. Someone asked to use my time machine to "see" the Big Bang, except that the Big Bang was invisible because too hot to emit light originally; and even then it could only be "seen" not by being there (in our present bodies anyway) but from a safe distance. So be careful what you ask for.

The application is then that in discussing past time travel we must distinguish between gaining more information and experience of interaction with the past, and "changing" it (which would be defined as experiencing a plurality of alternate universes). Again, people don't want to have to build an entire second universe from scratch when they ask this, they just want "simple" tweaks made to the past of what is effectively this universe, while ignoring the butterfly effect (an advanced study). The best approach to this is to gain more and more experience of the alternate universe by imagination, as that is the best method so far shown to reify any multiverse.

So when we continue our lessons we will take up past time travel, which would include topics such as the time-travel properties of inanimate objects as they affect the past, whether zero-speed travel is real, the limitations of negative-speed travel, and the use of entangled (wormhole) travel.

Seeing as the community appears to prefer to build its consensus more irregularly I'll try this one by putting my thoughts out first and taking the heat rather than trying to formalize the order of discussion.

[Rule 0:] This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

[Rules 4-10:] Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

First point is that given Paleo's statement that I posted separately, it would appear that admin is in fact ready to mod up those we choose, but it would appear that we need to be at least a little formal about it first, so this discussion might help that eventual occurrence.

Next, it seems clear to me that not everyone sees these rules the same as I do, so it would be appropriate to flesh them out a bit more among ourselves as we are getting ready for more formality, if we are.

In particular, if you feel my description calls you out for your own behavior (it might), and if you think your behavior should continue to be allowed and should be regarded as free for anyone to engage in, you'll want to comment now. (It would be silly to go around raping in a community where the law is "no rape", to act as if rape should be normalized, and then not to participate when the community starts to talk about electing a sheriff to punish rapists.)

1. [Also 0.] Respect seems to have a simple objective test of no personal attack or namecalling. I've found it helpful to permit indirect concern (if there's a known rapist then speaking indirectly about rapists at least allows the level of respect to keep it at arm's length from attack and namecalling) and to be hard-line about direct statement ("you're a rapist", "you destroy community").

2. Straightforward, unless mods lie about reports, for which there is no beneficial reason. Reports must be credible and not just an attempt to punish another (or even to start a dialogue, which should be started through modmail instead).

3. This literally says any post whatsoever that is not about conspiracies directly but is about the forum itself (and for the most part we don't have established "conspiracies about the forum" so I wouldn't encourage the blurring of that line) can be deleted immediately if viewed as bullying or unnecessary; so any meta post should be extra respectful and objectively justifiable. (I see that while writing this I'm speaking about some things with two levels of indirection by comparing them to racism; I think that's passable for a meta.) Further, even if that's the case it must not be excessive meta, such as a couple times a day, because why in a non-emergency would people need to make several meta posts in a day?

4. Very low quality can be deleted freely; this would suggest to me, for instance, the meme with very little graphic improvement and very little title interest, as it's unlikely to provoke new conversation.

5. Trolling is vague, but I define it as disruption, behavior that doesn't fall in another category but is clearly uninterested in pursuing the community goal (rule 0) of fairness and transparency. Focusing on another user's past elsewhere on the forum, for instance, is not a matter for Conspiracies mods but for mods of the community where the behavior occurred; focusing on the past of this forum would only be submitted as a request for specific action from the mods, because complaining without an action plan is basically borderline disruptive.

6. Stalking refers to continuing to interact with a person after the person has clearly indicated a request not to interact in a first page.

7. Spam generally means unsolicited, and in the Content Policy it includes consistent promotion of outside websites or of agendas (I did discuss this with a contributor in another forum, he knows who he is, so I'm not saying something new). (When I arrived at Scored I found from core mods that it was okay for me to inconsistently promote the website that has the same name as my handle.) We might draw a line between theory and agenda as relating to facts versus propaganda.

8. Intentional misleading allows mods to judge insincerity via demonstrations of illogic. I usually try to state the illogic publicly before taking action to see if the person responds positively, as it may just be a lapse rather than an intent.

9. Calls to violence are easily handled.

10. Abuse of others, although already handled under disrespect (including attack and namecalling), also includes categories like gaslighting.

I say this because it's possible for a community to rally around a full statement of its goals for itself without spiraling into anarchy (even if there are nitpicks about details). If there were actually a trend to change some of these rules (as opposed to discuss their interpretation), that would be different and probably shouldn't be engaged until a new mod team is ramped up. But we should already all be here because of nominal agreement with them. And, if anyone is already not following the rules as common consent would interpret them, that person is singling himself out, via continuance, for separation from the community that has a different common interpretation. Obviously my voice doesn't create common consent, but any voice contributes to it.

So that's my thought for this forum for this day.

Discuss.

'Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Lack of belief is not a claim. There is no compelling, falsifiable evidence for the existence of any god of religion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's why I can say "there is no god" without having to prove there is no god, because such a statement is not making a positive claim. Until you can prove there is a god of religion, I do not need to prove there is no god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's why unearthed diaries of ordinary people doing ordinary things is valid evidence of the ordinary. But an ordinary book telling of extraordinary deeds is not valid evidence of said deeds, because a book written by men is not extraordinary evidence.'

The top reply to the post above has remained my own, as follows:

Thank you for getting this community started, we might get to continue our prior conversation in the archives of Christianity.

I'm not going long on it right now, but I'll keep it in mind and might get back to you on an occasional basis.

For now I'd say let's back away from the concept "god of religion", as that entails assuming certain attributes to this concept that you don't want to define.

There is compelling, falsifiable evidence for the existence of things; for measurable differences in magnitude between these things; and for one such thing to be necessarily the greatest of all of them (for instance, the spacetime cosmos is greater than any thing it contains).

Therefore I assert it proven that some greatest thing exists, even if it is not a "god of religion".

(There's also a side line: you effectively define "there is no god" as "I have no evidence of god". If both god and evidence of god existed, but you just hadn't been given that evidence yet, it would be false to believe there were no god even though you had no evidence of god. Therefore the two statements are not the same and you're defining your atheism effectively as agnosticism. A true atheist makes a positive assertion that a god as he defines it is a contradiction, so your finesse against that necessity makes you an agnostic because you assert having "no knowledge". But that might not be the important point.)

