Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.

very interesting.

pics would be terrific.

Can you talk about how the current nexus is changing? Why is a week so important? Can you tell us what you are aware of that is going on with our nexus and the different probabilities that are likely to come to fruition?

Also, you mentioned 2012 as being a representation. Can you talk more about that and the times leading up to and following that date?


You also mentioned that we will have some sort of 'warp drive' soon. That may be and some may already have it, I don't know. We have such a corrupt leadership, though, that they hide these sorts of things from the people. When you say we'll have it, do you mean the people or the government?

I've really enjoyed reading along this thread and am still taking a lot in. So much to think about and I'm sure that your words alone have helped many alter their perceptions a bit at least. Very exciting stuf!!!

Thank you again and have a safe 'journey'!

Thank you for the information so far, This is very interesting and so is your website.

Before you go can you please let us know what the date number sequence on the bottom of page 8 is all about, Very cryptic?

I also would very much be interested in the pictures of your world so i will be looking forward to your return.

Safe journey!!

Ok I totally get it now.. folks, think about the Heart of Gold ship in the Hitchhikers Guide movie.. with the Improbability Drive. "the chair is a lake" - the missile is a whale..

So we can get to any other possible representation by the linked possibilities.
We just need to discover the mental technology to allow us to trace the web of possibilities, then we can recreate our reality..
imagine someone who could turn any object into what they need..


Now..
Huh!!

n15102009 01012010 08022010 05032010
o98696043 78534022 50080240 68600434

Oh this is IT. The OP dropped us some bones.
Not sure of the relevance of "n" and "o".. number, object? If n and o are used elsewhere in the format chaol used, and someone is familiar with that, please fill us in!

First legit prediction on GLP??

Wow. So heres my prediction interpretation, for the record.

the "o" number. if its not scrambled, its a code Representing something.
Well heck, these computers, internet, wonderful things. Lets just google the number, and see what pops up?

-------------------
98696043 - on Oct 15 2009
First thing I lay eyes on.. hmm, WHOA!
a reference number on a SEC stock filing.. for
Imperial Financial Group
[link to www.secinfo.com]

Very old. Further research finds this is a subsidiary of Imperial Bancorp.
Lets see who they are.
[link to www.google.com]

A bank/lender/mortgage co. Not doing too well. Lots of bad news. "Worst stock on the market"

Now the date on this number is October 15, 2009.
Prediction? IMP will fail that day. FDIC will report it on the bank failures the next day, a Friday (how convienient). FDIC will attempt to cover the losses. However (prediction importance) this particular bank failure.. will be the straw that broke the camel's back. FDIC fails soon after. Domino effect. DOOM!

--------------------
78534022 - on Jan 1 2010
Not so useful hits on this. We either got something with Obama and crazy girls in love with him [link to blingee.com]
Or, my pick, something to do with home/real estate prices, with the representative event in Connecticut. Or someone important buys this place, and he/she should be watched.
[link to www.cyberhomes.com]
Current home value: $279477 dropped over 5k from last month

--------------------
50080240 - on Feb 8 2010
Got Nothing. Lots, but No concrete hits, just web-related numbers (item #, post#, etc) Too many unintelligible pages. Need other opinions...

--------------------
68600434 - on Mar 5 2010
Not much here either.

--------------------
Connect the Pieces
The only commonalities I've seen on the results are this:
I keep seeing hits for gene/genome research;
and Friendster accounts.

The dates:
10/15 to 1/1: 78 days
1/1 to 2/8: 38 days
2/8 to 3/5: 25 days
Start to End: 141 days

Pattern: Not sure. Someone good with pattern analysis please post. Extrapolate the next date? When does the curve hit zeropoint?


To reflect on just the numbers.. generalization. Maybe the numbers are relevant to the OP as temporal markers/dimensional markers of where this reality is going, at this moment when he leaves. The dates are significant bifurcation points in the possibilities matrix. If anything, if important events occur on the 4 dates, we've got ourselves a winning GLP predictor. Too bad he wont be back for a year..
Maybe.. the o numbers are "passwords provided to a person's possible perspective". Take the leap if you dare.

