spiritofatlantis.com | Duane K. McCullough

Gif image of Future Time Logo

Future Time V3.2

by Duane McCullough

Is the time continuum a matter of perception or matter of fact?

"So he gathered all the gods in his most honorable residence, even that that stands at the world's center and overlooks all that has part in becoming, and when he had gathered them there, he said...". These words are perhaps Plato's last written words.

They can be found at the very end of the CRITIAS Dialogue and describe a scene in which the Greek god Zeus is about to give judgment to the Atlanteans for misbehaving. No other dialogues or any other works by Plato are known to exist after the CRITIAS Dialogue. Some say Plato may have written a third piece of work about Atlantis, but no evidence of it has ever been found to date.

What makes this last statement by Plato interesting are the words: "and overlooks all that has part in becoming". This view suggest that a place exist somewhere wherein future events can be seen.

Although many persons have and continue to claim knowledge of future events, the art of "forward viewing" into the time continuum of nature seems scientifically improbable -- or at least humanly impossible.

Anybody can see into the past just by looking up at the evening stars. The light from them took place many years -- sometimes thousands or millions of years, to reach our eyes. Our particular view of the heavens depends on the speed of light and any interstellar events we see took place a very long time ago.

However, our view into the interstellar past is limited to waves of light beams from large bodies of burning energy. Moreover, not all the starlight in the night sky happened long ago at the same time -- so, what we see is a universal sky that displays many different time zones measured only by the speed of light and the distance from Earth the light beam traveled.

But to actually see true events of the future is unlikely because the human body and mind is apparently incapable of such physical tricks. Those that claim they can do such physical tricks are probably using the imaginary power of suggestion rather than the forecasting power of future vision.

Perhaps some have confused the art of seeing into an unlimited imaginary universe with the science of seeing into a limited real universe. The real universe may be unlimited in its physical perimeters -- but does has specific physical limitations that prevent true future vision.

Even if humans were capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, visions into future time would be limited to the dimension along the path of travel. In other words, if some future spaceship could "beam" itself from Earth to the nearest star system and back in a few "earth minutes", the occupants could only see or experience events relative to the path of travel.

It seems that the only physical way to truly see the future is to "arrest" time itself -- that is to personally stop the perception of time. One could hide away somewhere out of touch with the world community and wait for the future to appear. Or by using special technology like cryogenically freezing oneself and then perhaps be unfrozen in the future. But either example is a one way trip -- you can't reverse the experience.

If the time continuum allows only irreversible successions of events from the past through the present and into the future, then to see future events from the present time line is impossible. It's that simple.

If one wanted to see possible future events in the real physical universe, certain facts will have to be suspended -- and an imaginary or virtual universe be used instead.

Using unique computer tools like special astronomical or flight simulators to experience possible future events is an example of how one can virtually "see" the past or future today. However, even the best computer simulators can not alter the measured pace of the time continuum.

The accepted pace of the time continuum can be measured in many ways. One of the most common measurements is the unit known as the "minute". This measurement of time can be divided sixty times into the "second" unit or added together sixty times to form the "hour" unit.

Twenty-four "hour" units equal a "day" unit -- and 365.242 "day" units equal a "year" unit. After the "year" unit, the time continuum is further divided into the decimal system of decades, centuries, millenniums, millions and billions of years.

Astronomers have become familiar with a new computer program that uses a decimal system based on the "Julian date". This dating system uses a time count that began over sixty-seven hundred years ago and should not be confused with the Julian Calendar count system of the Roman Empire.

Its purpose is to divide astronomical time into a large decimal database so that computers can calculate the timely location of celestial bodies in the sky. In theory, past or future celestial events can be projected into the present view to be studied.

It can be a very compelling experience when modern computers use the decimal Julian dating system to project a virtual sky view of timely events on a large computer monitor. Using the computer program to prove a possible link between a past astronomical event and a past historical event can be helpful.