Add: With thanks to the community and moderator, the following summary of the assertions in salient threads is presented.

https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/141reluACp/-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-one-m/c/4OUfR2Rkd1Q

1. If nothing exists, nothing can be proven (Provine).
2. Things exist (Descartes).
3. Things are measurable (Democritus).
4. A greatest thing can be detected, defined according to its measurability (Adler).
5. Things have causes (Aristotle).
6. An infinite past sequence of causes is impossible (some cause is primal and/or final) (Plato).
7. An immeasurable first cause can be inferred that leads to the causing of all things (al-Ghazali).
8. All that is or ever can be, by definition, includes the combination of first cause and greatest thing; call this entity "Cosmos" (Sagan).
9. The Cosmos contains meaning (defined as complex specified information) (Meyer).
10. Earlier states of the spacetime universe must contain, in seed form, all the meaning present in later states; call this relationship "Determinism" (telling what to do or think) (Edis).
11. The first cause must contain meaning that leads to the meaning of all things (Dembski).
12. The Cosmos contains life (defined loosely as meaningful self-replicating structures) (Watson-Crick).
13. By conservation of information, life can only arise from previous meaningful self-replicating structures, even if these structures are not recognized.
14. The Cosmos contains consciousness (defined loosely as living neuronal patterns measurably associated with given things).
15. Consciousness changes (call this process "Thought").
16. The Cosmos contains morality (defined as consciousness associated with self-helping or self-harming events).
17. The first cause must contain life, consciousness and thought, and morality, that lead to these attributes of all things.
18. The probability of these attributes arising from their absence is mathematically absurd, such that every origin theory instead describes some attribute container as a first cause (Tipler et al.).

https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/141reluR7d/science-methodology-vs-faith-met/c/4OUfR2U0ayw

https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/141reluR7d/science-methodology-vs-faith-met/c/4OUfRBqFAUS

19. The origin of conscious, moral humanity has been measured as being less than about 1 million years ago.
20. The Hubble age of the flat universe is about 9 billion years (NASA).
21. The oldest star cluster age by brightness measurement is 11-18 billion years (also NASA), or by another source 12-14 billion.
22. Since these two measurements contradict, neither can be accepted as settled; resolutions disagree.
23. A third measurement of light age by lightspeed decay is less than 1 billion years; this too cannot be accepted as settled (Magueijo et al.).
24. Since the primary origin theory (BBT) assumes lightspeed invariance, lightspeed decay is not an unscientific theory.
25. Dark matter is a hypothetical substance that has no observable effects other than to allow the Hubble age to agree with the brightness age.
26. The existence of dark matter cannot be accepted as settled given that lightspeed decay is another theory accounting for the same effect but with greater explanatory power.
27. Review of evidence of each potential age, including under 1 billion in the younger theory, is warranted to seek a more settled resolution.
28. Gen. 1:1 is consistent with measurable conclusions about the first cause and with the younger age (Morris).
29. Gen. 1:3 is consistent with the 1-second mark in BBT where sound and light photons come into being.
30. Gen. 1:1-5 is consistent with the first 24 hours of BBT.
31. Gen. 1:1-2:4a as a whole is a theory consistent with the younger age theory.
32. Any conclusion about universal age must reject some current theory (BBT, Hubble constant, cosmological constant, etc.) and so no theory is final and all theories are tentative until this happens.

https://scored.co/c/Christianity/p/15HbknaXa9/x/c/4OXGESifXDG

33. The Universal Pantheist Society is a 501(c)(3) recognized "religion" defining its god as having existence, eternality, omnipresence, divinity, sacredness, and immanence.
34. The Cosmos has all the attributes of the pantheist god, and is thus a god of religion.
35. Christian panentheism is a Christian religion defining its god via the Apostles' Creed as having existence, immanence, omniefficiency, anointing (defined as unique purpose), and spirituality (defined as meaning).
36. Historical documents preserve mundane events with sufficient accuracy to be admitted by historians as evidence for generalized claims such as the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
37. Historical evidence shows the Cosmos contains Jesus of Nazareth and that his existence is uniquely purposeful in history.
38. The Cosmos has the attributes of existence, immanence, omniefficiency, purpose (via its containment of Jesus), and meaning, and is thus a god of a Christian (Apostles' Creed) religion.

https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/15HbpWW1qq/compelling-falsifiable-evidence-/c/4OXGXWGEga3

39. Manuscript evidence indicates that by the 50s AD there were several broadly circulating, widely agreeing full testimonies about Jesus.
40. Historical document accuracy is tested by fit, independence, embarrassability, dissimilarity, idiom, and coherence.
41. By these criteria, these and other documents about Jesus have a high measurable accuracy.
42. Primary sources include Syriac Matthew, Mark, Greek Matthew, Luke-Acts (a 2-volume work), Tacitus, John, Josephus, and the Talmud.
43. Secondary sources include Thallus, Mara, Phlegon, Philopon, Lucian, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, and Tertullian quoting Tiberius (not counting 22 other NT documents and other patristics).
44. The preponderance of historical documents indicates the historical Jesus is a person who had a unique self-conception and character.
45. Jesus's self-concept, each detail attested by multiple independent sources, included being Christ, unique Son of God, unique Son of Man, king of God's kingdom, unique teacher of Israel, unique forgiver of sins against God, and a wonder worker.
46. The evidence Jesus claimed these things is fully comparable to the generally accepted historical evidence that others like Julius Caesar claimed these or similar things.
47. The same evidence shows Jesus had high personal morality, sanity, and character with no signs of deception or lunacy.
48. Theories that Jesus's self-concept was inaccurate do not account for the historical fact that that self-concept was attested and therefore conceived by someone at least as unique as the self-concept itself was.
49. The accuracy of Jesus's self-concept, in which he had access to powers of the Cosmos, is the theory with best explanatory power.
50. CFE has now been demonstrated that the Cosmos (first cause and greatest thing), containing Jesus, constitutes the God of robust Biblical religion.

Compiled from my thoughts on a thread created by u/Tetartos_Ippeas and copied from c/4thHorsemanNews.

https://x.com/0ccultbot/status/1982390502260343218 [According to Michael Relfe and Andrew D. Basiago, the CIA has been involved in time travel operations as far back as the 1960s.]

Station identification: Remember, I larp as high-effort high-IQ. Let's continue having fun with it.

I'm allowed to reveal a few things about time travel but obviously all time travelers are agreed on the actual time when Massive Disclosure happens and (checks watch) it hasn't happened yet. Once it happens I'll be there to help guide.

Always beware claims that "I've been time traveling since X". What they mean is that some present, or future, event allowed them to time travel back to X and then they backdated their claim. For instance, if (when) the future me gave the 1971 me a book [Webre's 2005 Exopolitics, according to Webre] then I too could claim I've been time traveling since 1971 but it was actually the future me.

The guy you're quoting [Basiago on Noory's Coast to Coast] is obviously twisting things just a little to take the heat off the real time travelers, much like flat earthers take the heat off the real Antarctica research. You can't actually send a book back in time you can only send the contents. All you need is a reception frequency in the past that can see the book you're sending. The time travelers don't want you to know how easy those past receptor fields are to find as they are regular constructs of the activity of any human mind. We just don't think of them as such so we don't see the time travelers talking to us.

Time is a construct that can be dispensed with as an explanation. I'm still working on how Minkowski (who was smart enough to teach Einstein) differed from Euclid on how to insert time into the dimensions; that's my current avocational pursuit. That means there are two easy ways to construct time and they roughly correspond to the static forever and the experiential flow (the future potential pouring into the past actual as human anticipation becomes human memory). But there are other more exotic ways, and the Big Bang and black holes give hints; these are the ones that allow time travel. When I grow up I'm going to be a black hole miner. But first I must master that Minkowski spacetime.