I'll stay with this thread.. lets keep thinking about the great food for thought from OP..
Best thread on GLP!

Finally read the thread. Certainly interesting and thought provoking.

As for the numbers at the end, perhaps the second line is a location - like a date and location? Maybe longitude and latitude, although I tried the first combination and all the possibilities seemed to place points in the middle of nowhere. Anyway just a thought.

n15102009010120100802201005032010

Dates?

15/10/2009 01/01/2010 08/02/2010 05/03/2010

October 15, 2009
January 1, 2010
February 8, 2010
March 5, 2010

Hmmm....

o98696043785340225008024068600434

So maybe these are locations?

Ah, sorry I Am, User ID: 500063

I just read your post and realized you had come to a similar conclusion. Doh.

I tried translating the 'o' numbers here and got nothing.
[link to home2.paulschou.net]

Okay, they aren't 3 digit area codes or 5 digit zipcodes unless there are some odd numbers in there.

Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

Now I'm reaching. We have 32 numbers in the second set. We have no idea what they represent. This is just a tiny tangent probably, doubtful it's our 'solution' to the set of numbers.

Just doing some random searches but the last paragraph is interesting:

[link to www.virtuescience.com]

The Number 32
Prime Factors of 32=2x2x2x2x2.

32 can be Partitioned 8349 ways.

32 can be Partitioned 17 times with each term no larger than 2

32 can be Partitioned 102 times with each term no larger than 3

32 can be Partitioned 351 times with each term no larger than 4

32 can be Partitioned 831 times with each term no larger than 5

30 can be Partitioned 1540 times with each term no larger than 6

The maximal number of regions into which a plane can be divided by 6 circles=32

The 32 crystal classes.

The Icosidodecahedron is an Archimedean Solid with 32 Faces. It has 20 triangles and 12 pentagons.

A Truncated Dodecahedron is an Archimedean Solid with 32 Faces. It has 20 triangles and 12 decogans.

A Truncated Icosahedron is an Archimedean Solid with 32 Faces. It has 12 pentagons and 20 hexagons.

The Chemical Element Germanium has an atomic number of 32.

An adult Human has 32 teeth.

The thirty-two permutations of yin and yang over 5 places.

The 22 paths + the 10 sephitoth of the Tree of life=32.

Each of these ten allowable rotations generates, by itself, a unique point group. In addition, there are 22 possible combinations of rotation operations, giving a total of 32 possible 3-dimensional point groups. Each point group corresponds to different crystal class. Each crystal class places constraints on the axial geometry such that each of these 32 classes may be associated into one of the 7 crystal systems, each having different constraints on the axial lengths and inter-axial angles.

[link to ruby.colorado.edu]

the 10 basic elements can be combined in only 22 ways to produce the 32 crystal classes or point groups.

[link to www.brynmawr.edu]

"It is the number of letters of the alphabet which God would have taught to Adam. Some of them would have been lost. Someone claims indeed that the face of God would be formed of 32 letters which all were not discovered, nor deciphered and ordered. If that had been the case, the man would have found his dignity of the son of God. The Gospels have succeeded to decipher 24 letters, the Pentateuch 22 and the Koran 28."

First line:

10/15/2009
1/1/2010
2/8/2010
3/5/2010
...

Working on second line

sorry... missed that

[link to www.ecsys.org]

[link to www.davidicke.com]

To be honest, you probably shouldn't care about Ecsys. It's kinda strange and requires a bit of thought to make sense of it. If you're like most people you're content with the way you've been doing and thinking about things. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being normal.

But if you think there's something more to life that you didn't get before then allow us to explain something that might be of interest to you.

