Discussing the recently appeared science underground papers of "Daniel"

page: 11
74
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I'd like add:

If you go to soldierhugs there is a Q&A comments section at the bottom, where Daniel is nicely responding to each question, up until the Nov 14th questions of course, because he probably hasn't been through them yet. (as of Nov 14th 3:15PST)

I picked up great additional info there.




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
I can't tell you why people don't use it but from what I read, it is accurate.

I just don't buy that it is all you claim and that people just don't want to use it.


Electrical Engineers are a strange bunch. I know a lot of EE's, and some are real assholes who think they are the expert of every field of electronics, and can't be talked to about it. For instance, talking with them about speakers and using unique coil designs like XBL^2, or an LMS coil... or heaven forbid something else new. Yet the Klippel measuring machine proves these technologies out. Only a select few builders of speakers bother with these latest ideas, but they are proven to work.

Just because there are a lot of old stubborn fools in the EE ranks doesn't exonerate RS believers from designing and carrying out repeatable experiments. If they exist then maybe you could point us to where they can be found.


I see RS in a similar bind. No funding, goes against traditional science, really operating like Galileo or Kozyrev on the fringe, but yet the math works out and the system resolves out just fine, and with a grace that quantum mechanics simply can't match. Tesla fought the mainstream and in some ways lost, other ways totally kicked it out of the park. Each discovery has its day though. Hell, I don't see many Tesla turbines running yet they are efficient, simple, and really great designs.

The theory is 50 years old, the maths, according to what you are saying, work out, so where are the implementations? I mean Tesla turbines are based on the boundary layer effect published in 1904 and the turbine was patented in 1913. Less than 10 years to a functional example.


People talking about dark energy and dark mass... really? Sounds like making stuff up to me.

I agree.


Larsonian physics may get retribution once a few more secrets are spilt at the high levels of government. Might be a while but who knows. Things are changing quickly these days.

Why would secrets need to be spilt from high levels of government? If Larsonian physics is right then it should be testable and repeatable by anyone interested in it.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
OK someone chime in...

Gravitational mass and inertial mass are equal, correct?

OK consider this... When one travel's into space and achieves orbit around the Earth, they "feel" weightless. Has the effect of Gravity been overcome? No of course not, it is a surrender to gravity. You are falling towards the Earth but moving at such speed that you will fall towards the Earth at the same rate the ground gives way underneath you because of the curvature of the Earth. I know this is elementary to most of you but you would be surprised. A co-worker asked me after Felix Baumgardner's space jump in all seriousness if Gravity goes up that high. And it's kind of easy to see how people ignorant of science could mistake weightlessness for "lack-of-gravity" Even the ones of us who know this still tend to thing of gravity as a "pulling" force.

This thread has touched on the topic of "motion" quite a bit and I think any discussion of motion warrants an examination of the components of this notion. Ah the notion of motion.

In our example of the astronaut in orbit, the astronaut is undoubtedly in motion. He is orbiting the Earth, so relative to the planet, he is in motion. And as such, since the planet orbits the sun and the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way and by most accounts the Milky Way is zooming away from the center of the Universe, well you may as well say he is moving relative to the universe as a whole.

Now let's assume that there is a wall. A simple wall like one inside your house, but this particular wall is "not" in motion relative to the orbit of the Solar System. For argument's sake let's say this "Wall" is independent of or outside of the gravity well of our solar system. Let's put it into the path of the orbiting astronaut and see what happens.

What happens is he is crushed beyond recognition because he hits the wall at the speed with which he orbits the Earth plus the speed with which the Earth revolves around the Sun plus the speed with which the Solar System moves through the universe.

Force = Mass X Acceleration. The acceleration on the astronaut as he goes from his "weightless" orbit into contact with the "wall" is astronomical, and the force exerted likewise. The mass in the equation is his inertial mass, and it is a function of the overall gravitational frame of reference it is calculated in.