For example, on May 8, 1902 at 8:02 AM on the Caribbean island of Martinique, a volcano exploded killing nearly 30,000 residents. If a computer operator programmed the latitude and longitude of that event on that date at that time while looking east, the view of the Sun aligned near the Moon suggest that celestial gravity may have played a role in the volcanic event.

Another historical example that may be "verified" by this computer simulation program is the sky view in June 1769 when Captain Cook noted in his logbook that while in Tahiti the path of the planet Venus crossed the Sun.

However, it should be realized that these simulated experiences are not a factual voyage into the time continuum -- they are only recreations of possible celestial events.

Although the decimal Julian dating system is a great way to "verify" historical events, it does have limitations. These limitations are founded on unforeseen variables in the makeup of the overall algorithms used in the program.

Because the program relies on foreseen variables to project future or past sky data, it assumes little variation in the Earth's rotation or other celestial bodies.

But to rely on the decimal Julian dating system to prove or visually match the sky data to a recorded historical event longer than, say a thousand years ago, would be like depending on your local tide tables to project the time of high tide hundreds of years ago. Sure, statically it can be done and be presented in a convincing way -- but would it true?

If a large comet crashed into the Sun nearly a thousand years ago and caused a large "plasmatic splash" on the surface that shot out into space and some how affected the Earth's environment and rotation, would this event affect the projected data of the computer program?

Perhaps the reason why the decimal Julian dating system does not attempt to project sky data millions of years into the past or future is also the same reason why it may not be capable of projecting sky data thousands of years into the past or future -- too many unforeseen variables may not have been included into the overall algorithms used in the program.

Whether your navigating the landscape or history itself, any good navigator knows not to depend on any one method of navigating. And the decimal Julian dating system used by modern astronomical computer simulators, although very powerful and convincing, is only one of many ways to virtually visit and "see" the past or the future.

Our perception of the past may be "hard wired" to the A.D. or Common Era (C.E.) time scale -- but what of the future? Will the A.D. or C.E. time scale be used in the future?

Because the time continuum has been measured and calibrated to the assumed birth date of Christ -- and because most every book ever published is dated to the A.D. time scale, it seems that future citizens will be historically disorientated if they choose any other dating system.

Just look at the year 2000 timing problem that many computers experienced. Some older machines were programmed to an abbreviated date within this century -- such as "'88" instead of "1988", so when the year 2000 rolled around, they incorrectly "went backward" in time to "'00" (1900) instead of 2000.

Teaching these older computers that the time continuum is greater than 99 years cost the global business community several hundred billion dollars.

Now that the international standard of timekeeping the time continuum is fully implemented on most computers after the millennium mark, there exist a new theoretical calendrical argument that challenges the numerical accountability of the A.D. dating system itself. However, before we explore that argument let's first understand the just how time is officially measured.

Currently, the proper international way to display time is the all-numeric YYYY-MM-DD (year-month-day) format. The time continuum can be further divided into the all-numeric HH-MM-SS (hour-minute-second) format.

If this time display formula could be read in reverse the values of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months and years would equal the way time can also be kept.

The only time value in this succession of units that is variable is the day unit. Because of calendrical updating, the numerical value of days to the month can range between 28 to 31. Although time values like weeks or seasons are not included in the "official" way time is recorded, not much math is needed to fit these time values into the year count.

So, if these units were lined up in such a way wherein if one second were added to the first unit that would "trip down the line", the set of cascading units would appear as "59 (seconds), 59 (minutes), 23 (hours), 27 to 30 (days), 11 (months), [plus 1 second] equals the year value of 365.242 days.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this timekeeping formula. It is very successful and is the international standard for timekeeping.

However, according to new calendar data recently discovered regarding the conventional Judaic Calendar time-line of Western History and the current A.D. year date value -- which is based on the assumed birth date of Christ, all annual dates of conventiona human history beyond five centuries ago are incorrect.

This new calendar data argues the theoretical idea that because certain important publishers made several basic numerical errors in recompiling year dates nearly five centuries ago during the early printing age, the conventional birth date of Christ is considerably incorrect.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that this new calendrical data can scientifically prove most every significant historical event from before the Renaissance was incorrectly dated and published by scholars who inflated -- or "buffered" human history with year dates far beyond their true values.

