The End of Entropy: A Look at Our Entropic World and the Evidence Supporting How We Can Change This

reply to post by Amaterasu


That's exactly the point i was about to make, you beat me to it
Energy vs entropy was one of my original high scholl subjects, and what you are saying is true, in a sense.
The original formula for the 'heat death of the universe' called for a point in time where all energy is distributed equally throughout space. Since there will no longer be any difference in energy between point A & point B means no energy can flow, so nothing will move ever again (hence the death part).
However, energy is equal to mass (forget the C part for now) and so, if a piece of matter, say an unstable isotope decides to call it a day & explode, it will generate an awful lot of energy, we call this fission.
OK so maybe there will come a time when all isotopes have decayed & there are only stable ones left, this would probably BE the actual death of the universe, but from where i'm sitting, that's a long way off.....
The other poster mentioned that solar energy is the driving force behind everything on Earth, & that used to be true, until we started fissioning & fusing things, it's a very dangerous game.
Also, there are 2 other things to take into account when dealing with energy, 1 it is multidimensional in nature, so it has a TIME component, that complicates everything.
2 if the ZPE/Modern Aether theory is correct, then we are surrounded by unlimited, astronomical amounts of energy that is very difficult to detect, let alone use.There is so much energy that particles are being spontaneously created & destroyed, billions of times a second, right in front of your nose, this energy has been calculated to be in the order of 60 Gigawatts per cc of empty space!
TPTB will have you believe it's all nonsense, but it is there, & i have measured it, the 60gig number is not mine, but i see no reason to doubt it until i can do some more measurements.
Tom Bearden knows his stuff, believe me, he stated that if we can control ZPE, we can control energy & matter at will, we would literally become gods (i prefer the star-trek entity Q myself
Check out the only thread i have ever posted;
www.abovetopsecret.com...
One more thing, this technology is of course EXTREMELY dangerous, ever seen the film 'Forbidden Planet'? "Beware the monster from the Id"

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

TPTB will have you believe it's all nonsense, but it is there, & i have measured it, the 60gig number is not mine, but i see no reason to doubt it until i can do some more measurements.
Tom Bearden knows his stuff, believe me, he stated that if we can control ZPE, we can control energy & matter at will, we would literally become gods (i prefer the star-trek entity Q myself

Check out the only thread i have ever posted;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 15-3-2011 by playswithmachines because: Typset

One more thing, this technology is of course EXTREMELY dangerous, ever seen the film 'Forbidden Planet'? "Beware the monster from the Id"

Yes, TPTB don't want you to know about a lot of things...

Interestingly, the plenum energy is negentropic in extraction. Temperature drop in the proximity of the extraction device is the characteristic signature, rather than heat production. Rather than go chasing every Joule, it would be so much better to balance entropy with negentropy - and get phenomenal energy to use.

I was fascinated reading Bearden's Gravitobiology - which, by the way, is available to read online. And yes, if we can control the energy we can create at will. I have a book I wrote, available free here on ATS which shows how life could be. It is included in the joint work I did with my partner (linked free here on ATS in my sig) as well as stand-alone (check my media site).

And though it is dangerous...safety can be incorporated into the extraction methods - all energy can be destructive, after all. But safe methods let us cook with gas, run our cars, and so on. Only nuclear seems to have safety issues that cannot be solved...

Good thread, BTW. I may pop in and comment. [smile]

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Interestingly, the plenum energy is negentropic in extraction. Temperature drop in the proximity of the extraction device is the characteristic signature, rather than heat production.

But heat is a measure of energy. That's why all energy sources are also heat sources. Petroleum products are burned, nuclear reactors heat water, solar power comes from the sun, and wind and hydro come from the friction of fast moving water and air (the friction produces heat when the molecules contact the turbines).

Temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the molecules being measured. Higher kinetic energy is higher temperature, and lower temperature is lower kinetic energy. When a system cools off, the kinetic energy is decreasing and being converted to something else. The way that we extract power from systems is by exploiting a differential; the energy always moves from the component with higher energy/heat to the component of lower energy. As soon as something drops in temperature relative to its surroundings, it becomes an energy sink, not a source.

It's not possible for spontaneous cooling to be the same thing as energy production. Getting energy from anything increases heat in the extractor. High energy mechanical sources like wind and water heat up whatever is extracting energy from them by the transfer of kinetic energy. High energy chemical sources are always dependent on the breaking of high energy bonds, which releases energy. Even solar power heats up the solar panels. High energy electrons moving through wires heat up the atoms that they interact with. Nuclear energy - both fussion and fission - extract energy from matter by E=mc^2, when matter is converted to energy the energy heats up the surroundings, always.

