William Wu

S200(6) of Companies Act 2006 – Exception of Shareholder(SH) Approval

For a loan or quasi-loans to persons connected with directors of plc or ltd associated with plc, SH approval is required under s200. But if it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another body corporate(ltd or plc), then no approval is required under s200(6).

Gower and Davies in Principles of Modern Company Law 16-58 stated that it was the same as in s197(5)(b), 198(6)(b), 200(6)(b), and 203(5)(b). However, is it the same?

Under s197, if the loan is to director of subsidiary Co. from holding Co., no approval is required, as s197 requires Dir of either the lending Co. or the holding Co.
A holding Co.
To
B sub Co.         => Loan from A holding to Dir of B sub. => no approval

s200 applies to plc or ltd associated with plc. It covers a person connected with a director of the Co. or holding Co.

For example, if A Co Plc lends to Paul(Director) ‘s mother, SH approval(SHA) is required. But if B Sub Ltd of the A Co Plc, lend money to Dir of Paul’s mother, SHA is required s200(3).

Now the trick is: if Paul has a brother Peter, who is not a connected person, and Peter is the Director of B sub Ltd(not Director of A Co Plc), then according to s200(6) SHA is not required by SH of the B sub ltd, as Peter is not the Director of the holding Co. ( A Plc), there is not SHA required.  Even B is a plc, no SHA approval is required under 200(6).

Is that a big loop hole? Please comment here if you have any good idea to avoid the problem? At least, if B is a plc, SHA should be required from B’s SH.

Law Firm List

1	Baker & McKenzie	$2,104.0m	International	US
2	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom	$2,100.0m	International	US
3	Clifford Chance	$1,874.5m	International	UK
4	Linklaters	$1,852.5m	International	UK
5	Latham & Watkins	$1,821.0m	International	USA
6	Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer	$1,787.0m	International	UK
7	Allen & Overy	$1,644.5m	International	UK
8	Jones Day	$1,520.0m	International	USA
9	Kirkland & Ellis	$1,428.0m	International	USA
10	Sidley Austin	$1,357.0m	International	USA
11	White & Case	$1,307.0m	International	USA
12	Weil Gotshal	$1,233.0m	International	USA
13	Greenberg Traurig	$1,173.0m	National?	USA
14	Mayer Brown	$1,118.0m	International	USA
15	Morgan, Lewis & Bockius	$1,068.5m	International	USA
16	K&L Gates	$1,034.5m	International	USA
17	DLA Piper USA[2]	$1,014.5m	National…	USA
18	Gibson Dunn	$995.0m	International	USA
18	Sullivan & Cromwell	$995.0m	International	USA
20	Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton	$965.0m	International	USA
21	Reed Smith	$942.0m	International	USA
22	WilmerHale	$941.0m	National?	USA
23	Dewey & LeBoeuf	$941.0m	International	USA
24	DLA Piper International[2]	$910.0m	International	UK
25	Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker	$889.0m	National?	USA
26	Morrison & Foerster	$884.0m	National?	USA
27	Simpson Thacher & Bartlett	$870.5m	National?	USA
28	Hogan & Hartson[3]	$864.5m	National	USA
29	Bingham McCutchen	$860.0m	International	USA
30	Lovells[3]	$849.0m	International	UK
31	Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe	$847.5m	International	USA
32	Davis Polk & Wardwell	$846.0m	International	USA
33	McDermott Will & Emery	$829.0m	International	USA
34	O’Melveny & Myers	$826.5m	International	USA
35	Shearman & Sterling	$801.0m	International	USA
36	Ropes & Gray	$789.5m	International	USA
37	Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld	$719.0m	International	USA
38	Dechert	$713.0m	International	USA
39	Winston & Strawn	$705.0m	International	USA
40	Herbert Smith	$704.5m	International	UK
41	King & Spalding	$677.5m	International	USA
42	Debevoise & Plimpton	$668.0m	International	USA
43	Foley & Lardner	$667.0m	National?	USA
44	Paul Weiss	$665.5m	International	USA
45	Goodwin Procter	$658.0m	International	USA
46	Proskauer Rose	$643.0m	International	USA
47	Fulbright & Jaworski	$642.5m	International	USA
48	Slaughter & May	$628.5m	International	UK
49	Hunton & Williams	$615.0m	International	USA
50	Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy	$601.5m	International	USA
51	Wachtell	$585.0m	International	USA
52	Covington & Burling	$583.0m	International	USA
53	Baker Botts	$575.0m	International	USA
54	Cravath, Swaine & Moore	$568.5m	International	USA
55	Vinson & Elkins	$562.0m	International	USA
56	Eversheds	$556.5m	International	UK
57	Bryan Cave	$555.0m	International	USA
58	Alston & Bird	$551.0m	International	USA
59	Willkie Farr & Gallagher	$549.5m	International	USA
60	Holland & Knight	$545.5m	International	USA
61	Squire Sanders	$545.0m	International	USA
62	Pillsbury Winthrop	$533.5m	International	USA
63	Arnold & Porter	$524.0m	International	USA
64	McGuireWoods	$509.0m	National	USA
65	Cooley Godward	$507.0m	International	USA
66	Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati	$501.0m	International	USA
67	Norton Rose	$481.0m	International	UK
68	Howrey	$480.0m	International	USA
69	Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal	$472.5m	International	USA
70	Garrigues (law firm)	$466.0m	International	Spain
71	Nixon Peabody	$465.0m	International	USA
72	Ashurst	$459.0m	International	UK
73	Cadwalader	$456.5m	International	USA
74	Seyfarth Shaw	$453.5m	National	USA
75	Perkins Coie	$433.0m	International	USA
76	Kaye Scholer	$432.0m	International	USA
77	Fried Frank	$424.5m	International	USA
78	Katten Muchin	$420.5m	International	USA
79	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan	$419.0m	International	USA
80	Fish & Richardson	$417.0m	International	USA
81	Fidal	$411.0m	National	France
82	Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell	$399.0m	International	USA
83	Minter Ellison	$398.5m	International	Australia
84	McCarthy Tetrault	$397.0m	International	Canada
84	Schulte Roth	$397.0m	International	USA
86	Loyens & Loeff	$396.0m	International	Netherlands
87	Mallesons Stephen	$392.0m	International	Australia
88	Simmons & Simmons	$391.5m	International	UK
89	Duane Morris	$387.5m	International	USA
90	Allens Arthur	$380.8m	International	Australia
91	Freehills	$378.0m	International	Australia
92	Troutman Sanders	$376.5m	International	USA
93	Drinker Biddle & Reath	$373.5m	National	USA
94	Littler Mendelson	$370.5m	International	USA
95	Jenner & Block	$367.5m	International	USA
96	Sheppard Mullin	$361.0m	International	USA
97	Clayton Utz	$351.0m	International	Australia
98	Venable	$349.5m	International	USA
99	Finnegan Henderson	$349.0m	International	USA
100	Dorsey & Whitney	$342.0m	International	USA