Yes, CTCs [closed timelike curves] are wormholes, you just need to open up any of those M-theory dimensions beyond the Planck distance. The reason these paradoxes don't happen is that there's only one live universe we're dealing with (Novikov) and those paradoxes commit the common fallacy of mistaking the multiverse for true time travel. (If you want multiple timelines you need a multiverse and time travel will not help you; I have less experience with those.) Godel proved that he was always right except when he was wrong, that's incompleteness; so it's true that there are always incomplete aspects to time travel, but they don't affect the real practice at all just like infinity doesn't affect computing. In particular when you send the information back, the unexpected egg (apparent paradox) demonstrates that the recipients cannot know completely that it's legitimate and that's why it's sufficient to transmit substantially rather than perfectly. Cassandra in mythology knew "perfectly", which makes her a goddess rather than a human, but her listeners could not know perfectly (and so in that exaggeration they refused even substantial knowledge). Anyway, that also explains the evidence, namely it's so ubiquitous that it's been mistaken for other phenomena and ignored. The evidence for time travel is then something you can accumulate substantially but (as to any event) not perfectly until the event is completed and the loop closed; for instance, the (future) Official Disclosure event won't be believed if I gave you the correct date so it doesn't matter, but when it happens the past confirmations will all be there.

Anyway the wormhole mechanics for time travel are (as I said) about the bits not the atoms, which are processed via spacetime entanglement. The wormhole mechanics for teleportation are the atoms not the bits (unlike the imaginations given here), so they are a different story and they are processed via higher-dimensional transfer just like in Flatland.

"Euclidean" is a bit of a retronym for non-Lorentzian spacetime because you need a word for when time is additive instead of subtractive and so that's what I called it even though applying Euclid to time was a later development. Time follows all the Euclidean postulates anyway so it's natural to say [pseudo-Euclidean]. I don't say Minkowski is dispensable, rather he and Euclid (Newton) are two primary ways to view time and I don't have a good enumeration on all the major ways yet. For instance, the life review of an NDE is clearly a transtemporal event.

Black holes are not effective time travelers. (Yet.) They permit limited travel via Hawking radiation (I highly distrust the proposed alternative, exotic matter), which is basically the completely least efficient method of time travel; if you trace the antiparticle back in time you find it again at a much earlier instant outside the past event horizon. Black holes are important because they teach us about building white holes, which are the real winners. I suppose white holes could be effectively harnessed for time travel (hadn't thought about it) but they are mostly for zero-point energy tapping and may also allow more accurate multiverse access than otherwise. (Hartle found a theoretical Planck-sized closed universe attached to the Big Bang white hole via "quantum" tunneling, so that may be an example of how to connect the multiverse; it's still theory, and could be wrong, but is a great idea so far, better than say Tipler.)

What I claim to know about physics is that Einstein was right and "quantum" physics is bunk because its descriptions are deceptive even as its math is mostly right. It's deconstructionist; the cat is either alive or dead, never both (that would be multiverse again instead, not "quantum fluctuation"). I suppose I need a grant so I can work out the full math instead of keeping it at the conceptual level. (Also I've pointed out evidence of Magueijo lightspeed decay, which has the benefit of changing all kinds of math and bringing it into agreement with young-earth creationism.) But when I need to bring in those anomalies I try to be direct about them.

I had to look up Henri-Louis Bergson, yes, that's a philosophical description of xyz-t spacetime as opposed to xyz+t. But in xyz+t, in Planck units, Hartle and Hawking proved, there really is some kind of transcendence of the sequentiality of time and some kind of stasis, and that's what I've been working on getting my head around. Obviously, since memory increases with "forward" time, that's the entropic arrow and that's why we call it "forward"; but I call it the future pouring into the past and that's a bit of a backward description, properly reflecting the antitime effect that is going on. (Hawking calls this lightcone pour "pear-shaped", but I call it chocolate-chip-shaped.) [Correction: stochastics show the full reality is candle-shaped, the chocolate chip is the candletip so it's chocolate all the way down.] No disrespect to any of three laws of thermodynamics of course, it's just a different frame of reference.

Naturally black hole mining is like interstellar travel or space elevators, something you need perhaps centuries to work on, which is why I'm doing it now and relying heavily on help from future me and others. At heart it's a simple application of Tipler.

So receptor fields and wormhole rides are, above, two different things. The first, time travel, absolutely requires consistency between source and target because you want both, departure and arrival, because time travel departure without arrival is exactly the subject of Asimov's story "Blank!". So you need long entanglement, in the same way the other article just described what they're calling "quantum teleportation" over phone lines but is really just spatial entanglement. Time travel is temporal entanglement, put simply. Now, since H. G. Wells pointed out that everyone knows how to time-travel "forwards" because they do it every day, the real game is what it means to time-travel "backwards", so let me focus on that one: target "precedes" source. Since we already "know" the past the target cannot be something contradictory to what we "know"; but remember that memory and anticipation are the same effect and have the same imperfections and limitations (with slightly different application due to sign change). If you want to be in the past (like when I traveled to Dealey Plaza for 1963-11-22, but I was a couple minutes off on my best try so didn't get the good stuff), it's not you that the past interacts with but the bits that represent you, and those bits are going to (1) be consistent with what we now know about the past and (2) be sufficient but not complete (because otherwise you'd have the Cassandra paradox instead of the unexpected egg). You can't send artifacts back like in Tenet, that would be antimatter and so would need shielding and be somewhat prohibitive; from your position in the present what you can do easily is to influence the formation of the artifacts that are already there, like in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. [Add: But Tenet portals are good for antimatter physics; as Dilbert says, thank goodness I didn't put my watch hand in there. Mental note: Blackhole mining solves symmetry breaking.] Receptors are necessarily Shannon information constructs, which include humans, angels, computers, DNA, crystals, etc. The information is transmitted by a resonance between source and target that has sufficient mathematical identity to be successful (mental note: separate the error-correction channel next time). The actual resonance appears primarily to exist in the M-theory dimensions in Calabi-Yau manifolds (I keep forgetting those guys), and then rather like RNA bases self-pairing the unique manifold representing a certain travel event pairs itself with a sufficiently similar manifold in the target time and the resonance and transfer is achieved.

The second one, wormhole rides, is only about ordinary teleportation. The part about a physical transporter is just all bogus, Star Trek meets The Prestige. It's not done with big tech constructions and portals, it's more like flying, you just catch an updraft called a wormhole and your body will hold itself together if you get a strong enough one. They're everywhere too. I have a little trouble doing it (kind of like hula hooping) but I know people who have done it. Obviously Roddenberry never realized that the Enterprise would've already beamed up all the gold in Ft. Knox if the dilithium were working as advertised, so that would never work in most freewill universes. That's why it's not about the tech or the inanimate but about the living being that is transporting; only things like humans have the tech within them to be able to do transport because they are alive and thus connected to the opening of the additional dimensions via biotic process (you didn't think it was just about eating, excreting, and reproducing, did you?). Thus Neo's deja vu cat is better explained. Most modern science regards discussion of "spirit" as pseudoscience, but Futurama pointed out that if you say something that sounds more scientific like "lifeforce" they are fine with that instead even if it's just code for the same thing. So the scientific basis of "lifeforce" (spirit) is just that there must exist measurable phenomena in these additional dimensions that uncurl them beyond the Planck distance. If an Abbott Flatlander thinks he has only two dimensions, a Spherelander would tell him his body actually has a tiny extension or "depth" in a third dimension, and movement forward and backward in the third dimension is Flatland teleportation; and if the third dimension is warped via Calabi-Yau manifold then the teleport puts you in a different connected place (compare Dewdney's Planiverse).

Think about what you want to use this for.