Ecsys could allow you to make something possible by providing a 'map' of how to get there from where you are. It could also show us how everything is created and evolves, from the human body to planets to relationships to emotions to the mess in your top drawer. More advanced uses are also possible. But it is not a "magic wand" that makes anything appear out of thin air. It has a basis deep within how we interact with the world around us.

Scientists have proven that humans are born with a "math instinct". It is this instinct that enables us to make sense of and perform calculations. (Strange, but even dogs have been shown to perform calculus. Although to a dog it's just instinct.) We propose that humans are also born with a "perception instinct" that is even more deeply-rooted. It is this instinct that enables our minds us to filter out more than 99% of the information reaching us. We do this automatically, without conscious thought of how we do it. Using Ecsys is like doing a quick calculation, bringing into conscious awareness what we do instinctively. Imagine being able to perceive and understand a little more of what your mind filters out.

Ecsys can be immediately and effectively utilized in many different ways. It is also highly scalable, meaning that its basic principles can be applied in a kindergarten classroom as well as in a physics laboratory using concepts that most of us have already learned.

Once upon a time, computers were the exclusive domain of researchers and trained specialists. Thanks to the development of easy-to-use symbolic representations of complex operations such as windows and icons, now just about anyone can make use of them. There is no reason we cannot use cognitive tools like Ecsys to discover the 99% of reality that we ignore.

Scientists have, in a way, been busy making more complicated devices to try to understand the universe, making its true nature even less accessible to those of us in it. This doesn't make sense to us. We believe that everything is, at its core, quite basic and can be easily understood. That's where Ecsys comes in.

How Do I Know that Ecsys Isn't Some Crackpot Science?

Ecsys actually is "crackpot science" in the definition of any proper scientific community. Ecsys doesn't speak their language, and that's fine. A person who has never heard someone speaking Greek may think it is gibberish, but that doesn't make it so. On the other hand, anyone can come up with an interesting system and claim it is the answer. More times than not that answer falls far short of its promises.
Yet, most systems that we work with today will not withstand the test of time. That is to say, much of modern science will be "crackpot science" in 100 years. History has repeatedly shown us time and time again that the accepted "facts" can be quite inaccurate. Even Newton’s theory of gravitation has had to be changed a few times. In the past 20 years alone scores of scientific hypotheses have received attention, funding, and research that have turned out to be nothing but crap.

And sometimes the "weird ideas" turn out to be true. (Most of those weird ideas will just be forgotten, of course.) We actually only understand a very small part of the universe. This fact alone should tell us that many of our common assumptions are mistaken.

There is still much that scientists know they do not know, such as: what consciousness is, how life on Earth arose and what determines species diversity (or even what a species is), how memories work, what 90 percent or more of the universe is made of, what gravity is, the structure of water, how planets form, if there is life elsewhere, why we sleep, and lots more. (Source: Science Magazine) It was even recently discovered that a human cell has an electric field. And this field is 5x more intense (per meter) than a lightning bolt. Remember, there are tens, if not hundreds, of trillions of cells in a single human body. There's so much we haven't discovered about ourselves.

Interestingly enough, Ecsys offers compelling answers to all of these questions. It does it not by making slow, complex calculations based on sometimes questionable foundations but by the simple premise that there are just four kinds of things in the universe, each of which will always exhibit certain traits and characteristics and interact with other elements in a certain way.
Again, Ecsys is not science. But it can be applied to scientific things (and political, economic, social, etc., things). However, what makes something important isn't how scientific it is but how useful it is.

According to Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, "...a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

Many "theories" in science are not really theories at all, but more hypotheses. For example, the "Big bang" model rests on gravity resulting from matter, something which has not been verified. The observed rate of expansion of the universe is significantly larger than the calculated rate. (Oops!) But instead of calling it an 'error' scientists have simply increased the amount of "dark matter" in the universe by an astronomical amount (enough to conveniently compensate for the error). A complicated(i.e., "beautiful") mathematical model does not make for verification. Neither does the invention of fictional parameters to agree with experimental observations make for a theory. I'm reminded of sociological experiments that show how much "beautiful people" can get away with. The evidence for the "Big Bang Theory" came in the form of something called Mather’s Blackbody Spectrum, which has recently proven to be completely wrong (but not before two guys won the Nobel prize in physics for it).

