The New You Right Now

Take a look at your life, the things you like and the things you don’t like about your current reality.  Do you want to change your entire life?  Sometimes we feel stuck and we just need a little shift in perspective to begin to change our reality into something we are excited to experience.

Bp39zN1IEAAuDlWTo do this we need to change something.  If you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results then you are experiencing the definition of

insanity according to Albert Einstein.  So what is it that we need to change?

Often the answer to life’s questions are contained in their opposites.  What I mean by that is you have to shift your focus from what you have always done and look at the opposite action.  If you keep doing what you are doing then you will keep getting what you are getting in life.











Changing your thinking will work its way down into changing your life but in order to change your thinking often you have to open your mind to new ideas and concepts that are so far outside of your typical reality that they may seem strange or uncomfortable.  

Being uncomfortable or feeling awkward is often the result of bouncing up against one of the walls of your mental boxes.  We want to grow, expand our awareness, achieve our dreams and become more spiritual but in order to do this we have to redefine and remove our mental boxes.

So as a practice, tell your inner voice to listen to what I am about to say, breathe it in and feel what the idea means.  Pretend for one moment it IS true so that you can experience the impact of this new idea in your life.

The present is not the result of the past, and the future is not the result of the present. 

What does this mean?  Well I am going to allow the channeling of Bashar to shed some light on this before I continue.  Check out this short yet mind blowing explanation about the power you have over your reality right now!


Read more:

The Mystery Of God & The Brain

As science has steadily undermined the long-held beliefs of religion, almost all that remains for people of faith is to say that God is and will forever be a mystery. Insofar as Einstein was religious, he possessed a feeling of awe and wonder at the mystery of the universe. But science hasn’t stopped chipping away at mystery, promising to reduce spiritual experience to measurable brain activity. It’s doubtful that belief in God, the soul, heaven and hell, and other tenets of faith will be drastically affected – polls continue to show that these things remain articles of belief for around 80-90% of responders.

Will neuroscience eventually be able to locate God in our neurons, and if so, should that tiny area of the brain be excised or boosted? No doubt there are arguments on both sides, depending on whether you hold that God has been good for the human race in the long run or bad. Setting aside such judgments, it turns out that the possibility of finding God in the brain creates a baffling mystery that neither religion nor science can tackle alone.

Now that advanced brain scanning can map the way our brains light up with each thought, word, or action, it’s clear that no experience escapes the brain. For a mystic to see God or feel his presence, for St. Paul to be suddenly converted on the road to Damascus, or for St. Teresa of Avila to have her heart pierced by an angelic arrow, such experiences would have to register in their brains. However, this indisputable fact (so far as present knowledge extends) doesn’t give science the advantage over religion. For it turns out that the brain has definite limitations on what it can experience.

The work of the late Polish-American mathematician Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) is relevant here, because Korzybski worked out the layered processing that goes into the way we perceive everyday reality. Billions of bits of data bombard our sense organs, of which only a fraction enter the nervous system. Of that fraction, more of the raw input is filtered out by the brain, which uses built-in models of reality to discard what doesn’t fit. When people say “You’re not hearing me” or “You only see what you want to see,” they are expressing a truth that Korzybski tried to quantify mathematically.

Sometimes the things a person doesn’t see are simply outside the range of human experience, like our inability to see ultraviolet light. But a great deal more depends on expectations, memories, biases, fears, and simple close-mindedness. If you go to a party, and someone tells you that you are about to meet a Nobel Prize winner, you will see a different person than if you are told he is a reformed Mafia hit man. When all the filtering and processing is complete, there is no doubt that the brain doesn’t actually experience reality but only a confirmation of its model of reality.

Two interesting points follow:

  1. All models are equal as viewed from the level of the brain.
  2. Reality transcends any model we can possibly make of it.

These two points allow God, the soul, and all other spiritual experiences back into the picture. The first point demolishes the notion that science is superior to religion because it gathers facts while religion deals in beliefs. In truth, science filters out and discards a huge portion of human experience – almost everything one would classify as subjective – so its model is just as selective, if not more so, than religion’s. As far as the brain is concerned, neural filtering is taking place in all models, whether they are scientific, spiritual, artistic, or psychotic. The brain is a processor of inputs, not a mirror to realty.


Read more:

Time Travel to the Future

“A supermassive black hole is a time machine. But of course, it’s not exactly practical. It has advantages over wormholes in that it doesn’t provoke paradoxes. Plus it won’t destroy itself in a flash of feedback. But it’s pretty dangerous. It’s a long way away and it doesn’t even take us very far into the future. Fortunately there is another way to travel in time. And this represents our last and best hope of building a real time machine.”