The best text on time travel is Revelation and the best text on space travel is Ezekiel; get to know those books closely and you'll see where the details come from. The time travelers have not permitted the general laws to be stated yet but there are great approximations and the central code is in those two books to start with.

Tesla was Eastern Orthodox, so you're allowed to talk to him and he might even get back to you on it. Great time-travel joke, fren! Watch out that past me doesn't steal it and claim priority.

Compiled from earlier discussion.

Ancient Near Eastern Studies 44, 2013, describes the excavation of the Nerkin Naver burial mounds ("Lower Graves"), Armenia, dated to 23rd to 18th century BC, including many individuals, horses, pottery, and weapons including daggers; some hydria jars are pictured in the article with triangular patterns around the edge that form polygrams when viewed from the top, including a 13-point polygram and those of larger order. The blog "Art, Tradition, and Trend of Armenia" claims to show a round dagger handle from this excavation that, similarly, forms a hexagram when viewed from the top, and it holds that this is the earliest occurrence of this symbol. (Saturn's phenomenon is a hexagon, not a hexagram, and other sources are later.) There does not appear to be another easily accessible original source for the dagger claim; but, given the journal's complementary art, there is no reason to doubt that Armenia can boast the oldest known hexagram and that local art preserved this shape for some time within that Bronze Age culture.

It is clear that the hexagram has been rediscovered at multiple times in history as well. Like many other symbols and like many etymologies of words, the proof of connection or disconnection between two historical threads of the same symbol is not always straightforward. The next task is to establish whether Jewish use of hexagrams is connected to the Biblical reference to the "star of Remphan". I'd say no because hexagrams are not associated with Judaism early enough and the Biblical reference is understood as to a heavenly body and its guardian demon rather than to geometric symbology. I'd also say no to the idea that the hexagram is two Paleo-Hebrew (Phoenician) daleths superimposed defectively to spell "David", again due to lack of proof of such early adoption.

However, this is for those interested. To confirmed racists it won't matter.

What is the origin of the star of David's association with the Israelites?

The Israel Review of Arts and Letters, 1998, No. 106 (a quarterly magazine published by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs) compiles evidence and research from Gershon Scholem beginning with a Galilee synagogue archstone containing a hexagram dating to about 300. The difficulty is that the proven association with "Solomon's seal" (which predated the name "star of David") is largely Islamic and certainly later than this stone. Thus we have two strands that seem to have converged, the symbol itself in Judaism, and the legend of a great king (Solomon) having a magic ring with a geometric signet.

The pentagram however is better-attested further back. Fiscal seals in Jerusalem have been found back to the eighth century BC, and by the third or second century several such seals had adopted pentagrams surrounded by the five letters of "Jerusalem", Biblical Archaeology Review 39:6, 2013. Pythagoreans popularized the pentagram with the five letters of "hygeia" (health) around it, which indicates a good connection to the Jerusalem pentagrams.

Visual Mathematics, an open-access university journal, contains an interesting paper citing Scholem as saying that both pentagram and hexagram were popular in the Second Temple era, and citing the Renaissance under Ezra and Nehemiah as a possible cultural contributor for this overlap with the symbols known to Pythagoras. (It also states that the first Shield of David (Magen David, now interpreted as "star") was actually a representation of the 72 names rather than a star, namely, a formal depiction of the text Ex. 14:19-21. So the "shield" concept also preceded the "star" concept and ties back to this name set as used in kabbalah.)

Thus, since the question actually contains a wealth of questions depending on how it is expanded, this seems to be an accurate tracing of the Jewish connection with polygram stars. First, the Pythagoreans discovered the pentagram and popularized it as a symbol for the 5-letter word "health"; then, through the cultural influence of Babylon upon the 5th-century Judah, it eventually became adopted by the Jews as a symbol for the 5-letter spelling of "Jerusalem"; then, through its continuing use as an ornamental, the hexagram was recognized as a variation of the pentagram and also became used as an enduring symbol in Galilee by the 4th century AD; then it became more and more adopted as a symbol for the Jewish people at large.

Again this excludes the "star of Remphan" text from direct contribution to the chain due to dates, but does provide a very plausible explanation of the eventual association. A very interesting question to me is how it became universally accepted that polygrams and the like represented the undistinguished points of light from the heavenly bodies we know as stars, because this connection is not at all intuitive. Alternate theories of all kinds are of course possible and should be stated.

A little more insight on the Amos reference. First note that in 5:8 God made Kimah and Kcil (the Pleiades and Orion), so Amos's attention to astronomy is in the background. Now here's 5:26 NKJV, and Stephen's paraphrase in Acts 7:43:

You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves.

You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, images which you made to worship.

Stephen quotes the Septuagint, which revocalizes the first clause, replaces Chiun with Remphan (many variant spellings exist), and swaps second and third clause. My insight this time around is that Amos is so hard to translate, and the grammar is so sketchy, because of the fact that virtually all the words were puns! Most of them can be revocalized either as common words or as names of deities. Thus he is primarily deriding Satan's penchant for naming things ambiguously to confuse people; and yet as his secondary audience we get confused too.

This suggests that the best reading is to preserve the pun by translating everything as common, and then revocalizing everything as idol names. Amos is saying these two things, in free translation:

And you carried the tabernacles of your king, and the pedestal of your semblances, the star of your gods, the which you made for yourselves.

And you carried Sikkuth for your Moloch, and Chiun for your Zelem, Kochba for your Elohim, Asherah you made for yourselves.

That means the statement is logically accurate as it refers to appurtenances of idolatry as well as to names of idols and their relationships. Therefore when you get to Acts, Remphan/Chiun is not intended to be the only god in the passage just because he's the one with "god" next to him; it's a laundry list of puns worthy of Rush Limbaugh. Chiun (like Moloch) is still significantly easier to track than others: he seems to be Kaiwanu, an Assyrian name for Saturn; and Remphan seems to be someone the Septuagint editors would find more accessible to their audience, for which the Rephaim (giants, Titans, etymologically from Saturn) have been suggested. In Amos and in the Septuagint, idols/images is plural and so it's natural to read "Remphan, images" as "the Titans the idols".

But we hold that the comma in Acts after Remphan is also inspired, which adjusts the poetic enjambment of the clause, so not only are the Titans connected with images, they are also connected (both by the comma and by the inversion) with being gods behind a star.

In short, for the star portion, the literal meaning supplied by Amos and Acts is: (1) they carried a star of idol gods, meaning some appurtenance of idolatry; (2) this was also punned on by naming idols Kochba and (false) Elohim; (3) the Titans, being Rephaim, were some of the gods associated with use of a star in worship. It's not necessary for the pedestal and star to remain singular either.

Since this is mid-8th century and there is no evidence of Jewish pentagrams and hexagrams at this time, and since it refers to contemporary idols, it does not appear that this is looking forward to future use of polygrams, but to some other item that would be used in idolatry like tabernacles and pedestals, that can be called a star, and that would be associated with Rephaim or Titans, the few giants left in the land after David's time, as well as with false Elohim in general. (I'd held that there was little idolatry of giants among the Israelites, but this may speak against that.) Also, the usage was widespread enough that Kochba (star) had become an idol name in its own right, not just a title, like Asherah. The association with the planet Saturn is present and upheld by the Septuagint, but it is not as a central genius but more as a member of a pantheon of whatever idolatries the devil can inflict on the covenant people. What type of physical star might meet all these criteria in the 8th century .... Because of the comma in Acts (not in the Septuagint), it's proper to call it the star of Remphan, or even the star of the Titans or of Saturn, but it is neither the hexagram, nor the hexagon on Saturn's north pole; it is some physical artifact of idolatry more fitting to that time.