如何才能够获得神的力量

话说西方有一个国家，他的统治者叫所罗门。他生的八丈高，力大无比，他的人民都很怕他， 由怕而生敬畏。所以他在那里拥有无比的权力，就象神的存在。神本来就是不存在的，由于敬畏自然而产生对它的敬畏， 从而以为他就是神。神的存在即是对自然的迷惑。当人对自然的认识越来越清楚时，至少从单个人的体验来看，那么她或者他对自然的害怕就会越来载少，从来对神的意识越来越单薄，这样神就渐渐会对人类的意识中漫漫消失。

但神作为一个存在，一个存在在人类的整体意识中的产物，当他产生里，他的生命力就是永恒的， 应为一个概念他是存在的，不会消失，只会被忽略。当更老人们在讲故事的时候，就像我现在，所一个神具有永恒的生命，并不是说他像人一样有一个物质存在的生命体，他是一个精神存在，他的存在是在于一个人类社会的整体，但并不依赖于人类社会的存在而存在。一旦人类不存在了，概念还存在。一个不能被表达的概念还能叫概念吗？

答案应该是肯定的。总有一天他还的被表达。用另一种说法就，神在人世界的降生，是神对意识的表达，是人对自己的意识，当其能够被其他人类所认识时，这个神就成了客观的存在。 这个推论非常有有趣，应为他违反了物质是唯一存在的论断。人对物质世界的认识非常的浅薄，不可能对其表达有完整的意识，当人类知识的随着时代的演进，的对世界的看法渐渐不同时，对物质的定义也会渐渐变宽，从而体会到物体本身也是有思想的。这个概念非常的不会理解，但其思想对其物质存在的状态亦有很大的影响。从能量角度来讲，其变化的原因可能并不是来源于物质量的永恒，而的存在的永恒。因为存在是一个不变的量，它不能被其它东西的不存在而消灭，而其他东西也不能被消灭，可能性它的状态改变了，但其背后神性没有变，这样说，既然如此，不同物质即状态说名神性是类似的。