The link between energy and heat is at the heart of all of the physical sciences and has been observed countless times without fail in every system that has ever been examined. Cold (relative to whatever the energy is being transfered to) energy sources don't exist. Energy would always flow into them instead of out of them: when you put something cold in a warmer environment, the cold thing warms up and the environment cools.

If the system doesn't produce mechanical energy, chemical energy, electrical energy or radiation, what does it produce? All of those energy sources are exothermic. The act of measuring a temperature drop consists of putting a thermometer into the target system and having the thermometer read a lower temperature. The reason that this happens is that the liquid in the thermometer loses kinetic energy and therefore decreases in volume. That energy goes into the thing being measured. This means that what is being measured is by definition endothermic. Endothermic things take energy in, they don't give energy off. Anything that cools down is an energy sink.

Without directing me to read a book, how does ZPE account for this fundamental contradiction?

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Interestingly, the plenum energy is negentropic in extraction. Temperature drop in the proximity of the extraction device is the characteristic signature, rather than heat production.

But heat is a measure of energy. That's why all energy sources are also heat sources. Petroleum products are burned, nuclear reactors heat water, solar power comes from the sun, and wind and hydro come from the friction of fast moving water and air (the friction produces heat when the molecules contact the turbines).

That is true of ENTROPIC sources, I agree. The plenum energy is negentropic. It cools as the energy is extracted. From then on, it can be seen as entropic as we use it to heat things and otherwise produce entropic aspects.

Temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the molecules being measured. Higher kinetic energy is higher temperature, and lower temperature is lower kinetic energy. When a system cools off, the kinetic energy is decreasing and being converted to something else. The way that we extract power from systems is by exploiting a differential; the energy always moves from the component with higher energy/heat to the component of lower energy. As soon as something drops in temperature relative to its surroundings, it becomes an energy sink, not a source.

In all standard aspects, this is correct. However, the nature of the plenum energy is such that the extraction is negentropic. The energy we then use is entropic.

It's not possible for spontaneous cooling to be the same thing as energy production. Getting energy from anything increases heat in the extractor. High energy mechanical sources like wind and water heat up whatever is extracting energy from them by the transfer of kinetic energy. High energy chemical sources are always dependent on the breaking of high energy bonds, which releases energy. Even solar power heats up the solar panels. High energy electrons moving through wires heat up the atoms that they interact with. Nuclear energy - both fussion and fission - extract energy from matter by E=mc^2, when matter is converted to energy the energy heats up the surroundings, always.

Again, negentropic extraction, entropic use. You are comparing classical methods of energy production with a non-classical energy extraction. In fact, cooling is the signature of extracting energy from the plenum.

The link between energy and heat is at the heart of all of the physical sciences and has been observed countless times without fail in every system that has ever been examined. Cold (relative to whatever the energy is being transfered to) energy sources don't exist. Energy would always flow into them instead of out of them: when you put something cold in a warmer environment, the cold thing warms up and the environment cools.

This is all classical and does not relate to extracting from the plenum.

If the system doesn't produce mechanical energy, chemical energy, electrical energy or radiation, what does it produce? All of those energy sources are exothermic. The act of measuring a temperature drop consists of putting a thermometer into the target system and having the thermometer read a lower temperature. The reason that this happens is that the liquid in the thermometer loses kinetic energy and therefore decreases in volume. That energy goes into the thing being measured. This means that what is being measured is by definition endothermic. Endothermic things take energy in, they don't give energy off. Anything that cools down is an energy sink.

The energy we get from the extraction can be in any mode. And it will be, as all other energy, entropic and follow the laws you offer here. It is ONLY the extraction process itself that creates the cooling.

Without directing me to read a book, how does ZPE account for this fundamental contradiction?

I am not an expert on ZPE itself, but have a large body of reading I have done which includes many, many descriptions of the cooling effect obtained in extraction. None have reported heat production from the extraction itself.