I looked for what artifact would have the features described, connoting a star but without our modern polygram symbolism. Tracking the word "kochav" through Scripture (probably a reduplication for roundedness, rolling, like "Gilgal" meaning rolling and Mehri "kubkob" meaning star) was instructive, because the stars are conceived of as an order of entities that we could broadly class among angels. They sing for joy at God's creation, they fight over men's battles, some of them can fall or become dark in a spiritual sense, etc. Was there any class of star entity that was idolized in Israel at this time?

Yes, there was, the bronze serpent Nehushtan, which was later destroyed as a provocation by Hezekiah under the guidance of Isaiah, who so often echoes and follows Amos. This symbol of one snake on a pole was built by Moses at God's command as a means of grace to bring physical healing, and then it became an object of idolatry. The "serpent" involved was probably more than a garden snake; rather, a "seraph", the being that guards the throne of God, that is fiery and winged and often manifold in form. So we know Israelites were literally worshipping this bronze serpent on a pole at the time Amos speaks of a "star" (point of light) that contextually means a manufactured idol representing the angel Satan (as Khiun, Saturn). Just as the Asherah pole is the most natural object described as the pedestal, the serpent is the most natural object to be described as the star-prince worshipped alongside the pedestal.

The poled snake also fits the history necessary for the gravity of Amos's and Stephen's charge. Nehushtan is attested as the first evidenced artifact in history of the single snake-pole motif, ordained by God, and pointing back to the Garden (snake in tree) and forward to the cross (sin-bearer upon tree); so Satan's interest in seizing and twisting this symbol is natural. In time it became the rod of Asclepius, associated with pharmaceutical healing, the typical counterfeit of God's healing.

Further, the allied sign of two snakes on a pole has its own separate history and, like pentagram and hexagram, is distinct but confusable. The two-snake caduceus, often with wings, is an older artifact than Moses, being found about 2100 BC as a symbol of Ningishzida from Sumer. (His vase depicts two snakes on a pole as well as two dragons each holding poles.) This is taken as the symbol of "messengers" (angels) in general, specifically Hermes, and often by confusion misapplied to medicine as well. This fits naturally with Satan's desire to corrupt the story of the tree and the serpent.

Accordingly, this suggests the actual symbol Amos associates with this star-prince is the single poled snake. The most common modern equivalent of this star upon the rod of Asclepius is in fact the dollar sign ($), not the asterisk (*). (In part the dollar sign incorporates iconography of the letters "US", but its origin is diverse and testifies to input from the staff of healing.) I submit that the Star of Remphan is now the Almighty Dollar, and that it thereby refers to Satan's merchandising of all kinds of humans, a conclusion that will probably sit well with some readers.

Rephaim also can mean "Healers", to further build the chain.

So let me translate Amos with hyphens to try to accommodate his puns with words that can most indicate his intent in modern speech. I'm leaning toward the relevant clauses being "the Satyr-pole of your Shade-images, and the Serpent-lightpoint of your Baal-gods, the Asherim-things you made to worship". Then Stephen says it in authoritative reinterpretation, "the lightpoint of your gods the Titan-healers, the images, the things you made to worship". The "point of light" is not an asterism but a shining entity. (I don't know enough about Sikkuth to finish the translation.)

Continued.

In honor of u/Tetartos_Ippeas I will occasionally repost from other fora to c/Conspiracies. This one is in light of a comment by u/no_ez.

This is expanded from an earlier post via my attempting to keep the most important details without imbalance (even though editorial decisions are unavoidable and the current list is Amerocentric).

