Tom DeLonge Anouncement: October 11th 9:00 AM PST/12:00 PM EST

a reply to: KansasGirl

Amazing, the only real girl here has responded

You are right, nobody said so.

Grade: B (found error in the test itself)

I started to listen to the videos. Although this concerns the very fabric of our universe, I found the explanations amazingly accessible. At least the first two that I have listened to. They are also very interesting from a philosophical point of view. Maybe give it a try?

a reply to: Hyperboles

Missed the point. It is the other way around.

Grade: D (might have an inkling, but does not pay attention)

a reply to: SacredLore

An error in the test itself should nullify the test, not lower the testee's (who didn't consent to taking any test by the way) grade.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Thank you for your reply. My original question is answered.

a reply to: SacredLore

well I'm up to video 6.

I've been following along with what he's saying. at a glance I like his theory although I'm not sold on it. so mixed feelings overall.

I have some questions with a few things that appear to be discrepancies. however, other people have approached the guy before with their questions which were answered satisfactory. so maybe he'll do the same with me when I forward some questions to him. he seems nice enough and afable.

electron rest mass vs positron rest masses. he says rest mass comes from self looping data loops at each vertice edge. an electron being all edges self looping. but with the positron all edges arrows of data are going either outward or inward (I can't tell from the video I missed the close up for the positron vertice. ) is he saying all rest mass comes from self looping vertice edges or simply from inbound data to the vertice edges?

I need to re listen to his lecture series and see if I can get stuff I missed to click better.

if anything he's got a decent new way of visually explaining quantum physics that's as handy (if his stuff is correct) as Feynmans diagrams.

I like his idea better than putthoffs. putthoffs theory says that inertial mass is generated by drag as particles travel through the vacuums EM vacuua. completely disregarding Mach's principle or Einstein's thoughts pertaining. this guys phoenix theory at least offers a quantum theory that jives with machs principle. putthoff will just stammer on about how he's found a correlation between the Compton wavelength of electrons and the debroglie frequency of phonons (not photons not a typo) which is all well and good but he's not the first person to have made that connection either and the others that have dont feel it explains inertial gravity. also putthoffs theory doesnt explain why neutrinos have no charge but still have mass and putthoffs theory revolves around QED but doesn't touch on QCD. Will pay attention to the Phoenix guy and see if he can explain the neutrino

I dunno I'll check in in a little bit with updates once I've actually listened to his whole series and given him a proper chance.

All this jibber jabber. I hope DeLonge releases something soon, so we don't have to while away the time with Quantum Physics theory lessons.

so don't research the topic? nor seek to understand it? analyse criticism of it or anything?



yes! let's just all be brainless delong sycophants on board the delong train. choochoo!! first stop the toilet to flush what's left of our brains down it. ahhh yeah. that feels so much better now that i got rid of that intellectual burden of awareness regarding this topic. now wheres my flock of sheep i need to rejoin them Shepard delong should be here any moment to feed us some crap to graze on. yay!!!!! maybe he'll even let us ride his nuts this time!

originally posted by: SacredLore
a reply to: Hyperboles

Missed the point. It is the other way around.

Grade: D (might have an inkling, but does not pay attention)

Grade D for you mate

So what did puthoff had to say on his coast to coast interview?

a reply to: SacredLore

Yes, you ARE better than anyone else on this thread.

originally posted by: SacredLore
a reply to: KansasGirl

Thank you for your reply. My original question is answered.

I enjoy your posts.

Coast to Coast with Hal Puthoff last night. I've listened to it preliminarily but will just quote C2C website for now.

"He (Puthoff) said he had examined one of the pieces of metal that was announced in the Times article and described it as "layers of various kinds of materials that you wouldn't expect to be put together" as well as the unusual properties that are gained from this unknown method of materials engineering. "

Interersting

originally posted by: SacredLore
I don't understand even a third of the paper, but to me it seems (very) legitimate. So be intelligent with your comments to this. You will be graded. Better remain silent if your only contribution is to state that they owe all this to you for free.

I don't know how you can say it seems legitimate if you don't understand it. AlienScientist is pushing this Phoenix thing and he's got zero credibility with me. See the discussion of the Phoenix video by AlienScientist here:

Snake Oil Physics

They are claiming to have some kind of solution to quantum gravity which is a holy grail that has eluded theoretical physicists for a century and I think it's pretty gullible to expect the solution to come from these guys.
He talks about "false prophets" and shows images of Keshe, Tom DeLonge, Steven Greer, and others we know have made claims they can't support, and my reaction to that is pot, meet kettle. I agree those guys are false prophets but so is Alienscientist and while I'm not one of the contributors to that thread I can see they are thinking the same thing. That doesn't mean they won't get any investors, just look at the millions investors have poured into the complete BS that is blacklight power, which is based on maybe another paper that you don't understand but might find impressive for the same strange reasons you find Griggs paper impressive.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your link:

Snake Oil Physics

is interesting.. it's from an atheist site.

I keep saying that UFOlogy has turned into a religion.. what with all the junk science
being used to support ridiculous theories.

So many people fight me bitterly on this concept.. but i find it telling that you used
an atheist link.

I suppose that I wanted to say something to you publicly too.

I'm quite aware that my "wild hypothesizing" falls into the same arena..
that I vacillate between hard science and wild theories.

But I don't want anyone to turn any of my material into a religion.. I don't
want to make money from it.. and I want every last bit of it to someday
be proven or disproven..

and I clearly say that I'm a technologist, not a working scientist.

But I'm fully aware that I'm in murky waters, from a scientific perspective.

I like to think of myself as a "mad thinker" stereotype.. not afraid to go
anywhere with my thoughts.

but ultimately the lab.. with neutral testing is where all ideas must go to
either thrive, or die.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
I remember hearing Carl Sagan draw an analogy between UFOlogy and religion, but he referred specifically to contactees who apparently thought we might blow ourselves up during the cold war and were hoping aliens might save us from doing that, a concept which maybe Hastings still leverages to some extent even though the cold war is over.

But I didn't intend to make any such correlation in my post or use of a link. That site has a separate forum for atheism and theism, which discusses such topics but the forum I linked to was the science forum which is supposed to be about science and not theism or atheism.

As long as ideas have to pass the verification test to be validated it's ok to think out of the box but of course one could spend millions of dollars testing ideas that are too way out and find that none of them ever get validated, a fear I have that might become manifested with this AlienScientist/Phoenix project. It helps to have some good background and intuition to help point the verification experiments in the right direction, so one doesn't spend too much time or money trying to validate concepts which will not be proven in the lab. I don't get the impression he's anywhere near on track for making a real hoverboard, but his experiments may prove many different ways to not make one, if he gets enough funding to run them.

Even though my confidence in AlienScientist is zero, he did say one thing which I appreciated a little, which is that at least he's trying to form a genuine science company, instead of an entertainment company (apparently a reference to DeLonge). The truth is we probably are not going to see much advancement in science from investing in either one, unless you consider learning 700 ways to not make a hoverboard scientific progress.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I nearly always star your posts when I come across them.

Kev

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I find it a little fascinating that one the thing I liked out of ALL THAT VIDEO was the same, singular thing, you liked.

Many, if not most, of Humanities greatest thinkers and inventors (especially inventors) discovered multiple ways of how not to do what they were hoping to achieve before ever coming near to accomplishing what they set out to do.

That in no way means, or even indicates, our friend in the videos will, but it was an encouraging and hugely rational thing for him to think IMO.

That, or he is just reasonably well read and smart enough to include that in his pitch videos.

I've made it through his first three videos. While I'm not saying I sign on, he does have some interesting views and so far it does oddly align with current understanding of quantum physics.

I won't be donating my money anytime soon, but I will most likely watch a few more of his videos/consider his theory.

So odd to imagine what it would feel like living 100 years from now, knowing his theories were correct, and looking back over the original youtube videos, comments, and discussions like this.

~Winter

STANFORD PHYSICIST PROCLAIMS: WE HAVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF UFOS!

a reply to: thepixelpusher

no major fail. radar is not physical evidence. it's just radar. we have lots of ways to make radar see what we want it to see and to do everything a ufo would appear like to a radar system trying to observe whatever it is its detecting.. haven't you been reading my prior posts scattered all over ats.