BRAVO!

excellent thread indeed!

you have established and made your point through out the thread, I agree that if power wasn't so misused we would definately be seeing a better world today.

again GREAT thread! Definately one of my top picks, star and flag

reply to post by EL1A5


Thank you so kindly. [smile]

I am sure things would look a lot different if we had all the energy we cared to use.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I would like to add to that highly accurate explanation, that is, electrical energy in the form of charge is in no way exothermic, nor are magnetic fields (unless they are producing eddy currents in metals etc).
Also:

Interestingly, the plenum energy is negentropic in extraction. Temperature drop in the proximity of the extraction device is the characteristic signature, rather than heat production. Rather than go chasing every Joule, it would be so much better to balance entropy with negentropy - and get phenomenal energy to use.

Two things i noticed that tend to support this are the reports from Podkletnov & others of 'cold zones' in the vicinity of the machine, and Bearden's MEG device.
I built a tiny MEG to prove his theory, & while i did not measure true overunity (not knowing the exact core composition) and Naudin's plans, for some reason, seem to contain deliberate faults
What i DID measure, however, is "negative resistance" in resistors at the input to the circuit,the lower the resistance, the less current flowed, & vice versa. This is of course defeating Ohm's law for a DC circuit.
Having fried several resistors to prove this, i gave up & moved on to something else
In electrical terms, it might be possible to use both entropy & negentropy working against each other & extract energy from it, an interesting idea..................

reply to post by playswithmachines


Thank you for your knowledgeable and interesting input. [smile]

Interestingly, my husband is working on a FE device - he needs a custom piece and we have no money to get it created - but at the moment it's doing something to the extent of producing the cooling affect. That gives us high hopes...

reply to post by Amaterasu


I wish him the best of luck
When testing the MEG theory, i was using very little power, maybe 2 watts, so no cold effects were noticed.
I keep thinking that if i built a much bigger one, it would maybe show endothermic effects, which Podkletnov refferred to as 'cold zones'. This would make sense, if the ZPE phenomenon would be drawing energy from several sources-including thermal, which is just atoms moving, right?
It would then make sense to place the transistors etc. in those cold zones, thereby cooling them & allowing them to conduct better. This would raise the efficiency even further. So far, that's the only way i can see how we could use entropy in machines, instead of fighting it all the time.
A very interesting thread

reply to post by playswithmachines


Thank you so much.

I am less versed in the specifics of how it works. I just know that I can feel the cold spots - and can feel orgone coming out of orgone shooters. [shrug] And intuit greatly, as well.

The problem with idealistic plans is there always people about that will take advantage. I truly believe the vast majority of people would love to simply live free and not bother anybody else, or be bothered. But there are still those who will wish to insist that you follow their 'one and only true religion' or whatever their cause is. Even the actual well meaning busy bodies cause nothing but trouble. Case in point prohibition. Those that wanted to ban alcohol won and so came the mob etc.
Today so many are dull and mostly brain washed by mass media and bad education I am not at all sure they could even be taught decent ethics.
Guess I been around too long all I can see are dark clouds.

Originally posted by Chett
The problem with idealistic plans

Chett, My friend, what you don't understand is that this is not some "idealistic" set of Ideas, but...

50 years of ponderance and analysis

A personal knowledge of the science of electrogravitics and what it can do (overunity, antigravity)

An awareness of the fact that Maxwell's Quaternions describe twice as much as "Maxwell's Equations" (which are Heaviside/Briggs truncations) as taught in schools as a rule

A background in banking with an excellent grasp of economics

A technophilic bent (believe me, We're doing awesome things in robotics - albeit a great deal in "warfare" rather than for peaceful applications, the peaceful applications are staggering)

A deep grasp of psychology

A very strong Betterment Ethic

And most of all...

A very PRAGMATIC outlook.

That is why it took me 50 years to put the pieces together, because it has to be pragmatic.

The plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/radiant/orgone/...) energy is the key to removing the need for money, the Interweb is brain, and the robots are the brawn. We can raise the standard of living of everyOne on this planet, peacefully, organically, and pragmatically.

is there always people about that will take advantage.

How would you take advantage of being able to have fresh, organic food as you please, a place to live that suits you, the opportunity to do what you want to do within the three Laws? I'm struggling to grasp what that would look like...

I truly believe the vast majority of people would love to simply live free and not bother anybody else, or be bothered.

Humans tend to be that way - loving in Their circles - and a bit stand-offish otherwise. Yes, the vast majority are that way.

But there are still those who will wish to insist that you follow their 'one and only true religion' or whatever their cause is.