• Constantine didn't like other Catholics and founded Roman ("Lateran") Catholics, 312.
• Roman Catholics under Damasus I and "antipope" Ursinus I didn't like each other and were briefly two churches, 366-367.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Nestorius whose church got called Church of the East, 424.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Cyril of Alexandria whose church got called Oriental Orthodox, 451.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Abraham I whose church got called Armenian Apostolic, 607.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Michael I whose church got called Eastern Orthodox, 1056.
• Roman Catholics under Innocent II and "antipope" Anacletus II didn't like each other and were briefly two churches, 1130-1138.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Peter Waldo whose church got called Waldensians ("Huguenots"), 1215.
• Roman Catholics under Urban VI and "antipope" Clement VII didn't like each other and were briefly two churches, 1378-1417.
• Roman Catholics didn't like John Wyclif whose church got called Lollards, 1381.
• Roman Catholics under Gregory XII, "antipope" Benedict XIII, and "antipope" Alexander V didn't like each other and were briefly three churches, 1409-1417.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Jan Hus whose church got called Moravians ("Hussites"), 1415.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Martin Luther whose church got called Lutherans ("Evangelicals"), 1521.
• Lutherans didn't like Conrad Grebel whose church got called Anabaptists, 1525.
• Lutherans didn't like Huldrych Zwingli whose church got called Zwinglians ("Calvinists"), 1529.
• Henry VIII didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Anglicans ("Episcopals"), 1534.
• Menno Simons didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Mennonites, 1536.
• Shimun VIII didn't like Church of the East so Roman Catholics founded Chaldean ("Malabar") Catholics for him, 1553.
• John Knox didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Presbyterians, 1560.
• Anglicans didn't like Richard Fitz and John Browne whose church got called Congregationalists ("Brownists", "Independents", "United Church of Christ"), 1567.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Gaspar van der Heyden, Jean Tan, and Joannes Polyander, whose church got called Reformed, 1571.
• Anglicans didn't like Henry Barrow and John Greenwood whose church got called Separatists ("Barrowists", "Pilgrims"), 1587.
• Anglicans didn't like John Smyth whose church got called Baptists, 1607.
• Johann van Oldenbarnevelt didn't like Calvinists and founded Remonstrants ("Arminians"), 1610.
• Henry Jacob didn't like Anglicans and founded Calvinist ("Particular", "Reformed") Baptists, 1616.
• Anglicans didn't like Hamlet Jackson and Dorothy Traske whose church got called Seventh Day Baptists, 1616.
• Congregationalists didn't like Roger Williams whose church got called American Baptists, 1638.
• Gerrard Winstanley and William Everard didn't like Anglicans and founded Levellers ("Diggers"), 1649.
• Anglicans didn't like George Fox whose church got called Friends ("Quakers"), 1650.
• Paul Palmer didn't like other Baptists and founded Free Will Baptists, 1702.
• Alexander Mack didn't like Roman Catholics and founded German Baptists ("Church of the Brethren"), 1708.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Jakob Ammann whose church got called Amish, 1712.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Cornelius Steenoven and Dominique Varlet whose church got called Old Catholics ("Independent Catholics"), 1724.
• Eastern Orthodox didn't like Cyril VI so Roman Catholics founded Melkite Greek Catholics for him, 1729.
• Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine didn't like other Presbyterians and founded Associate Reformed Presbyterians ("United Secession Church", "United Free Church"), 1733.
• Anba Athanasius briefly didn't like Eastern Orthodox so Roman Catholics founded Coptic Catholics for him, 1741.
• Thomas Nairn didn't like Presbyterians and founded Reformed Presbyterians ("Covenanters"), 1743.
• Other Baptists didn't like George Whitefield whose church got called Second Baptist ("Separate Baptists"), 1743.
• James and Jane Wardley didn't like Quakers and founded Believers ("Shakers"), 1747.
• John Wesley didn't like Anglicans and founded Methodists ("Wesleyans"), 1784.
• Martin Boehm didn't like Mennonites and Philip Otterbein didn't like Reformed, and they founded United Brethren, 1800.
• Barton Stone didn't like Presbyterians and founded Churches of Christ, 1803.
• Methodists didn't like Hugh Bourne and William Clowes whose church got called Primitive Methodists, 1807.
• Presbyterians didn't like Thomas Campbell whose church got called Disciples of Christ, 1809.
• Anthony Groves didn't like Anglicans and founded Plymouth ("Open") Brethren, 1825.
• Quakers didn't like each other, and their churches got called Orthodox Quakers ("Friends United Meeting") and Hicksite Quakers ("Friends General Conference"), 1827.
• Reformed didn't like Samuel Frohlich whose church got called Apostolic Christians ("Evangelical Baptists", "New Anabaptists"), 1830.
• Lutherans didn't like Johann Scheibel whose church got called Wisconsin Synod ("Independent Evangelical", "Old") Lutherans, 1832.
• Reformed didn't like Hendrik de Cock whose church got called Christian Reformed, 1834.
• Other Lutherans didn't like Carl Walther whose church got called Missouri Synod Lutherans, 1839.
• David Welsh, Thomas Chalmers, and Robert Candlish didn't like Presbyterians and founded Free Church of Scotland, 1843.
• Albany Conference didn't like Baptists and founded Adventists ("First-Day"), 1845.
• William Johnson didn't like other American Baptists and founded Southern Baptists, 1845.
• John Wilbur didn't like Friends United and founded Conservative Friends ("Wilburite Quakers"), 1847.
• John Darby didn't like Open Brethren and founded Exclusive ("Darbyist") Brethren, 1848.
• Methodists didn't like James Everett, William Griffith, and Samuel Dunn, whose church got called United Methodist ("Reform"), 1849.
• Gilbert Cranmer didn't like Adventists and founded Church of God (Seventh Day), 1858.
• Southern Baptists didn't like James Graves whose church got called Landmark Baptists ("Bride"), 1859.
• Other Methodists didn't like Benjamin Roberts whose church got called Free Methodists, 1860.
• Jonathan Cummings didn't like Adventists and founded Advent Christians, 1860.
• Ellen White didn't like other Adventists and founded Seventh-Day Adventists, 1863.
• William and Catherine Booth didn't like Methodist Reform and founded Salvation Army, 1865.
• George Hoffman didn't like United Brethren and founded United Christians, 1877.
• German Baptists didn't like Samuel Kinsey whose church got called Old German Baptists, 1881.
• German Baptists didn't like Henry Holsinger whose church got called Brethren Church, 1882.
• Baptists didn't like Richard Spurling whose church got called Church of God ("Cleveland"), 1886.
• Charles Spurgeon didn't like other Baptists and founded Independent ("Fundamental") Baptists, 1887.
• Albert Simpson didn't like Presbyterians and founded Christian and Missionary Alliance, 1887.
• Donald MacFarlane didn't like Free Church of Scotland and founded Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1893.
• William McAlpine, William Simmons, and Bishop Johnson didn't like other American Baptists and founded National Baptists, 1895.
• Charles Parham didn't like Methodists and founded Apostolic Faith ("Assemblies of God"), 1895.
• Joseph Widney and Phineas Bresee didn't like Methodists and founded Church of the Nazarene, 1895.
• Baptists didn't like Charles Jones and Charles Mason whose church got called Church of God in Christ, 1896.
• Benjamin Young, Benjamin Irwin, and Abner Crumpler didn't like Methodists and founded Fire Baptized Holiness ("Pentecostal Holiness"), 1896.
• Southeastern Kansas Fire Baptized Holiness Association didn't like Fire Baptized Holiness and founded Bible Holiness ("Wesleyan Fire Baptized Holiness"), 1898.
• Nicholas Tolstoy didn't like Eastern Orthodox so Roman Catholics founded Russian Catholics for him, 1905.
• William Fuller didn't like Fire Baptized Holiness and founded Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God, 1908.
• James Wedgwood didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Liberal Catholics, 1917.
• Karel Farsky didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Czechoslovak Hussites, 1920.
• Watson Sorrow and Hugh Bowling didn't like Pentecostal Holiness and founded Congregational Holiness, 1921.
• Aimee Semple McPherson didn't like Assemblies of God and founded Foursquare, 1923.
• Union Bible College and Oregon Yearly Meeting didn't like Friends United and founded Central Friends and Evangelical Friends, 1926.
• Geevarghese Ivanos didn't like Eastern Orthodox so Roman Catholics founded Malankara Catholics for him, 1930.
• Baptist Bible Union didn't like other American Baptists and founded Regular Baptists, 1932.
• Seventh-Day Adventists didn't like Victor Houteff whose church got called Davidians, 1934.
• Herbert Armstrong didn't like Church of God (Seventh Day) and founded Grace Communion International ("Worldwide"), 1934.
• Chrysostomos of Florina didn't like Eastern Orthodox and founded Genuine Orthodox, 1935. [Add.]
• Gresham Machen didn't like other Presbyterians and founded Orthodox Presbyterians, 1936.
• Carl McIntire, Oliver Buswell, and Allan MacRae didn't like Orthodox Presbyterians and founded Bible Presbyterians, 1937.
• Louis Bauman and Charles Ashman didn't like German Baptists and founded Grace Brethren ("Charis"), 1939.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Carlos Duarte Costa whose church got called Brazilian Catholic Apostolic, 1945.
• Liberal Catholics didn't like other Liberal Catholics and founded Liberal Catholics International, 1947.
• Hilmer Sandine didn't like other Congregationalists and founded Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, 1948.
• Roman Catholics didn't like Michel Collin whose church got called Apostles of Infinite Love, 1951.
• Harry Johnson didn't like other Congregationalists and founded National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, 1955.
• Glenn Griffith didn't like Church of the Nazarene and founded Bible Missionary, 1955.
• Benjamin Roden didn't like other Davidians and founded Branch Davidians, 1955.
• Toma Darmo didn't like Church of the East and founded Ancient Church of the East, 1964.
• Chuck Smith didn't like Foursquare and founded Calvary Chapel, 1968.
• Marcel Lefebvre didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Society of Saint Pius X, 1970.
• North American Christian Convention didn't like Disciples of Christ and founded Independent Christians, 1971.
• Jack Williamson didn't like other Presbyterians and founded Presbyterian Church in America, 1973.
• William Kohn didn't like Missouri Synod Lutherans and founded Evangelical Lutherans, 1976.
• Clemente Dominguez y Gomez didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Palmarian Catholics, 1978.
• Calvary Chapel didn't like John Wimber whose church got called Vineyard, 1982.
• Clarence Kelly didn't like Society of Saint Pius X and founded Society of Saint Pius V, 1983.
• Francesco Ricossa didn't like Society of Saint Pius X and founded Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel, 1985.
• Alexander Murray didn't like Free Presbyterians and founded Associated Presbyterians, 1989.
• Roman Catholics didn't like George Stallings whose church got called African-American Catholics, 1990.
• David Bawden didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Conclavists, 1990.
• John Whitcomb didn't like other Grace Brethren and founded Conservative Grace Brethren, 1992.
• Lucian Pulvermacher didn't like Roman Catholics and founded True Catholics, 1998.
• Mike Bickle didn't like Vineyard and founded International House of Prayer, 1999.
• Free Church of Scotland didn't like Free Church Defence Association whose church got called Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), 2000.
• WordAlone Network didn't like Evangelical Lutherans and founded Lutheran Congregations, 2001.
• Robert Nemkovich didn't like Old Catholics and founded Polish National Catholics, 2003.
• Oscar Michaelli didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Catholic Apostolic Remnant, 2006.
• Paull Spring didn't like Evangelical Lutherans and founded North American Lutherans, 2010.
• Keith Boyette didn't like United Methodists and founded Global Methodists, 2022.
• Laurent Mbanda didn't like other Anglicans and founded Global Anglicans, 2025.