The darling of the physics world for the last 20 years is String Theory, a field of science built on the idea that elementary particles are not objects but are the vibrations of string-like entities. This theory has yet to be confirmed yet billions of dollars and countless hours have been devoted to its study. In the physics departments of our very best universities, 20 out of the 22 tenured professors are proponents of string theory. How a beautiful and complicated math can be mistaken for a simple explanation of everything is beyond reason. Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University says, "The problem is that superstring theory is not really a theory, but rather a set of hopes that a theory exists. " (You mean... like a hypothesis?) Physicists support and promote string theory because it seems like the most promising candidate for a scientific Theory of Everything. (We agree with that, wouldn't you know.) However, it would seem that the nature of the universe is more like a fractal, facilitating simplicity, than a broken mirror with 600 dimensions.

Between 2 theories that are not even theories, have not verified any predictions (i.e., have no evidence), make the simplicity of the universe to be unnecessarily complex and inaccessible to all but a handful of humans, and a model of the universe that can be used by anyone today, offers compelling explanations to fundamental question in every field, and can actually be proven now, which one is the crackpot science? If you guessed "Ecsys" you are correct! And that's an unfortunate state of current scientific affairs.
However, the amazing thing is that science itself is built on non-scientific bases. (Meaning, you can't test the scientific method itself because it is, ironically, not scientific. Math is the only science that does not need to be based on reality. All other sciences should have, at their core, sound assumptions.) The foundations of the scientific method rest upon assumptions independent from experience. Science would fail its own test.

"Since philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision we make or position we take, it is obvious that correct philosophy is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place. Indeed, there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.." [from Evolution and Philosophy]

These basic assumptions fool scientists into thinking that the nature of something can be observed independent of the observation (i.e., as it really is). Although we've learned a few things from "Schroedinger's Cat" and other experiments in quantum physics the folly in science today is in giving up on testing these core assumptions and, thus, the true nature of any scientific results. Instead, we have religiously focused on the very limited reality that our brains create for us.

As we've read in the previous section, we are not consciously aware of more than 99% of the information that comes to us through our senses. This fact alone should make any scientist question the false assumption that "humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately". And, like generations before us, we create our own sense of rationality that is appropriate to our assumptions. If we begin with the core assumption of Earth being at the center of our solar system, for example, we can find evidence to support any related hypothesis (because our sense of reason will connect the two together in proportion to how much we believe it is true). Of course scientists today know better about Earth, but at the time this "fact" was the height of science. Since then our understanding of the world has evolved but our sense of reason has simply changed. We still hold core assumptions close to our hearts today that will amuse 12 billion humans in 100 years.

Ecsys proposes that reality is absolutely subjective and consistent with our perception, we do not have the capacity to perceive something the way it truly is (i.e., we can evolve our perceptual capacity but not observe beyond it), and that we can better understand the nature of something to the point that we see the implicit order in what was previously observed to be chaotic (i.e., we can expand our observation of rationality and have not finished discovering new logic). Although traditional science has been immeasurably useful, it ultimately fails because of these 3 basic assumptions. Ecsys is a new kind of science.

Why Should I Listen to a High-School Dropout?
Although the author of Ecsys completed only a few weeks of high school (in a place far, far away), he continued to try to understand the world about him. However, it's probably not wise to consider anyone that decided to drop out of high school as an authority on much of anything, considering the chances of she or he being good at something important to society. Taken by itself, anything that remotely looks like a "theory of everything" by anyone is most likely to be wrong, PhD or not.

But it only takes one person to make a significant difference in the world. Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, and many other important figures in history (including 10 Nobel prize winners) were all high-school dropouts. Both Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln had less than 2 years of formal education, while George Washington and Andrew Jackson both had none at all. What distinguishes these people is not their education and their deadness but their passion for self-learning and understanding the world around them.