Well, there'll be less of that as people find Their freedom, and as long as the three Laws are kept, They can believe whatever They wish. I'm not saying there will be no issues in transition, mind you. But the three Laws will become supreme.

Even the actual well meaning busy bodies cause nothing but trouble.

They can, but there's nothing One can do about strictly social behavior (as opposed to behavior that is a mix of social and financial currency). And those problems will minimize as people, free to spend time with whom They wish, free to move where They like, will move in circles that are congenial, never being forced to endure people They can't stand (like bosses and coworkers).

Case in point prohibition. Those that wanted to ban alcohol won and so came the mob etc.

Well, the removal of money as a necessity in society will eliminate the mob as any force - and prohibition is unEthical because none of the three Laws are being violated. Only where the three Laws are being broken is any edict, bill, constitution, declaration, statute, act, or other legal thing Ethical. Also... One loses any power over others in exchange for autonomous power over self. So though some would holler for prohibition, it is not a crime until a crime has been committed - and a crime breaks at least one of the three Laws.

Today so many are dull and mostly brain washed by mass media and bad education I am not at all sure they could even be taught decent ethics.

You mean fluoridated? I envision at some point some media person to help spread the Ideas here. If it reaches the tipping point, it will be all downhill.

Guess I been around too long all I can see are dark clouds.

And I have been around a long while too. But all I can see is hope since everything clicked two years ago and I wrote The Abundance Paradigm (included in my co-written book, linked in my sig).

Having read this, the foundation, You may want to read the structure I offer to assist society in having some form upon which to gravitate as plenum energy flows in and changes Our world. The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform is linked in my sig as well.

Wow, Amaterasu. That's going to take some time to digest fully. Still, if it's been fifty years in the making for you, a little time exploring around the topics you present seems a good idea.

Do you know of / can recommend any books on this topic to get a good overview?

There's clearly two main strands of thought being woven together here - and that's always where I start putting my skeptics hat on, which (sigh) usually means lots of research needed.

I.e.

1. Possibility of drawing on energy without depleting resources
   
2. How the disruption of the power bases (currently centered around finite energy resources) would lead to a fairer society
   

Thanks very much for giving a great introduction to the first point - I'll start exploring based on this, and the fascinating posts relating to active experimentation that have followed. Exciting stuff.

On the second point on how this would inevitably lead to a whole load of positive effects - well, people who crave power will find some way to ensure they have the upper hand. The mentality of these people is such that if they lose control over finite resources of energy, they will find ways of limiting access to other resources, or create a 'need' for resources they can control. Take a look at Apple - fabulous gadgetry, that a large proportion of people feel they 'need'. They then opt to control resources as much as possible, thus effectively inventing a power base. Do I see them as evil? Well, having worked for them for a little while, they do resemble a cult, and those that do well there, find reasons to believe everything they are told. And they appear to have a policy of deliberate underresourcing to anyone who stays is willing to overwork to the nth degree. It was ultimately kind of creepy - a real experience. Still, that was back when I had my Windows Mobile phone (silly, I know, but it kept me sane - this was before Android came to prominence).

This is creeping into a separate post, so I'm just really making the point that while this is clearly an important area of exploration, it's one of a larger web of changes that are only now possible due to the amazing opportunity that the interconnectedness of the WWW gives us.

The Open Source movement is now here to stay. Businesses and increasingly governments are being forced to change their model to a more open model. The ridiculous notion of building in a shelf-life when goods can be made to last for very little more is being questioned, and open source physical alternatives to machines (and I'm sure it will move to many other areas of our everyday lives) will start forcing businesses to subscribe to this model in order to remain profitable.

I'm not an expert on these technologies, but while it may seem like doom to some people, I have great hope for our future, because it's increasingly difficult to hide uncomfortable truths these days.

So thanks again for a great post, and leading me to a whole area of science I had previously not been aware of.

All the best

David.

Much applause to you!
I have enjoyed the read and am excited for what things may come of our world if what you say comes to fruition but I have a few thoughts when reading.

1, this energy source could take a very long time to be revealed so we may need to think of a plan until that time comes, if it comes.

2, I can’t see how we can live having what we want for free and all be equal. If money becomes obsolete there will have to be another way to choose who gets to live in the manshion next to the great pyramids. What I mean to say is people will still want more than others but there has to be a limit.

Originally posted by daviddiss
Wow, Amaterasu. That's going to take some time to digest fully. Still, if it's been fifty years in the making for you, a little time exploring around the topics you present seems a good idea.

Sorry for the delay in replying - I seldom check the thread, expecting people to reply to Me, and so therefore I will be notified. But sometimes people respond to the thread, and then I miss things for a while. Thank You for Your willingness to read. [smile]

Do you know of / can recommend any books on this topic to get a good overview?

I wish I could, but as far as I know, I am the only one to have pieced things together like this. I might offer my novella, written to illustrate the abundance paradigm in action, kinda like a blueprint, if you will. It is written as science "fiction" but shows how things flow in society. It's free.

The Abundance Paradigm:

media.abovetopsecret.com...

And You might want to check out the companion thread to this one here:

The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform - the structure

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's clearly two main strands of thought being woven together here - and that's always where I start putting my skeptics hat on, which (sigh) usually means lots of research needed.

I.e.

1. Possibility of drawing on energy without depleting resources
   
2. How the disruption of the power bases (currently centered around finite energy resources) would lead to a fairer society
   

Thanks very much for giving a great introduction to the first point - I'll start exploring based on this, and the fascinating posts relating to active experimentation that have followed. Exciting stuff.

I don't know if I mentioned on this particular thread yet that I know We can extract energy from the plenum. My father was an electrical engineer in the 1950's having graduated from CalTech. He was working for one of the top aerospace companies contracting with the government. He was working on electrogravitics and would come home all excited by what He was building and discovering. He tried to teach me how it worked - but as a toddler, I wasn't prime for reception. However, He also described the world I would be growing up in because of electrogravitics: cars would fly, houses and cities would float, We'd even have "jet packs" (sans the jets)! And We would have plenty of energy to run everything and then some.

Electrogravitics offered both antigravity and overunity.

One night in late 1959, early 1960, Dad came home from work late and woke Me up to explain that We coundn't talk about it anymore. "They want it secret for now." That is when the science went into black ops.

On the second point on how this would inevitably lead to a whole load of positive effects - well, people who crave power will find some way to ensure they have the upper hand.

Yes, and that is why electrogravitics is in black ops. Free energy threatens Their control. If We can wrest the technology from black ops, or reinvent methods for drawing on it, They can fight all They want. As the cost of energy is removed on down the line, eventually We reach a point at which everything is free.

Consider the first farmer. The sun is free. The seed is free. The soil is free. The rain is free. But the farmer's energy is needed to put all these things together as a functional farm, keep it together, and then move the free plant matter gathered at harvest to market. What the customers are paying for is not the plant matter. It is the farmer's energy.

In fact, money just represents meaningful energy expended, and in a scarcity of energy, it is a very useful tool (especially for maintaining control). Once energy starts flowing freely, money eventually becomes moot. It's effectively like having infinite money - which has no social application.

The mentality of these people is such that if they lose control over finite resources of energy, they will find ways of limiting access to other resources, or create a 'need' for resources they can control.

Except... Money will be unneeded, and We have so much (other than energy) on this planet, They would have nothing really to bargain with. And the roughly 10,000 top elite, though They can keep Their houses and boats and stuff, will have no say over the rest of the nearly 7 billion of Us.

Take a look at Apple - fabulous gadgetry, that a large proportion of people feel they 'need'. They then opt to control resources as much as possible, thus effectively inventing a power base.

Motivated by money/power/energy (three forms of the same thing) n'est pas? Without that as motive, what would be Their motive?

Do I see them as evil? Well, having worked for them for a little while, they do resemble a cult, and those that do well there, find reasons to believe everything they are told. And they appear to have a policy of deliberate underresourcing to anyone who stays is willing to overwork to the nth degree. It was ultimately kind of creepy - a real experience. Still, that was back when I had my Windows Mobile phone (silly, I know, but it kept me sane - this was before Android came to prominence).

And I see things developing much as Linux developed, with major contributors being "paid" in the appreciation of the users. Corporations will be a thing of the past, and We will coalesce around problems to solve them, as concerned Individuals, solving them the BEST We can find, and not the cheapest/most profitable.

This is creeping into a separate post, so I'm just really making the point that while this is clearly an important area of exploration, it's one of a larger web of changes that are only now possible due to the amazing opportunity that the interconnectedness of the WWW gives us.

Heh. My thread! I say You can move forward on any line You choose! But You're right, Our tech is Now at the point where We have these options.