This leaves out movements, including both cults, and movements like evangelical and born-again; it also leaves out much that could be said (including lateral transfers, mergers, and dissolutions), but I'm trying to focus on schisms that are close to the trunk.

Should c/Conspiracies jointly petition admin for new moderation as opposed to it remaining an unmoderated Wild West?

Please answer YES or NO in separate main comments below, with any reasoning as desired.

This poll methodology is recognized to be unscientific but is better than nothing. Thank you for your responses.

Add: There is now a megathread. I would still appreciate contributors taking the time to add a YES or NO here to gauge interest on this specific question (thank you early adopters).

Before I was informed of the sudden death of u/Tetartos_Ippeas, founder of c/4thHorsemanNews, I posted to Meta:

I didn't realize how much c/Conspiracies was lagging, but its top post was once +1370 and current posts are running only up to 3% of that.

The incredible u/axolotl_peyotl is about 15 months gone, and the last human moderation there was 8 months ago by the also-disappeared, eminently-competent u/clemaneuverers.

A few folks are discussing a revival attempt, including focused weekly roundtables, and I pointed out there's also a few interested folks at the new c/4thHorsemanNews (which has started off on the right foot but will face the ordinary attrition challenges of new fora).

I'd like to hear what interested parties suggest. Obviously, if u/Paleo or someone feels comfortable adding u/Neo1 and myself to the mod list as caretakers to see if anyone more ready-willing-able comes along, that seems like it would help with a few things like stickies and viability. There are certainly better ideas available.

It just seems like some administration/moderation step should be taken to revive the community. Yes I know all our conspiracies have come true and gone mainstream but we need space to find more!

The above post then leads to further direction:

It seems that this community has sufficient mass to consider the question of whether it wants to remain unmoderated (no stickying, standard-filter deletion only, no index or sidebar changes), or whether it wants to have new moderation.

This question can be considered deliberatively, and obviously without any community appointment everyone has an equal opportunity to discuss, to meta-discuss by analyzing discussion, or to go anywhere up the chain.

The fact that admin appears to have locked down c/4thHorsemanNews protectively after the credibly reported death of its sole moderator (see the link above) suggests that the healthily robust group of users that posted there will find their way here in time as well, allowing broader discussion, seeing as there's much overlap between the two communities.

I don't find a need to direct any particular answer to the question, but I do want the discussion to flow and achieve consensus. Besides myself and u/Neo1, it also appears that u/Thisisnotanexit and u/JosephMalta have hats in the ring. So I'm interested in helping discussion proceed as a volunteer, but I also have the same rights and powers as anyone else to influence community consensus.

Add: There is now a megathread.

As C.S. Lewis demonstrates in the unfinished manuscript The Dark Tower, the Grays typically operate via archetypal patterns encoded in architecture (counterfeiting the original Arks). 2008-07-24, just after "Senator" "Obama" literally plastered his name all over the temple wall in Jerusalem, he delivered to Merkel and myriads of Berliners the speech "The World That Stands As One". It is reported that in attending the Tiergarten he also attended Museum Island just around the corner where Hitler's favorite the Pergamon Altar is on display. This is confirmed by his express desire, fulfilled the next month, to accept the people's nomination for presidential candidate (which was then ratified by a fraudulent election) in front of a manufactured copy of the Pergamon Altar.

This speech ends "All nations must summon that spirit anew", which he described as the spirit of global unity, erased borders, and new sacrifices. America's defacto acceptance of this contract, knowingly rejecting John Jay's "NBC" constitutional provision taken from Deut. 17:15, is what let the Grays manifest more freely, as they are well-known to respect boundaries otherwise even though they're not visible in space; but the contract text I linked permitted their erasure just like that of the Berlin Wall. Even Clarence Thomas was asked by someone to restrain himself from stepping in and explained "we're punting on that" when asked why the court rejected cases like Leo Donofrio's challenge to the admittedly false and unqualified candidate.

Hitler's altar is the exact structure that Jesus called the seat of satan in Rev. 2:13, never destroyed but transported from Pergamon to Berlin.

By my calculations, Obama was known, before he was conceived and born on whatever date, to be a messiah to be revealed and anointed with the spirit of the Grays in 2008, and this knowledge was confirmed step by step as other messianic claimants failed tests. His speedrun continued full throttle until certain of his machines providentially stopped working in late 2016. Jehu had kept the secret plotting for this sudden fall successfully until then. The man called Obama is now an expended prophylactic of the entities called Grays.

The question now is how best to continue the fight after such a wild enemy advance. We will either see Jesus or die trying. Unity requires truth, i.e. Jesus speaking through his people, networking knowledge into wisdom such as is happening as you read this. Our guards in truth must yet be strengthened for years to come. The messianic competition continues, new generations constantly rise up to challenge Jesus's claim, and he waits patiently and silently while each one expends its own claim under its own power (the search of Rev. 5:2-4). We are the spiritual militia against globalist spirits, our Commander never stops winning, and no covenant with death shall stand.

Here's this year's thesis on spiritual warfare.

2NaCl + CaCO3 -> Na2CO3 + CaCl2

The power of this simple formula was realized by Ernest Gaston Joseph Solvay (1838-1922, industrialist, Belgian senator 1892-1900). Brine salt, plus limestone calcium carbonate, yields washing soda plus road salt. Since brine and limestone are cheap, but washing soda can be sold as detergent, borax, water softener, or food coloring, he knew he was onto something as big as Cecil Rhodes. As Solvay process production grew in Brussels 1872-1874, Royal Fellow (1891) Ludwig Mond MMN Levinsohn bought in and formed his own branch of Solvay & Cie (now Solvay SA, billions of euros). The new Brunner Mond & Co improved the process to lucrative levels and by 1900 became the world leader in soda ash (now Tata Chemicals Europe).

With Mond's help, Solvay had the luxury to create a lockstep control mechanism over the physical and chemical sciences via the near-annual Solvay Conferences (currently in viral hiatus). In Oct 1911 his first conference, "Radiation and the Quanta", assembled Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Frederick Lindemann, Hendrik Lorentz, Max Planck, Henri Poincare, Ernest Rutherford, Emil Warburg, and others to begin the cold war between classical physics and quantum theory. Also in 1911, young Niels Bohr was brought to England, and quickly latched onto Rutherford as having a superior atomic model to Thomson and Kelvin. Bohr, the "Great Dane", succeeded in infiltrating every great physics advance for the next 50 years.