所以说所罗们王的力量是伟大的，当你能体会他伟大的力量的时候，你就会拥有这个伟大的力量，而这个力量不会因为物质量的变化而变化，因为它是一个永恒的存在。

所谓的宗教力量就是一个对神的力量的传播方法，可是往往被人误会，从来得不到神的力量。 还有一类人，对神的力量非常的害怕，从而他的意识不可能对神产生任何理解，非常错误胡把神当作一个人的存在，从而对其进行物质的认证和攻击。

还有一些其他的方法，比如文字，语言的顿时悟醒，音乐，当其被处理和理解后，又会还原成神力。这些想法都是从别人的神中从体会出来的。所以我们需要对神有一个会新的认识， 从来恢复我们力量的认识。

Ref: wlwu.co.uk/sl001

Random company law notes

Hickman v Kent: arbitration is allowed by court within the agreement
Ely: outsider rule – appoint him as a solicitor of company is improver contract
Re legal cost – s994 – majority
Bird v Precision Bellow: count can make order it thinks fit for value of share
Lord Wilberforce in Ebrahimi: 1) personal relation 2)agreement 3)share restriction for quasi-partnership
Re Thomas Edward: wind up due to fraud
CA 1948, first for unfair prejudice
Re Sam Weller & Son: interest > rights
Gamlestaden v Baltic: interest include creditor of company
John Shaw & Sons(Salford) v Shaw: separate of power D & SH
Reflective loss: loss of com claimed by SH
Ultra vies => can be ratified since CA 1989( can not before)
Foss v Harbottle: 1) proper claimant 2) majority rule =>exclude personal
CA 2006 first starts derivative action
N W Robbie v Whitney: Crystallisation converts floating to fix including later acquisition
Cork report => start rescue culture
Administration: Sch B 1 para 3(1) IA 1986
Sch B1 para 70, admin can deal with floating asset freely
CVA => Pay creditor for 1) better realisation 2) avoid publicity.
Admin receivership: for one creditor, no moratorium
MVL: solvent Liquidation; CVL: Insolvent L
CVA + Admin from IA 1986
S123(1) IA 86 => £750 insolvent, by a creditor asks statutory demand with 3 weeks response, disadvantage is delay.
Taylor Industry v M&H Plant: s123(1)(e) £750 not abusive
Admin order s7(4)(b) Sch B1 para 12(1) IA 86
Out of court rule: SH, floating charger holder and director can appoint administrator
Moratorium: no legal proceedings, no receiver, in Admin(possible CVA), can not forfeit lease, no step from security holder, no order of wind up

Common wind up s122(1)(f)(g) IA 86
CVA: low cost, profit, more gain

Buchler v Talbot(Leyland) was reversed by s1282CA 2006.(priority)

Re Gray Inn: pari passu-> distribution of free assets(rateable)

Secured: L; unsecured prefer administration

S1157 court relief not for wrongful trading(s214IA86), reasonable

Re Patrick Lyon: actual dishonest(ft)
Morphitis v Bernasconi: deceive one creditor at least or only(ft)
Re Esal: hold on trust even for unsecured creditor(ft)

Official v Doshi: Fraud invoice(wt)
Re continental Assurance: intelligent layman (wt)
RE Rod Gunner: continue trade as loss(wt) => liable

S238 IA86 under value => 2y unconnected person,
S239 IA86 preference => 6 months unconnected person, 2 y for connected

S240 IA86: connected person, insolvent is presumed , not preference

West Mercia Safetywear: Misfeasance
R v Kemp (ft) => if not 213, any fraudulent purpose get s993 CA 2006

Aveling Barford: disguised distribution

Robert Chaston v SWP: material reduce plc asset is unlawful FA

Trevor v Whitworth: creditor protection(old), maintain SH

Oorgum: not issue at a discount, s580 cannot cancel.