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking believes in time travel.  But, time travel to the future. To Hawking, time flows like a river and it seems as if each of us is  carried relentlessly along by time’s current. But time, says Hawking,  is like a river in another way: “It flows at different speeds in different places and that is the key to traveling into the future.” This is an idea first suggested by Albert Einstein over 100 years ago.”So a supermassive black hole is a time machine. But of course, it’s not exactly practical. It has advantages over wormholes in that it doesn’t provoke paradoxes. Plus it won’t destroy itself in a flash of feedback. But it’s pretty dangerous. It’s a long way away and it doesn’t even take us very far into the future. Fortunately there is another way to travel in time. And this represents our last and best hope of building a real time machine.Stephen Hawking thinks four of the world’s physicists are wrong believing that time travel is impossible: Hawking sides with Sir Arthur Clarke, author of Space Odyssey 2001 who famously stated that “when a distinguished scientist states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong”.  And a lot of distinguished scientists believe that just “Time travel is absolutely impossible”.

Hawking says: “Although I cannot move and I have to speak through a computer, in my mind I am free. Free to explore the universe and ask the big questions, such as: is time travel possible? Can we open a portal to the past or find a shortcut to the future? Can we ultimately use the laws of nature to become masters of time itself?”

Several of the planet’s leading scientists, including Charles Liu (author of “One Universe: At Home In The Cosmos”), Brian Greene (of “The Elegant Universe”) and Michio Kaku (“Hyperspace”) float a raft of objections to the concept of time travel. True to Clarke’s statement, sometimes affectionately known as “Clarke’s Law”, each objection seems more like reason to expect time travel than rule it out.

Professor Greene states that all time-travel theories operate at the very boundaries of known physics, and are therefore unlikely to work.  As opposed to, say, the boundaries of our understanding being where new discoveries are made.  As Sir Clarke said years ago: “The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible”.

The other chief objection is the incomprehensible amounts of energy required to punch a hole in spacetime, or stabilize a wormhole, or engineer a double-cosmic-string-ring (yes, that’s a real astrophysical concept) capable of bending space hard enough to let us pop back to the past.  One point eighty-one jigawatts just isn’t going to cut it here, whatever “jigawatts” turn out to be, and most calculations show that powering a time machine with a lightning strike would be like powering a sixteen-wheeler with a bag of jelly babies.  (So it seems Marty won’t be getting back to the future after all).

Of course, the idea of lighting up New York would have had you committed to a mental home in the early eighteenth century.  Pre-electricity, schemes were being suggested to transport the increasing numbers of people to the scant available heat and light in times of need.

Understand: the amount of energy we now take for granted was so vast, so utterly unimaginable to people in the past that they were preparing to restructure their whole society rather than even attempt to generate it.  Of course, this doesn’t guarantee that we’ll be able to pop back and tell them.  The false argument of past scientific ignorance, the “didn’t scientists used to think the world was flat” gambit fails because we know so much more now.  The key to progress is our cumulative knowledge, developed and refined by generations of researchers into a vast, accurate body of knowledge.  We are far more likely to be able to find what’s possible than at any point in history.  What we know so far is probably right, and allows us to make predictions about what might be possible.

But until we can explain absolutely everything, we should still steer clear of saying something is impossible. Here’s what our beloved Professor Hawking says about time travel in a post on The Daily Mail:

“Time travel was once considered scientific heresy. I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labeled a crank. But these days I’m not so cautious. In fact, I’m more like the people who built Stonehenge. I’m obsessed by time. If I had a time machine I’d visit Marilyn Monroe in her prime or drop in on Galileo as he turned his telescope to the heavens. Perhaps I’d even travel to the end of the universe to find out how our whole cosmic story ends.

“To see how this might be possible, we need to look at time as physicists do – at the fourth dimension. It’s not as hard as it sounds. Every attentive schoolchild knows that all physical objects, even me in my chair, exist in three dimensions. Everything has a width and a height and a length.

“But there is another kind of length, a length in time. While a human may survive for 80 years, the stones at Stonehenge, for instance, have stood around for thousands of years. And the solar system will last for billions of years. Everything has a length in time as well as space. Traveling in time means traveling through this fourth dimension.


Read more:

Develop Your Intuition

Almost certainly…

You’ve at least once had the experience that you followed some intuition and, despite the odds, things worked out well.  Even miraculously.

The interesting phrase in that sentence is “almost certainly” – because it’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t identify with that experience. 

(All right, all right – so you’re the exception?  Just ask your friends and relatives then. :) )

Despite it’s uncanny accuracy in guiding us, most people don’t trust their intuition and don’t have a clue how to develop it so it becomes conscious.

Of course, you can’t force your intuition – that’s entirely counter-productive and will drive it away as surely as firing a starting pistol near a flock of starlings.

The idea of “sleeping on” a big decision or problem, however, isn’t just an old wives’ tale.