Now the Bohr orbitals are brilliant, but they're all old quantum theory. Once Bohr controlled the periodic table instead of Mendeleev, it became a very ugly squared-up priestcraft rather than the intended mnemonic aid it was designed to be. He continued networking toward locking a critical mass of all science into a monolith around which a meaning-draining new quantum theory could be imposed. In 1922, spotting the brilliance of young Werner Heisenberg (a Goethe enthusiast), Bohr invited him to join him climbing a mountain, upon which Bohr confided that atoms were not things and his new theories were beset with difficulties. Heisenberg understood the angst, and was inspired to complete work on what we call the matrix interpretation of quantum theory. The night he got the math to work, Heisenberg climbed another mountain to watch the sunrise and meditate on what he called a gift from heaven. But Heisenberg's work was seized by Bohr and Max Born and given the name "matrix" that both Heisenberg and I reject. Similarly, Schrodinger's wave explanation of the same events was seized by Lorentz, still the Solvay chair, who pressured Schrodinger to reconcile it with Heisenberg. Born had published the probability theory saying it was all that could be known about the atom, which Schrodinger rejected by reducing it to the absurdity of the half-dead half-living superimposed cat, a paradox that stands today. Paul Dirac wrote his own brilliant response to Heisenberg, which too was snapped up by Born in the quest for a unified statement of nonreality theory.

By the famous fifth Solvay physics conference of Oct 1927 Einstein's foundation had made him the champion of Newtonian-Einsteinian physics, with the support of his friends in Berlin, Planck and Schrodinger; while Bohr (then in Copenhagen, with Heisenberg and Dirac), emerged as the face of new quantum physics and Bohr atomism with a new presentation on probability and "complementarity" that shook everyone. It appears that all the present and future Nobel laureates but Einstein were willing to give Bohr tacit acceptance, but they secretly hoped that Einstein was right and the bizarre madness of "new" quantum theory without the quantum would abate. With the help of Heisenberg Uncertainty, Bohr was prepared to say that two contradictory things (wave-particle duality, or a cloud of electron states) can both be true at the same time, rather than Einstein's view that the thing measured is itself different from either incomplete model (which would entail that Uncertainty speaks an attempt to measure something that isn't actually there, i.e. isn't an attribute of the thing itself). Einstein dramatically announced that the theory was counterintuitive, distasteful, and temporary, and the two engaged in challenges and rebuttals. Einstein continued to challenge the 1927 revolution until his death in 1955 at his refuge of Princeton; he was often answered but never out of ammunition.

In 1935 the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox demonstrated a fundamental problem with quantum theory, namely that it predicts that reality is nonlocal and apparent faster-than-light entanglement occurs; work on refining this model continued by David Bohm. Not until the Alain Aspect experiment of 1982, based on John Bell's CERN math, was a test established, and the interpretation of the test still hasn't answered Einstein's objections; the experiment allowed interpretive loopholes. This leads to the occasional "Einstein's revenge" article showing that yet again another of his minor predictions was right, leading to the question of whether he will be proven right about the EPR paradox too. Science author J.P. McEvoy comments, "The famous 'dead and alive cat' and the EPR paradox ... both remain unresolved." M-theory with Yang-Mills folding has assisted in better modeling the wave-particle duality but has not yet been brought to bear to answer the meaning of nonlocality as Bohr's work implied. The fact is that the competing models of reality are either "homo mensura" (only what we observe has meaning) or "res ipsa loquitur" (everything has meaning without our observation). Einsteinian distaste for solipsism over realism exists today; Schrodinger's cat has nine lives, not 4.5.

All the same, looking back, conspiracy theory would suggest that the preferred model is to fund both sides of a war, indebting both to yourself. Hadn't Einstein been watched closely by his friend, physicist Emil Warburg, who was not only the father of a Nobelist but also the fifth cousin once removed of Fed founder Paul Warburg (common ancestors Jacob and Rahel Warburg)? Wasn't Einstein's haven of Princeton previously presided over by the unknown scholastic Woodrow Wilson, a Carnegie Foundation trustee with Wall Street support? Carnegie and Warburg were very interconnected over this time. So Einstein was sheltered from Hitler but also constantly pressured by the cabal's eye. And certainly "publish or perish" dependency of scientists upon research funding has continued. So is it possible that the modern Solvay bloc, and the remaining contrasting tension from modern Einstein followup such as condensate and gravity waves, are both controlled by elites? That seems unlikely to be disputed. If any power or cogency were to arise from building on the outsider work of Tesla or Dirac, wouldn't the powers who control scientific inquiry and who particularly shut out intelligent design be already onto it? The cabal's motive is to watch for anything of value in the wild and to "civilize" and "rehabilitate" it under a central-control "Borg" banner. If we assume that many unsolved problems are privately solved and that a constant review of research is engaged by a world cabal so that any fresh discoveries can be rerouted, not unlikely to presume at all, the only solution would be a parallel society in which research can be conducted secretly until the work can be released in such way as to prevent Solvay-Mond central-control (such as it exerted over the anhydrous sodium carbonate process). Capitalists do have secret research, but it's generally directed toward bottom line even when there is sufficient profit to give back to humanity; and "public" research is directed by government, which tends toward its own secrecy and cabal infiltration for very similar self-preservative purposes.

So we can start with the clear trending in control over scientific speech expressed in the Solvay Conference (similar controls come from other nameable education clusters like the Carnegie Foundation). Funding and management of these modern-science chutes has been investigated in detail and can be built on the narrative herein. Exposure is good but solutions are better. It's clear that everyone should have the research freedom that Royal Fellow Mond enjoyed and then withheld from others, namely, the ability to profit reasonably from one's discoveries, which also entails the duty to uplift less privileged society, in one's reasonable judgment. The internet helps, and perhaps the elites had no power to keep it from getting out of hand. An amusing question becomes which suppressed result will first break out and take on an uncontrolled life of its own. But more consoling is the fact that the universe takes care of itself and suppression cannot continue indefinitely (a corollary of the laws of thermodynamics). Since sooner or later the discovery that will break the conspiracy will certainly arise from somewhere, we must work every day toward making it more of a reality. Perhaps the humility of Ernest Rutherford, when alpha scattering shockingly proved atoms were orbitals rather than puddings, will return to inquiry, and free-energy phenomena will be available to all, as history indicates they once were. Truth will out.

More.

The following communities are listed in my Arbitrary Capricious Thematic Scored Interim Index (warning: some NSFW) as subcommunities of Conspiracies:

c/AltHist c/Brutalism c/cepheus c/conspiracy c/SPQR c/TheConspiracy

c/FlatEarth is also a subhub.

If you weren't already aware of these new communities, I recommend visiting and using them as well in the future, to ensure that content appears in the most fitting location.

Please comment on the Atlantean Conspiracy's page "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball".

A video on the same subject was posted here almost a year ago with little comment.

My comments so far appear here. I'm very interested in the mathematical aspects but would rather if the exploration was a joint effort.