By this example we could make an assumption that when the "wall" is at a certain "degree removed from the gravity well of space-time around us" the astronaut would impact the wall at sufficient speed to completely change from matter into pure energy.

Which brings to mind the law that equates mass with energy, E=mc(squared) . Could the squaring of c because the sufficient speed at which we would have to hit the wall IS C? and the "motion" of the "wall" relative to the moving universe would ALSO equal c? c times c. c squared.

So maybe as one approaches the speed of light, it isn't that mass increases until it reaches infinity at c, maybe it just means that as you approach c, your "inertial" mass approaches infinity, as a function in reference to "what would happen if you hit an immobile wall that is outside of space-time". Maybe the math messed it all up. Haha.

Just food for thought. I am by no means a physicist, but the Universe is damn fun to think about..



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You have great questions and you've obviously doing the research, so I can't refute any of your comments other than the fact that established scientific principles aren't arriving at answers, just more excuses (like dark matter.) I'm not a veteran to RS but I read as much as I could about it from transpower.wordpress.com... and admittedly from more esoteric sources like Divine Cosmos but it clicks for me.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Awesome thread.. just staying in check with it, so i don't loose it..

Snf



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
An amazing response to Daniel's papers has been posted on American Kabuki




TIMELESS COMMENTS ON TIMELINES: Head Scratching Over the Daniel Papers

by GW Hardin

As a New York Times bestselling author, I often get to see a lot of things others don’t. Because of that I feel the need to bring in additional material to the “Daniel” papers. Reading the Daniel papers is like the trying to drink water from a fire hose. So I will limit my comments in this first response in the name of sanity as well as brevity. Depending on the reaction to this balancing act with Daniel, I may provide follow-up white papers.

In brief, I will address three areas of partial imbalance in the Daniel papers:

1. Humanity as Sons of Slaves or Sons of God ... based on his comments in his paper on “The Uncommitted Investigator.”

2. The Return to Timeline Zero (the “natural” timeline) as Opposed to the Ascension into Timeline Three ... based on his writings in “Time and Timelines.”

3. “The Cavalry is Coming” Versus the David-and-Goliath Complex.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by consolution
 



But the Postulates of this work specify that each unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time and since the motion involves two different units of space the equivalent units of time are also two separate and distinct units. Therefore when the photons increase their separation by two units of space they also increase their separation by two units of time; that is it takes two units of time to move the photons apart two units in space. The relative velocity is then 2/2 = 1, which is completely in agreement with the observed facts.


Now let's consider the case of two material objects approaching one another at relativistic speeds. Each is travelling at 3/4 the speed of light. They are separated by one unit of space. They meet each other after 3/8 of a unit of time, which is less than the one unit of time it would take for light to traverse that distance. Or am I missing something?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by consolution
 


Mind = Blown. I'll need to read, re-read, and re-re-read this as it is just amazing.

edit:

Man, this is so well written, it really serves as a counterpart to Daniel's info. IMO, If I were Daniel I would give all my info to this guy, and have him write it up. Daniel's information with this information is such a massive chunk of the missing puzzle pieces, I am in full shock (and darn near giddy with the information, at is such a positive, uplifting message.)

There is an abundance of "hopium" coming into the world these last few days, I feel it.
edit on 16-11-2012 by fourthmeal because: more to say after reading it again.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




Now let's consider the case of two material objects approaching one another at relativistic speeds. Each is travelling at 3/4 the speed of light. They are separated by one unit of space. They meet each other after 3/8 of a unit of time, which is less than the one unit of time it would take for light to traverse that distance. Or am I missing something?


I am deeply sorry ... but this is the place where my knowledge of physics pretty much ends ... would be good to have an expert directly answer that.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by consolution
 



I am deeply sorry ... but this is the place where my knowledge of physics pretty much ends ... would be good to have an expert directly answer that.


It is your lack of knowledge that allows you to take Lawson and his silly "theory" seriously. The fact that "Daniel" established his credentials by citing known hoaxes, then uses a crackpot Theory Of Everything should tell you everything you need to know about the "Daniel Papers." [HOAX]



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 

Don't believe the hype. Looks like run of the mill new age speak. He even got the info on the Castaneda material, which is widely available, wrong.

Here is a link to Taisha Abelar's Sourcerers' Crossing. I did not find one mention of Cortez or his technology causing a dimensional shift.

Anyone who knows about Castaneda's work knows that Don Juan was from a linage of sorcerers that spanned 25 generations. Where he gets that it was Don Juan that started it all when he, "was able to cross one of these gateways himself and discover one of the great Meso-American shamanic sorcerers did their information and secrets become known", is beyond me.

Both Daniel and the Kabuki character seem to be rehashing the same old info for new crowds.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





It is your lack of knowledge that allows you to take Lawson and his silly "theory" seriously. The fact that "Daniel" established his credentials by citing known hoaxes, then uses a crackpot Theory Of Everything should tell you everything you need to know about the "Daniel Papers." [HOAX]


I think you are a little too fast with your judgement. At least for me.

Of course I am lacking of knowledge. But who has enough knowledge to compare the validity of Einsteins Theory of Relativity with all its extensions and developments to the current discourse of the Reciprocal System of Theory. Do you? Then please go ahead and show us the way.

But I am not taking Daniel, RS and other stuff seriously because I am lacking of knowledge. I'd like to discuss these topics and get your opinion on it.

I'd like to be able to take a informed decision if that is ever necessary. Therefore I don't think the dialogue about it should be closed because you think it is a hoax. You haven't convinced me yet that it is. And I don't want to convince you of anything.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by consolution
I think you are a little too fast with your judgement. At least for me.

I'd like to discuss these topics and get your opinion on it.

I'm all for discussion but those pulling for Daniel have to understand why some, like me, are quick to dismiss. For starters, Daniel doesn't really bring anything forward that has not been discussed before and there is no proof that the dot joining that he makes is accurate other than it somehow resonating with the reader.

As soon as someone sees the terms that Daniel uses like "routes" and "potential universes” you realize that the work is based on the Robert Monroe's work or works derived the same. One example is Matrix V. The problem is that Monroe focuses mainly on the scientific/practical side of OBEs and leaves the spiritual aspect out of 2 of his three books only getting all new age sounding until his 3rd book which he stated he was forced to edit in order to get published. That leaves a big ?.

The thing that I would point out is that in his second book "Far Away Journeys", he claims to have been given information about the beginning of man. Quick answer according to Monroe is, earth and everything on it was created to condense and harvest a type of energy by "someone".

He actually uses the word "someone" instead of a name which leaves everyone basing their ideas on this able to put in Jehovah, the Orion Queen, the Annunaki or whatever they like. The problem with theories like Daniel's is that man was created to this end. It couldn't be a different timeline than "Timeline 0" because it was controlled by aliens since the start, it belonged to "someone" from the start.

Let's do the numbers. So Daniel's is different because he has RS to back up his theory but, does it? Even if there is something to RS how does this connect to the other dots? It doesn't have to. Science is independent of the rest of his claims.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
....
The thing that I would point out is that in his second book "Far Away Journeys", he claims to have been given information about the beginning of man. Quick answer according to Monroe is, earth and everything on it was created to condense and harvest a type of energy by "someone".

He actually uses the word "someone" instead of a name which leaves everyone basing their ideas on this able to put in Jehovah, the Orion Queen, the Annunaki or whatever they like. The problem with theories like Daniel's is that man was created to this end. It couldn't be a different timeline than "Timeline 0" because it was controlled by aliens since the start, it belonged to "someone" from the start.

....


Do I understand correctly - you are using the fact that Daniel's work differs form Monroe's in a significant detail to show that Daniel's must be false? Are you saying you consider Monroe's theory (life was a creation for energy harvesting) to be scientifically proven enough to disprove one that differs from it?