Rayfield v Hands: obligation of director as well as members

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rayfield-v-Hands/149916705071759

The nature of bravity

We call it him a brave man as if he has done something out of his normal ability or exceeding the normal standard. The standard that has been set is a locker to our knowledge and ability. To be brave is to break that lock, break out the prison. To certain extent, we are all prison of ourselves once born; our ability is limited by worldly functions such as food, drink, space, relationship, receptiveness and sleep.

To be brave is to try to challenge yourself, challenge the certain rule that you never think you can do, at the time, you will feel nervous, blank, tired, so most of people retreat to be a hero, or from any brave activity. That’s normal. So it is important to have a pure heart. Only those without any evil opinion will success through the bravity test. Sometimes those people are called dull, as they just do what they think is right to do which isn’t to others, then it becomes right after certain period of time.

To be brave, you need a clear mind. If you are muddy in your thinking, you will not clear them out and lost in your own spiritual world. Sometimes, with little information, the brain could develop a great plan. That’s what we called creativity. If you are brave enough to think what other can not think, you will open a new territory. In that sense, a brave man doesn’t have to know everything; alternatively if you know more, then you fear more. If you study law, you will be nervous to break it as you foresee the consequence, which is harmful to the single body. However it doesn’t prove a learnt is less brave than a not learnt. The touchstone isn’t based on knowledge. But it could be arguably said the knowledge will change a normal man to be brave man. In some circumstance, it is as knowledge opens the eye of a normal man, so he could do something which he did not think he could do it without the knowledge since he did not foresee any possible harm to the single body.

The consequences of bravity are two: you fear of failure, most of time you fear of success. Let’s take an example, we buy a lottery, we don’t think we will win it, so you pick a lucky dip. However the truth is you don’t think you will win and you fear what you would do if you had won. The fear comes from uncertainty of status. Our nerve increase as we are not sure – so it urges us to find out the truth. I define the truth as what we could find, but not necessary absolute truth. So the best antidote is to forget what you have done, your brevity, the success or failure then focus on what you could do by writing down the experience you have gone through and share with others. Somehow it transmits your nerve to the readers. The more readers you have, the more bravity you will gain from others and that will make you a hero in the sense of those.

So that’s called brave. Let’s face our reality. Be brave and tell me your brave story here.

Face the wall and ceiling

God looked at you without a word, Buddha looked at you with a lotus, you looked at yourself in the mirror with a smile. In this small world, we are seeking what is the truth and knowledge. Someone looks at it as running of a river, someone looks at it as a rolling circle; whatever you look at it is not important; what matter here is whether you are seeking. It is very strange that whatever you do you are developing your skills which would improve your development of brain then subsequently changes your DNA or something inside you, such as soul. To value a successful life, it is not what you know, if it is what you have to do is to sit in front to a computer and read wikipedia. To value a successful life, it is to develop your potential to reach a level that none has reached before you at least few has arrived. Following others’ step won’t lead you to the heaven or the other side of bank. In your own world, there is a heaven or other side bank. If you do not have a wing of angel, you could not fly to heaven; if you do not have a boat of the river, you could not reach the other side of bank.

If you are building the wing or boat, you should not give up, even at the last minute of your life, in case you could succeed at the end. As if we could only explore our talent in the limited time and space, we have to devote the whole time, energy, heart to the wing and boat. Without non-stopping endeavour, we will have no success. Luck sometimes will drop to your roof. But we should rather take it as some flying fish, or trait. There is saying where luck lies, unluckiness is budding; where unluckiness lies, luck is booming. If your life is hard, you learn much more than easy one. If the society is fair or some luck finally arrives at you, you would succeed or excel from those normals.

Would you like to be a normal or abnormal? It appears the answer should be ‘Yes’ as you will say without think. But without abnormal ability to perceive the world beside us, to analyse it with our exceptional ability, to express it out with our unique talent, the world will be dull as if it was in a world of Robot shown in film. The fundamental difference between human and robot is the exception we could perceive, as we are unique and exceptional. We have no limit. So do not limit yourself. The wisdom requires infinite talent which is hidden in everyone of you. Without that, we could not survive in the history of universe. All the possibilities have been expressed in each unique of you. Try you best to change and create a new world.