The fact is that settling into sleep makes us “let go” of all of those mental machinations we’re so attached to.

Mostly, problems, (other than scientific or mathematical ones), are not solved by logic alone.  But neither are they sorted by a knee-jerk emotional response.

As you may know, your left brain is in charge of logic, whilst the right hemisphere has our emotional reactions more in its care.

(The brain isn’t quite as simplistic as that, but it will do for our purposes…)


When you have an “intuitive hunch”, both sides of your brain have collaborated to bring you one of those “Aha! Got it!” moments.

That’s why it’s such a great guidance system.

Not only is it likely to come up with the correct answer, but it also knows what’s right for you!

I know people who’ve quit university to go on to a successful modelling career, (against all odds), another who turned down a mortgage that would have broken the bank despite what seemed like an irresistible offer on a gorgeous house – all on flashes of intuition.


Read more:

500 Year Old Map Shatters the Official History

If conventional wisdom on the history of the human race is correct, then human civilization is not old enough, nor was it advanced enough, to account for many of the mysterious monolithic and archeological sites around the world. Places like Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, the Bosnian Pyramids, and Adam’s Calendar in South Africa, beg the same question: if human civilization is supposedly not old enough to have created all of these sites, then who, or what, had the capacity to create so many elaborate structures around the globe?

It is clear that our understanding of our own history is incomplete, and there is plenty of credible evidence pointing to the existence of intelligent and civilized cultures on Earth long before the first human cultures emerged from the Middle East around 4000BC. The Admiral Piri Reis world map of 1513 is part of the emerging more complete story of our history, one that challenges mainstream thinking in big ways.

Mapmaking is a complex and civilized task, thought to have emerged around 1000BC with the Babylonian clay tablets. Antarctica was officially first sighted by a Russian expedition in 1820 and is entirely covered in ice caps thought to have formed around 34-45 million years ago. Antarctica, therefore, should not be seen on any map prior to 1820, and all sighted maps of Antarctica should contain the polar ice caps, which are supposedly millions of years old.

A world map made by Ottoman cartographer and military admiral, Piri Reis, casts some doubt on what we think we know about ancient civilization.

The Piri Reis map, which focuses on Western Africa, the East Coast of South America, and the North Coast of Antarctica, features the details of a coastline that many historians and geologists believe represents Queen Maud Land, that is, Antarctica. Remarkably, as represented in this map, the frigid continent was not covered in ice caps, but, rather, with dense vegetation. How could a map drawn in 1513 feature a continent that wasn’t discovered until 1820? And if the continent had in fact been discovered by one of the civilizations known to have emerged after 4000BC, why were the ice caps not on the map?

The paradoxes presented by the map were of little significance to the world until Charles Hapgood, a history professor from New Hampshire, USA, claimed that the information in the Piri Reis map supported a different view of geology and ancient history. Hapgood believed that the map verified his global geological theory, which explains how portions of Antarctica could have remained ice-free until 4000BC.

Hapgood’s presentation is so convincing that even famed theoretical physicist and philosopherAlbert Einstein wrote the following supportive forward to a book that Hapgood wrote in 1953:

“His idea is original, of great simplicity, and – if it continues to prove itself – of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the Earth’s surface.”Albert Einstein


Read more:

Simulation Shows Time Travel Is Possible

Australian scientists created a computer simulation in which quantum particles can move back in time. This might confirm the possibility of time travel on a quantum level, suggested in 1991. At the same time, the study revealed a number of effects which are considered impossible according to the standard quantum mechanics.

Using photons, physicists from the University of Queensland in Australia simulated time-traveling quantum particles. In particular, they studied the behavior of a single photon traveling back in time through a wormhole in space-time and interacting with itself. This time-traveling loop is called a closed timelike curve, i.e. a path followed by a particle which returns to its initial space-time point.

The physicists studied two possible scenarios for a time-traveling photon. In the first, the particle passes through a wormhole, moving back in time, and interacts with its older self. In the second scenario, the photon passes through normal space-time and interacts with another photon which is stuck in a closed timelike curve.

According to the researchers, their study will help to find a link between two great theories in physics: the Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

The question of time travel features at the interface between two of our most successful yet incompatible physical theories – Einstein’s general relativity and quantum mechanics,” said Martin Ringbauer of the University of Queensland who led the study. “Einstein’s theory describes the world at the very large scale of stars and galaxies, while quantum mechanics is an excellent description of the world at the very small scale of atoms and molecules.”

Einstein’s General Relativity suggests the possibility of moving back in time if the time-traveling object is stuck in a closed timelike curve. Yet, this possibility is known to cause a number of paradoxes, such as the famous “grandfather paradox”, in which a time traveler prevents his own existence by preventing his grandparents from meeting each other.


Read more: