Faster than light propulsion using STS-75 evidence

reply to post by mkross1983


The "objects" in question are 70-100 miles away,clearly moving "behind"the tether.

Please watch ALL the videos and tell me you still think what you do....

Youtube



[edit on 8-7-2009 by Overload]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e654473c827.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a03d44e614de.jpg[/atsimg]

The Galaxy Clock is the model used in a new theory in Quantum Physics that will demonstrate how to cause mass (spacecraft) to break Einstein's law and attain light speed and beyond. Einstein's law prohibits any mass from attaining the speed of light (see Steven Hawkings). Basically, his law states that as any spacecraft or mass solid object tries to increase its speed, its mass increases towards infinity due to inertia. As its mass increases with higher velocities, it takes more and more energy to accelerate it. The faster it goes, the more its mass increases and it becomes impossible for it to attain light speed because it would take an infinite amount of energy. Max Planck, the Godfather of Quantum Physics had a theory that gives the basis for a new break-through in Quantum mechanics. Hidden in his code is a secret that could change history. Find out what the hidden code is. Scientists have discovered that matter (mass) on a subatomic level is just electromagnetic wave patterns vibrating so fast within a space that they give the illusion that mass is solid. Because of this dichotmoy, mass is believed to be both made of particles and waves. Particle and wave theory are fusing together as they are both revealing the same thing. All mass has waves that vibrate at different frequencies. The waves in solid mass as we experience it is relatively low in frequency (measured in Hertzian waves). Photons (lightwaves) are very high in frequency (Hertzian waves). Photons are said to have near zero-mass, a property that allows them to attain light speed. A Photon's mass is a huge debate still unanswered until now. The Galaxy Clock will show us how to reduce an object's (spacecraft's) mass (breaking Einstein's law) and cause it to become as light as a photon's mass (nearly zero). Because mass can now be reduced to Zero, an object's (spacecraft's) mass can now easily glide towards light speed. In this theory we will examine what properties a photon has that allow it to attain light speed and how mass can also attain the same properties. This new theory will show how solid mass (spacecraft) can change frequency and transform into the same frequency as light at attain light speed. Tune in and examine how the NASA UFOs reveal the same kind of quantum physics and become capable of attaining light speed and find out startling evidence on how a spacecraft can go beyond light speed. Find out new revealtions on Black Holes.

Personally it's hard for me to get serious when I hear the words The Hutchinsen Effect. You can check Wiki-pedia on the so called Hutchinsen Effect. I've watched many of David's videos on Google and respect him as a UFO researcher but giving any credence to Mr. Hutchinsen was a bit much for me and caused me to back off taking Mr. Sereda to seriously on some subjects.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*Jim, If you are going to use this correspondence in support of your position, please post pertinent excerpts and context or at least link to the letters... Don't be like Sereda.

Do we agree that 'being like Sereda' means, in english,
'falsely quoting non-experts to make it look like
they support his whacko theories?'.

Seems you do admit that.

How is it that you suggest i do anything like that?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Overload
A simple couple of paragraphs would be sufficient(from a scientific point of view) and we could continue a grown up conversation. As you sad on this thread

It's a deal, I owe it to you... and since i've intended to add to my home page a roster of why i find some people's testimony unworthy of belief (while not alleging they are liars or con artists, which I do not believe), I'll go ahead and do the section on sereda soon and post it -- or u2u it -- when it's done. Pester me if I take too long -- the ball is in MY court on this, your request was fair and fair-minded.

Has anybody found a link, maybe in a wayback site, to the Sereda-Oberg mud-wrestling show?

So how are we doing on that webpage Jim, need some content?

It's a long-term project, taking back burner to stuff like the Apollo 40-th anniversary, but you're right, I promised, and I intend to deliver.

Old thread but I'm curious if anyone else has any ideas on whether the resonance theory could indeed be used to travel at high speeds without worrying about inertia. I'm also curious if anyone can shed some insight into the galaxy clock theory.

originally posted by: Sharted
Old thread but I'm curious if anyone else has any ideas on whether the resonance theory could indeed be used to travel at high speeds without worrying about inertia. I'm also curious if anyone can shed some insight into the galaxy clock theory.

"Black hole spaceship propulsion."

Link:

www.youtube.com...

So you increase the frequency, you decrease the mass, I get that. So considering the Earth is of a large mass and of incredibly low frequency, if we were to raise the entire low frequency of the earth itself through electrical vibrations, it would become massless, to which we can move Earth faster-than-light through space right?

a reply to: Overload

Wouldn't a high frequency, high voltage tesla coil/magnifying transmitter offer faster-than-light speed then? Maybe it should be looked into.

"resonance" and "frequency" when used in ways that omit "frequency of what" and "resonance of what" are invariably meaningless woo terms.

I can't hand you a bucket of frequency or resonance. The terms are meaningless out of context.

Like they're used here. So, nope, the whole thing is bogus.

a reply to: Bedlam

If you don't understand the definition of Frequency and Resonance don't simply say the whole thing is Bogus. It's not. Why don't you say 'I don't believe it'. That would be better.

Definition of Frequency: the rate per second of a vibration constituting a wave, either in a material (as in sound waves), or in an electromagnetic field (as in radio waves and light).

Definition of Resonance: the reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighbouring object.


I like David Serada. He's clever and has some good theories and unlike Einstein is not a part of the Elite.

All these objects were all the same shape. And they were all pulsating. Are they craft? Creatures? Dunno. But definitely not debris!

I'm gonna look into this more. If anything at least it will expand my knowledge database!

a reply to: Nova937

Oh, I very well understand the definitions. You didn't read what I wrote. Frequency of what. Resonance of what.

A faucet drip has a frequency. A child's swing has a resonance. If you say "raise the frequency of a ship to a higher resonance " you have, however, made a nonsense statement.

originally posted by: Nova937....
I like David Serada. He's clever and has some good theories and unlike Einstein is not a part of the Elite.

Agreed, he certainly is no Einstein.

I've checked up on a lot of his "NASA expert quotes", the alleged sources told me they couldn't explain why he had garbled their words so badly. Otherwise, his main use of first-hand NASA witnesses was to call the astronauts on the STS-75 mission all liars.


example -- www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: Nova937....

All these objects were all the same shape. And they were all pulsating. Are they craft? Creatures? Dunno. But definitely not debris!

Why are you relying on the lo-res exterior TV cameras for image interpretation when the crew handheld 70-mm photos are so much sharper?

a reply to: Bedlam
My ex had a frequency.

a reply to: Overload

It might be relevant to ask, why is the speed of light fixed? and why does E=MC2? If it wasn't, then would time be compromised, we could arrive before we left. So for logical cause and effect to work the program has to have this constant to be reasonable which fix the laws of physics. Or is it all unreasonable chaos, and we pick from the input, to make a reasonable reality which would otherwise not exist. Then at the quantum level, this no longer applies because it doesn't need to.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Overload

It might be relevant to ask, why is the speed of light fixed?

Well, there's the big question right there. Why is it at all, is another. Why not zero? Or undefined? Why does empty space have a particular permittivity and permeability? It is a mystery.

If you could diddle small but baffling constants such as these, a lot of questionably desirable plums would fall into your metaphoric pocket.