later crack deal – On the King’s 34 billion welfare reform

NO could deny king is the best form of head in term of brain to the body. The effectiveness of king subjects system was the most formed as it lasted from the beginning of our species. The problem is who is going to be king? He is either the strongest or the cleverest, either truth-worthy or luckiest one. It works in a small group. It never works long in a big group. Other forms of systems have been developed through history. Nevertheless you could still see king or queen in some country. It does not say they are bad. But go back to first questions, is the inherited monarch recognised by the subjects? If you read history book. It never works. Laziness, greediness, short-sighted-eye of the monarch is never the best ruler. If there is a natural competition, the group are limited to numbers of prince. The right of succession are designed to give their blood type. If their subjects have jobs to do, have food to eat, have some movies to watch, why they want to rebel? This is a question Gaddafi did not understand. You may be not sure as well, nor him, a guy has 1 million being frozen by UK, global 80 billions value is estimated. No wonder why he does not understand, he is not part of the group, subjects, he rules. He is different. If he is different, how about Abdullah, the Saudi king of 86 years old. He took Gaddafi’s lession, realised money was not that important. Hence he released 34 billions welfare reform. But the subjects will let him but their bill once? We never know. But one thing is clear that welfare system could not benefit those who need benefit. For example, beggars are poor. But welfare system never touches them. Those people, usually young, are the unrest one. They the next ruling generation. They will rule this earth. They could not if the current rule does not give them a chance. In China, a civil service was developed. Subjects knows how to get their hand on the fresh meat. It is a fair system, also unfair. Through an fair way to perform unfair competition. It will never work. But are there any better way? The better way is the other way. First, the product of human are unlimited; second, the countries should be split into very small units; all the control is effective; movement of person are equalized. If we apply those condition into the future human management whether it is ruled by human or machines. These rules shall be inherited down like Isaac Asimov’s three robot rule.

Critical analysis of China policy in light of libya example

Libya, according to wikipedia, was making 14,884 $ GDP per captia. Chia, DDP 4283. Here is the table.

From the table above, we could clear find out that China is not as good as on TV and is worse than Libya in term of GDP growth rate even, not even to mention the GDP per capita Libya is 3 times than China. Howere it is clear that China has some good point such as unemployment rate is ony 4.2% less than half of Libya, Agricultural population taks 39.5% in China while it is only 17% in Libya. 59% of people works for government. It is unusual. The whole structure is not healthy. It is a problem in Libya that why so many people could not find job? A stable society could not have this problem. In China, people should be encouraged to stay at home, doing some home business. It is urgent that the one Child policy should be abolished asap, as women could stay at home, raise chidren, which will reduce the unemployment rate much more. Child birth is so important to the society as it will give labour force to the next generation and increase of brain power if more poeple were born.

political feature – small and big

It is not easy to say which one is good big or small. Taking UK as an example, it is a small, but it is big as well in sense of common wealth. US is big, but it is composed of small states which have their own power. With enough vote, the state could separate them from the states. When the central government has the absolute power military to control it, the state is stable. But when the central government do not have enough power, the states will gain power. Once they have power, they will separate from the central body and be a independent country. 2-4C BC, China has the similar political structure. But after centuries, the power lost. In that sense, it is more like the UN. If UN has the absolute power to control in military and political structure, then it will be fine. But taking Chin(221 AC) as an example, it is built on one small states rather than one unit. In term of ruling, unit is difficult to cooperate with each other. It will fail. Unit cooperation will never last long.  It did not work in Greece. It works in UK so far. But human being are in competition. It will not be the best form if it will lose in the competition. But also it does not say Hitler if he won, will be a hero, the Chin first emperor. The whole structure could be rebuild after the revolution. The average of human fortune and labour power is a dream. Although on the face it, it has its internal logic. But it can not be challenged by the change of time and reform of social structure. If USSR has the enough resources to conquer the world, then it will be a socialism world. Once the ruling group control the resources, they will turn into their own products. In that sense, democracy is more stable. To be honest, it is in the heart of average people. We are born in the world by the same chance. Once we are born, it is reasonable to stay, enjoy and create the world we live in the equal way as we have designed. I do not know if there is a human with a name of GOD. But there is law in the nature in limited circumstances. The world is to be discovered. It is not important who created or not. It is more important that if there is some laws that governing the current situation. In that sense, the world is developing. The law is developing. Any absolute conclusion will be defeated by the nature. On the other hand, without the absolutely conclusion, we have nothing to use to direct our life. So we have to use absolute conclusion. If there is, and someone found the right solution, then it is good to live without democracy. As it will fail at the end. There should be a world that no absolute power and with absolute power. Then it looks like democracy as well. The us president has absolute power in five years and without power which is built on voting system. However it is wrong as it forgets one important condition. Why do we think he is the one to lead the states? It is not enough by campaign, canvass, election. There is no guarantee. In some sense, it is worse than Tibet’s gold vase selection. For that selection, it has too good conditions 1) it is chosen by god or buddha and the religious citizen would trust him 2) he has been told, educated to that place since young. He has more chance to be a good leader. He has tenure. Judges in UK have tenure. Once you do not worry about the positions, there could be two conclusions: corruption and superbness. Judges are more technical. So they are at the second category.  Leaders are usually on the first category. That is the reason why the feudalism does not work.

