the Search and no answers !

[Brian V. Cox]

> david wilcock would you explain what the search was all about?
>
> jimb
>


jim, the questions you have asked of david in your last few posts
would be answered if you read the last couple days of postings. if
you missed some, you can read them in the archives.

the "search" is simply for someone more mathematically minded than
david to help sort through the technical language of dr. smelyakov's
paper. david actually mentioned you by name in the search posting,
so i'm guessing you have a mathematical background.

the paper seems to put forth the hypothesis that the auric (sp?) series,
based on the golden section ratio phi (~1.618...) governs our
time in an exponentially unfolding manner, instead of the current
linear view. it shows these same harmonic cycles in galactic periods,
and in nature, among other things, and correllates everything into
following these same cycles, following an infinite exponential series
of phi, going from phi^-inf to phi^+inf, in integer exp values. phi^0=1
is reckoned as the unity point. (and i think he correllates this
unity point to the end date of the mayan calendar, which he argues
actually ends in nov or dec of 2013, not 12/21/2012 as is currently
taken as the end point.) he also gives mathematical evidence that
there are two "bifurcation points" in 2003 and 2008 i think where
major shifts of time and conciousness should occur, in tandem with
major earth change events.

it supports this with evidence of phi-based cycles in the mayan calendar,
and with the population growth records of china, which has census records
going back 2000 years, and with other things that i skimmed over for now.

i've only looked over it briefly until i have more time, but those
are the main things i noticed. it reads like a quantum mechanics
textbook, so i think david is wanting someone to really absorb the
info and to be able to put it into higher level concepts.

if you need the url to d/l the article, look at yesterday's postings...

peace, brian

[Jim Bowles]

david wilcock would you explain what the search was all about?

jimb

[Jim Bowles]

hi brian

brian) re., the "search" is simply for someone more mathematically minded
than
david to help sort through the technical language of dr. smelyakov's
paper.

jimb) hi brian .. then what are the questions? there are no questions to
answer in the recent posts, and i have no idea what on the url is beyond
david's ability!

brian) re., david actually mentioned you by name in the search posting,
so i'm guessing you have a mathematical background.

jimb) than what is it that he wants to know?

and do you have any feel for all this talk of posting material for someone
not on the panel? i thought i detected some of this too!

jb

[David Wilcock]

from: jim bowles [mailto:jimbow1@...]

jimb) hi brian .. then what are the questions? there are no questions to
answer in the recent posts, and i have no idea what on the url is beyond
david's ability!

dw: actually, as i really sit with this paper it's starting to "gel" fairly
well... it just requires the memorization of many different specific terms
that are introduced at various points. i think my initial post was when i'd
tried to read through the whole thing like i would most other research
materials, and was left at the end saying, "what in the heck..."

but with persistence and really sitting with it, i think it's starting to
make sense.

ok, here's one thing that i'm totally clueless about, still. in the section
where he describes how he was able to calculate a more precise sunspot cycle
average of 11.07 years, he mentions an equation that has 1607 in it, yet i
don't see how this fits together. that part has totally eluded me. so far
i've worked just past the astrology section and have had no major problems
besides that... so if anything else pops up i'll post them here and see what
kind of feedback i get.

>and do you have any feel for all this talk of posting material for someone
not on the panel? i thought i detected some of this too!

dw: i'm not sure what you mean here, jim. if you're not interested or too
busy then that's cool... there are some other mathematicians here who have
helped me before. the strength of my work has always been in bringing
powerful minds together... and i've certainly done this before when certain
material wasn't clear to me. case in point, rod johnson. he knows an awful
lot more about quantum mechanics than i do and has been of tremendous
assistance.

peace be with you -

- david

[Brian V. Cox]

dw writes:

> ok, here's one thing that i'm totally clueless about, still. in the section
> where he describes how he was able to calculate a more precise sunspot cycle
> average of 11.07 years, he mentions an equation that has 1607 in it, yet i


i think i remember exactly what you are talking about. when i was
reading that it struck me that he pulled that number totally out...

his point i think was that if you take the sa average of 11.07 and
add integer multiples of it to a fixed starting year, then you
get a better "fit" with events than adding the sa average to the
last maxima point each time. (not having a fixed reference point)
he could have just picked 1607 as his reference point because that
made the data line up. at least that is the feeling i got from it,
but like i said in my previous post i've only looked over the paper
once at lunch yesterday. maybe 1607 was a known major sa maxima
or something?

-brian

ps david, i thought your cat post was pretty funny...keep the humor coming

"but first a hit from his catnip to finish off this long strange trip..."