13 Year old boy has Time Machine plan that works

page: 19
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I have gone through all 18 pages of comments/arguments and counter arguments. I am not a scientist. I am just an avid reader on the topics discussed here. First of all, I do not think this person is a 13 year old kid. Secondly as many pointed out we do not have any hard facts, but theories, theories and theories. Well may be it is not in our capability to put these theories into action or a working model, yet. I think Gentill isn't very sure of his own theories, from what I've read in the comments. He has been contradicting himself a few times. For example regarding the 'Plastic Magnet'. Once he said it means a stronger magnet, then he said he meant the non-metallic organic polymer magnet. Same about the blue light.
Although I applaud Gentill's enthusiasm, I have to say he isn't very sure what he is talking about or dealing with. Strikes me as one of those people who tries to be a scientist by just following Wikipedia, SciFi Channel and Discovery Channel. I do not mean any offense nor I am saying to be a scientist you need a degree.




posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


I guess you will have to take that up with the software developers of Dragon Natural Speaking. I'm curious though why it is that you only commented on the grammatical nature of the posts and not on the science? As this is not written for a periodical or for that matter a peer reviewed media outlet; I have not been proof reading. I guess with all of the English Professors in the room, I will have to change this course of action. Now, I am still waiting on your comments on the equation; unless you are more about English; that is instead of math. As a physicist yourself, math is where your strong points would emerge; I would think.

Sincerely

TheGhost



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sunspot0
 


Time travel is possible. Just forwards though, as I recall. Not backwards unless we are currently unaware of something in physics as of now. would require alot of energy though.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrusadingKnight
reply to post by sunspot0
 


Time travel is possible. Just forwards though, as I recall. Not backwards unless we are currently unaware of something in physics as of now. would require alot of energy though.


No, both forward and backward according to the Philadelphia Experiment.
First you create an energy field. What you are trying to do is
overwhelm the Earths natural energy field with an artificial energy field.
Once it is created you have to just rotate the field clockwise to go
forward in time and counterclockwise to go back in time.
Apparently, aliens were watching the whole time and told the
U.S. Navy where they were going wrong.
Albert Einstein did the preliminary work at Princeton University.
They started small with a small toy boat. When it worked
they scaled it up to a full size destroyer.

----------------------------------------------------------
Of course the U.S. Navy denies it. Do you expect them to tell
the truth? Oh yeah. We did that. It worked but we killed
a lot of people so we covered it all up and just decided to use the
convoy system to protect our freighters.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I think if you can make a 2 dimensional object look like this, then why couldn't you make a 3 dimensional object look like this, and I guess if it was a 4 dimensional object you could live in it all around in every direction and go where ever you want.



[edit on 27-1-2010 by game over man]

This is how I picture a virtual world, because, face it, we would have to build time travel by whatever you would call, human technology, computers, word, excel, the internet, technology.....

Not biological.

A time travel machine most likely will be some simulation program but to the very detail of every sub atomic particle, like my mirror example. A computer room, that a human could walk in, and live in. But.. would you be time traveling? That would be the ultimate question, I think it would be similar to some exploration, here on Earth, where you "loose" track of time....



[edit on 27-1-2010 by game over man]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Let's see it work in action! Send me back, i need some powerball numbers...and to say some things different to some people!



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRHAZE420
Let's see it work in action! Send me back, i need some powerball numbers...and to say some things different to some people!


I absolutely love it when people say send me back for powerball tickets. . .

Time travel assumes that there are multiple branches of times river. . . meaning you can go back in time to another parallel time line that is unfolding currently.

These parallel timelines differ from ours, some perhaps in major ways, others in ways that may be so subtle they are indistinguishable from our own time line.

So who's to say the lottery numbers would be the same? Thats just the kind of quantum difference that could give birth to an alternate time line. . . .

And just for FUTURE reference you have to go forward in time to get winning lottery numbers. . .

I don't think a ticket from the 90's will do you much good in 2010



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
LAPxsaxdxopfxVxamxmm

LAP=light absorption percent
sa=surface area
d=density
V=velocity
am= angular momentum
mm=magnetic moment
opf=output force

( x means multiply) After all of this the dominating equation is E=mc2. E=mc2 because of the energy to mass conversion ,and it's only a coincidence that that kind of spells "LAP sa d".
This was intended for MolecularPhd while he may just laugh at the equation ,or even just call it fiction I still stand by it.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I thought you might enjoy this paper.

www.valdostamuseum.org...



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I thought you might enjoy this paper.

www.valdostamuseum.org...


Since you are a fan of math, I came across a paper that takes yet another approach to the origins of the Universe from a mathematical view point:

brianwhitworth.com...

You might find it very interesting. Gentill should have a read too.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread about the simulation hypothesis

the video with frank tipler, david deutsch, and nick bolstrom is excellent

[edit on 29-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


What an amazing paper. Well written and very much based on a real scientific method. Whether I believe the author or not, his approach to his idea was well thought out and calculated. I am sending this to a few of my friends who are Theoretical Quantum Physicists to get their opinions on the subject. I'm not one who dismisses Cause, but you must have an objective mind as a Scientist; however improbable this may or may not be.