current situation

I am living in this world. A questions to ask what is living? If I use deductive method:

I have to find out the definition for the theory of living.  In oxford dictionary, living has one meaning: alive, and then gave an example of living creature. It also has other meanings, such such attractive. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0476140#m_en_gb0476140

After all, living gave you an impressure that I will live. If I live as human, I will have all the feature of live human beings, ie. breathing, heart beat, blood circulation, mind work, control fingers to type words, write a blog. All of those could prove that I am living. If I delete some of them, it might prove that I am not a living one, i.e. I can not breathe. However as if my sense is higher than normal one to sense my body, I could live in the net. If I could communicate without language or words, I do not need breathing or fingers, even eyes is not necessary as long as my mind is stilling working. As a result, if there is container that could hold my brain, give it a little bit of energy to keep is working, then that’s enough. Or if there is some material that could store all my information in the brain, then I even do not need a brain, something, name is as uooyi. If I live in uooyi, I still could do mind work, that’s enough for me as living. As long as I am active. I could form my thinking, and then communicate those new formed idea with others. Obviously, I need an unlimited storage to store all the information. It is difficult. But it proves to live is not that hard. But so far I could not control myself, one day I will still die. It means at least other living creature could not sense me or communicate with me. But how if I am living within their mind already?  Then my mind, thinking could form the thinking in other person’s brain, or the words convert other people’s brain into my brain, then there is no strict meaning of death.

Now we change reasoning to induction.

I obverse it with my eye, my sensor, my fingers, my ears, my mind, previous experience(patterm), under a systematic mind. I could feel my current status: it is here. I am trapped inside my brain, my body. I could not fly away. If I could split my brain into two parts. Each part is a backup of all my information sensed in my whole life. If I put them into two bodies, then I have two. It is not so difficulty to think about it, as I could sense my whole body in front of a mirror. I could sense my other spirit. They are working. They are thinking. I have no past secret to it, called iyoou. iyoou is the other me. It starts idependant thinking based of the information I have with a restart. But iyoou clear knows what it is going to do in his life. As part of me, it has a single objetive. It is much easier to achieve if it has only one objective in life. I understand it. But since I am the mother body, I could not stop create different independent thinking. Few of them survive, few of them lapse. It makes a mother body. So mother will not succeed. iyoou can. It has one single objective to complete before it comes back to mother body. If the mother body could egg many iyoou, then it creates the whole nation. iyoou has to be place in different place. As if independent body communicate with each other, one day, it will become a mother. Once it is a mother, it has to egg. There is not enough space in the planet. The nearest planet is million light year away. A recent theory points out the nearest could be only 2000 light years away. But according to Stephen Hopkins, our universe is inflationary. Then the other civilzation is always away from us. However according to Chinese philosophy, the one side will have its oppsoite. The universe is expanding, but it is shrinking as well. When the light material is expanding, the dark material is lessing. When the dark expanding, the white lessing. As if in our world the white is expanding, as the current status, we will have less and less dark. All the dark will escape through a channel to the othe universe, then increase that universe. At the end, it will crash or it will turn back to the original status.

As a result, our universe is timeless. There is no start or end. It always in balance between two universe. As we could not find enough dark material, we maybe live in the great white stage. So if we live longer, we will find more and more dark material come from the other universe. In the white universe, dark could be used as energy, so we have more and more energy comes from the other side. If it is true, then we could catch a lot in future and explore our universe. It is infinite. That ying & yang pattern is looked at in the other dimention. Hence it does not show that it has any limit. The two universe is the only way of expressure to prove the balance theory. The conclusion is very interesting.