This, of course, means little. It's probably safe to assume that most people who drop out of a formal schooling program before university don't have their wits about them. While completion of high school or university does not guarantee success in life neither does incompletion guarantee failure. However, it does make social failure more likely to occur. Yet, it is also possible that an intelligent person without much formal education will see the world differently from those that have been indoctrinated into a structured learning environment and have a greater impact than someone else who sees the world normally. The great thinkers listed in the previous paragraph would have probably led very different lives had they completed their formal education. Being self-taught obviously gave them some advantage over other colleagues.

Ecsys promotes a more democratic view of intelligence rather than the standard model that says some people are smart while others are stupid or average. We may be inclined to call someone that gets excellent grades in school or excels at technical things "intelligent", but given the task of farming, for example, they could seem pretty dull in the head. It is said that Albert Einstein didn't know how to tie his shoe and, for all of his mathematical genius, didn't know how many cups are in a pint (perhaps he didn't care to drink cups of beer?). Ecsys predicts that a person's consciousness cannot focus on everything at once.

Sorry... Not spamming - Very interesting.

Was Chaol the founder?

Is Ecsys a 'Theory of Everything'?

By popular definition a "Theory of Everything" is a theory that unifies gravity, elementary particles, the laws of motion, and the laws that govern forces. Ecsys extends the definition of a true Theory of Everything to actually include everything, and can also be applied to classical and quantum physics. A theory that only unifies the fundamental forces in physics is not a true Theory of Everything but a "Theory of Everything in Physics". Granted, unifying everything into one simple model may seem impossible to do but why not try? To date, there is no record of any scientist making such an attempt. It would almost be counter-intuitive (and un-scientific) to unify economics, politics, biology, psychology, and everything else into one model.

Nature takes a few fundamental ideas and propagates the entire universe. Ironically enough, there is nothing complex that isn't simple at its core. I propose that this simplicity comes not from physical creation but because the fundamental nature of perception is simple.

Are there real "laws" in the physical universe? Or is there a fundamental process of perception that we indirectly observe and call "laws"?

A "theory of everything" is a theory of everything that we directly or indirectly perceive. We do not draw conclusions based on what is not observable (perception-in-experience) or inconceivable (perception-in-imagination). This leads us to, inevitably, model of consciousness and perception.

Ecsys would make for a testable "Hypothesis of Possibly Everything" (HOPE) but a theory it is not.

“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise,
the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Albert Einstein

I started a new thread considering this one is dead...

Thread: What is Ecsys? (and who is chaol?)

14 days until the first date..
cmon folks, what does the first # mean?
Do consider the concepts the OP has discussed.. representation, perspective, willpower

somehow the date itself translates to the numbers directly below it..

More thinking.
maybe o is seconds?
98 million seconds is alot. 3 years.
So lets try, what happened 98696043 seconds before Oct 15, 2009?

How about math.. prime factorials

98696043= 3 × 3 × 3 × 79 × 46271

78534022= 2 × 7 × 53 × 53 × 1997
1997?? hmm

50080240= 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 5 × 7 × 37 × 2417
68600434= 2 × 7 × 4900031

The likelihood of possibilities has just balanced out.

This was an incredible thread, my thanx to you OP but who are you? you remind me of "insider13" when he posted a QandA here back in 2005, man that was sum mind altering content. I lost the plot toward the end here tho as my page 8 will not load, what was on page 8 sumthing about sum numbers? anyway this is a thread which can be studied and learned from for a long time yet.

Indeed:

www.ecsys.org

I'm thinking but I'm coming up with nada. :(

My guess is it somehow ties into locations but the longs/lats don't make sense.

Remember in the movie Knowing...they didn't make sense to him, either. Then he found that in between the dates and locations there were numbers representing the number of people who had died.

98696043
78534022
50080240
68600434