Thank You

TheGhost



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by SRHAZE420.

And just for FUTURE reference you have to go forward in time to get winning lottery numbers. . .

I don't think a ticket from the 90's will do you much good in 2010
They draw the numbers on Saturday night. I write down the winning numbers. I hop in my Gentil Abdulla time machine. I travel into THE PAST( one day- Friday). I buy a ticket using the numbers which will be drawn the following day. This involves travelling into the PAST, only one time travel required, to win the lottery. If you travel forward to get the winning numbers, then you will need to return to the time before they draw the numbers to buy a ticket.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


What an amazing paper. Well written and very much based on a real scientific method. Whether I believe the author or not, his approach to his idea was well thought out and calculated. I am sending this to a few of my friends who are Theoretical Quantum Physicists to get their opinions on the subject. I'm not one who dismisses Cause, but you must have an objective mind as a Scientist; however improbable this may or may not be.

Thank You

TheGhost


I am sure we will both agree that the majority of our Science exists within the realm of ideas and theories. How ever we reduce matter down to the fundamental quantum states; we discover over and over this “information system” that matter exists as.

Photons exhibiting Qubits in states of quantum superposition speak highly of a reality based on information systems. What we are doing in our theoretical understudies is trying to describe scientifically how these systems act in regards to the data they represent. That gives us our classical physics as we describe the interaction of matter within a confined set of physical laws.

If we reduce everything down into data and information systems then the act of rendering this data into reality becomes apparent with the act of observation. The conscious model of reality that our mind generates is based entirely on input of data through biological sensors and this is a critical thought as it surfaces again and again:

Take incoherent data in the form of audio,visual, tactile, smell, taste and convert the data from a range of electromagnetic, chemical, thermal exchanges into a bio-electric current which then further transforms within the quantum states of the brain into coherent photons. From this very small quantum coherency we have the start of a neurological rendering farm that begins a process by which our mind then generates a virtual reality model of sensory data and projects this model into a holographic view by which we; the observe exists within to observe yet again; this mental rendering of reality.

It's a very recursive feedback system for what we call the “self” or the “me” inside of all this subjective humanized awareness.

If we imagine as an idea that reality exists as a data stream, and our body acts as the interface; then it is the mind that acts as the rendering engine that translates this incoherent data into a coherent model.

This virtual reality theory applies fully to our mental function that is required to create a virtual reality; even if it fails at physical reality theory.

However... before we dismiss this possibility; we need to look further into self-similar systems such as the Holographic Principle; Mandlebrot's fractal; quantum dipoles and dyads. The very building block of our reality appears to be based on iterating processes showing self-similar patterns in a scale factor. Which in itself is very alluding towards an information system.


Take this data stream and change it during sleep. The same act of perception applies within a dream state where only the data stream has changed; ergo a new virtual reality emerges by which we participate in this micro-reality in the form of a dream.

If you do have any self-evidence of dreams that come true; then a recursive feedback interface based on a virtual reality system really starts to tie some loose ends together in a bigger model of reality as an information system.

However; one based on organized thought. And I can really chase this rabbit hole down in great depth as to how thought plays a role in organizing information into these data streams. Curious isn't it? A thought / reality dyad?

[edit on 29-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]

Just another bio physicist on quantum coherent photons in the brain:
www.scipub.org...

Excellent read.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


There is no evidence that the Philadelphia experiment even happened, let alone gave science knowledge. Please stop repeating this tripe - it makes ATS look bad.

It doesn't matter how many scientific-sounding words you cram into a post, it doesn't stop it being nonsense.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Since you are a fan of math, I came across a paper that takes yet another approach to the origins of the Universe from a mathematical view point:

brianwhitworth.com...


There is no math in that paper, just amateurish philosopher conjectures.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Since you are a fan of math, I came across a paper that takes yet another approach to the origins of the Universe from a mathematical view point:

brianwhitworth.com...


There is no math in that paper, just amateurish philosopher conjectures.


I would like to argue that it presents a very sound theory in regards to this "reality". I previously meantioned that even if it is total bunk for describing physical reality; the essence of it fits within a cognitive "reality" that we are currently in the act of creating right now. One that is irrefutably virtual and real at the same time.




[edit on 29-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


There is no evidence that the Philadelphia experiment even happened, let alone gave science knowledge. Please stop repeating this tripe - it makes ATS look bad.

It doesn't matter how many scientific-sounding words you cram into a post, it doesn't stop it being nonsense.


Please stop discouraging people from posting.
It's called the first amendment.

ATS looked bad a long time before i even arrived.
BTW, there really was a Philadelphia Experiment.
You just have a hard time connecting the dots.


- Your mind is closed -



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Instead of us being virtual reality how do we know we aren't in a remake of the universe? By remake I mean the universe being created by an outside observer. I am sure all of you know about the big bang. How do we know the universe wasn't started by another human observer inside a universe that we are in. SO the big bang would be a singularity that was " persuaded to expand". This would let us see what was happening during the expansion. It would even be used to see how life was first started.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Thank you for changing your avatar.
It was giving me a headache.


BTW, the mandelbrot was a good choice.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join