Open Source movement is now here to stay. Businesses and increasingly governments are being forced to change their model to a more open model. The ridiculous notion of building in a shelf-life when goods can be made to last for very little more is being questioned, and open source physical alternatives to machines (and I'm sure it will move to many other areas of our everyday lives) will start forcing businesses to subscribe to this model in order to remain profitable.

Well, I applaud any who offers Their work open source. And I think it will be easy in abundance to coax open source in everything. As it stands now, Microsoft gets credit for Word, NOT the programmers (though One might discover Their names if One looks hard). In abundance the programmers of the best software will be heroes. They will be lauded. Their work will be selected. They will feel rewarded.

I'm not an expert on these technologies, but while it may seem like doom to some people, I have great hope for our future, because it's increasingly difficult to hide uncomfortable truths these days.

Me too! A kindred soul!

So thanks again for a great post, and leading me to a whole area of science I had previously not been aware of.

Most welcome!

Originally posted by Khao5
Much applause to you!
I have enjoyed the read and am excited for what things may come of our world if what you say comes to fruition but I have a few thoughts when reading.

1, this energy source could take a very long time to be revealed so we may need to think of a plan until that time comes, if it comes.

I apologize to You as well for being so late in my response. Yes, this may be difficult to extract from black ops - but if the ideas hit the tipping point, many will begin revealing things. In the meantime, I have just the thing!

Here's a simple schematic for drawing on the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

, I can’t see how we can live having what we want for free and all be equal. If money becomes obsolete there will have to be another way to choose who gets to live in the manshion next to the great pyramids. What I mean to say is people will still want more than others but there has to be a limit.

Well, there are no mansions next to the Pyramids. LOL! But I get Your point. First, if it belongs to You, it's Yours. Second, a great deal of "real estate" will take to the sky - along with overunity comes antigravity.

And it's not like one day We wake up and it's a mad grab. As the energy flows in, the cost of energy in production all down the line vanishes, leaving only free stuff (the planet - see my explanation in the post above). During this transition phase, the cost of living will drop, the standard of living will rise. And rise. And rise. Eventually We will all have the option of living as today's elite do.

And if We want a mansion near the pyramids, We can float one We had custom built. No need to fight. Plenty of sky for everyOne.

I don't believe that money is so much a store of energy, as it is a means of regulating scarcity, personally.

The problem has been the fact that people continue to artificially *create* scarcity where, as Amaterasu says, there is no real need for it to exist; for the most part anyway. They do this for control, which ultimately goes back to the source of Alexander the Great's complaint about Aristotle teaching people how to think.

There is a craving for elitism. There is a particular demographic of the human population, which Amaterasu refers to as the Lizard Hearted, who need more than life itself to feel superior to everyone else. They are our main obstacle; if we could get past them, anything would become possible.

There would, however, remain a certain number of rare minerals, and a few other things, which would continue to be scarce, and thus need some means of deciding who they were allocated to, presumably. Given the degree to which we've already learned to synthesise other metals, however, I can't believe that we wouldn't eventually be able to synthesise them as well.

I love your work though, Amaterasu. We really are kindred spirits, I think; although I don't have quite your gift of foresight, or your positivity.

I always love an optimistic person, but I also find some of them to be incredibly vain.

For instance, did you know that if you have a four-horse team pulling a carriage and one of the horses ends up pulling in the opposite direection, progress is slowed? And if two of them pull in the opposite direction of the other two, then progress virtually halts (not to mention possible property damage). OMGWTF??

The point here is, you can proclaim all you like about, "WE HAVE THE POWER" but none of it makes a jot of difference if we're not willing. You could say, "One man makes the difference." Take Martin Luther King Jr. He was one man, and he made a difference. Lol...no. He was one man with a thousand other black people behind him. He did not single-handedly change our country. He inspired them, sure. And I can agree with any one man being inspiring. But one man can't CHANGE the country. Even the President requires the assistance of Congress in order to approve a change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pessimist. I'm a realist. Which means as much as I'd love to see unity among the people of Earth, to see the ascension of their souls as one...I know that without the full and undivided and unhesitating consent of every man and woman and child on Earth, it is impossible.

Before any change can be made in this world, a man has to approve it, or make it happen. And when you have a billion people all going in different directions, you're going to have a billion half-complete changes, which makes this one really incomplete world.

Again, I admire your vision. But Jesus had a vision of utopia too, and I don't see it happening yet.

Any response from Amaterasu would be wonderful.

Found this article on another of my favourite sites and thought I'd bump
Bravo Op! Bravo!