Further, let's assume that the public will discover this new calendar data and learn that the year span between Christ and the Renaissance is not some fifteen centuries -- but actually amount to less than two centuries.

This new calendar data argument suggest a very radical time-line theory of Western History as being extreamly smaller in annual counting dates than what is recorded in most every history book printed since machine printing was invented. In fact -- a book known as the Nuremberg Chronicle, printed just over five centuries ago by Judaic scholars, is why the dates of conventional Western History are wrong.

Apparently, these Judaic scholars created the B.C. / A.D. time-line of conventional Western History when they theorized the year date of the first Patriarch named Adam -- and tried to tie it to the birth of when Christ was born. They did the best they could with what they had to work with five centuries ago -- but this new calendar argument suggest they got the annual dates very wrong.

Although the Nuremberg Chronicle book was basically only just an outline of the dates that created the official conventional Western History time-line, the detail dates of history between the outline in the book were filled in by other historians over the last five centuries.

It should be understood that this new calendar data argument with conventional Western History does not challenge the international format of how time is displayed -- it only argues the true year count value relative to the birth date of Christ -- and even the birth date of the first Patriarch known as Adam. Nor does this argument challenge the annual accountability of historical events of the last five centuries -- or the sequence of recorded historical events from before the Renaissance.

If this new calendar argument can create a new understanding of how and when conventional Western History was created -- perhaps a new understanding of human history will unfold.

Perhaps a new year count system is needed -- much like new operating systems are sometimes needed by computers to handle more accurate information. Because of compatibility problems, it is very difficult to change the fundamental timing language used to run any operating system. Sometimes it is better to adopt a whole new way of calculating alphanumerical data.

So, if it is ever scientifically established that Christ lived less than a thousand years ago, it may be necessary for Western Society to start a new time counting system that does not conflict with the A.D. count.

It would be nice if this new counting system could "emulate" the A.D. count so that modern historians could easily calculate and understand the proper sequence of events from conventional Western History. Also a start date far in the past would be nice so that the date count of historical events would add forward without having to count or subtract event dates backwards -- like what is done in counting B.C. dates.

The astronomical decimal Julian dating system is too long in its numerical makeup for most every day work. Because it doesn't easily display the year or monthly value count outright, it would be hard to understand by the general public. The Julian dating system is also handicapped by ten "extra days" added to counting historical time to accommodate an assumed calculative error created in 1582 A.D. by Pope Gregory. Moreover, it doesn't give any special value mark to the birth date of Christ.

Any new dating system that doesn't easily mark the birth date of Christ may please nonreligious secular persons, but because global commerce is based on seasonal Christian dates -- not to mention the very important role that Jesus Christ plays in Western History, some kind of date counting system relating to the birth of Christ -- or at least his ancestral relative named Adam, would be nice.

Because the year/month/day/hour/minute/second time formula is so successful, perhaps only changing the recorded year count based on the true birth date of Christ -- or, again, at least his ancestral relative named Adam, would work as a new dating system for human history.

So, whenever the public discovers the true birth date of Christ -- relative to the current year -- and the true birth date of Adam, perhaps a new calendrical dating system will be implemented and a new era of understanding the real event dates of human history will begin.
(UPDATE:2020@ Because of a new comprehensive understanding of the mathematical mistakes of the conventional B.C. / A.D. Calendar -- and a new calendar system of recording human events since before the first Patriarch known as Adam, the current year of 2020 A.D. now equals the year date of 2020 A.T. -- which can be expressed as 2020@)
[The Atlantean Timeline calendar system begins a thousand years before Adam, and gives the birth date of Christ some 304 years after Adam -- which translates into the concept that Adam can be dated to 1000@ and Christ to 1304@ -- and the date of Columbus' discovery of the New World to 1492@]

By better understanding the true events of our past, we can better prepare for the true events of our future.

Return to the Homepage site