I have read some of Monroes' work, not the one you reference though, I liked how practical it was and its scientific approach.

(edit... I think I get that you mean that Daniel's work uses Monroe's as a reference, but it is then inconsistant with it, not that Monroe's is fact)
edit on 17-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion
I think I get that you mean that Daniel's work uses Monroe's as a reference, but it is then inconsistant with it, not that Monroe's is fact

Right. These theorists throw in Monroe, RS and "quantum this" and "quantum that" with their pet theories in an attempt to give them credibility. In the Case of Monroe, he even stated that his intention was to gather scientific evidence but soon realized that the science needed was not there, so even the man himself admits that his work falls short of proof and while his frankness might cause one to give it a little more weight, it does not make his stories fact.

In the case of RS one thing must be kept in mind, this is a theory which also explains the material world. This means that, just like other physics experiments, they should be repeatable by anyone anywhere. You don't need fancy equipment to drop two objects with different mass and see that they fall at the same rate. You could search online for physics experiments for children and find hundreds. If RS has merit then there should also be explanations according to that system of these observations.

Honestly I haven't researched RS and these explanations may very well exist but I don't see anyone posting info on them. The explanation of photons moving apart at the speed of light being two units apart after one unit of time doesn't really go against the theory of relativity. I'm not sure why this is offered as proof of it being wrong.

edit on 17-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
...
In the case of RS one thing must be kept in mind, this is a theory which also explains the material world. This means that, just like other physics experiments, they should be repeatable by anyone anywhere. You don't need fancy equipment to drop two objects with different mass and see that they fall at the same rate. You could search online for physics experiments for children and find hundreds. If RS has merit then there should also be explanations according to that system of these observations.


Some people seem to be quite happy for it to just be a 'mind-opening' exercise as to possibilities, they really don't seem bothered whether it's true or not, which I find strange. It's like a pseudo-scientific backing for a spiritual belief they happen to have that interprets the universe a certain way, so it's okay with them. And there's no precision in it so no possibility of it clashing with their spiritual belief.
Except where of course you have so rightly pointed out the inconsistencies with Monroe and Castaneda, but they'll probably be happy not to quibble over such disparities, because it's 'science proving... (belief X)'.


... The explanation of photons moving apart at the speed of light being two units apart after one unit of time doesn't really go against the theory of relativity. I'm not sure why this is offered as proof of it being wrong.


Probably just for the emotional need to prove Einstein, (hence 'the establishment'), wrong.
Einstein was once outside that establishment, I wonder if psuedo-scientists of the time used his new and radical theory to claim proof of their own work, until his work became accepted into the main body of physics but theirs didn't and they turned against him?
Now today's psuedo-scientists are seeking to overturn the 'mainstream' legend of Einstein, using half-understood theories (quantum, string, parrallel, etc) that their audience will be sufficiently dazzled by yet unable to confirm for themselves, to do so. (I'm particularly susceptible to this, I have no way to check the maths myself and am impressed by anyone who seems to be able to string tricky words and equations together.)
It would be nice to see some highly original work being done by someone who didn't need to fufill some hero's myth of the lone romantic maverick overturning established science, someone who was just genuinely curious and brilliant, and actually correct.

(edit.. just to make clear, I think there's a difference between fringe science and psuedo-science - fringe science will still adhere to scientific principles and approach, psuedo-science will just pretend to in order to trick people.
As to whether this is one or the other I don't know enough to tell, but those who do seem to think it's the latter.)
edit on 17-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
For what its worth I had a good long read of the PDFs that Dr. Satz has in his RS blog, particularly this one
transpower.files.wordpress.com...

In it, looks like the math holds up. Again not my specialty but I tried to keep up.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 




I'd like add: If you go to soldierhugs there is a Q&A comments section at the bottom, where Daniel is nicely responding to each question, up until the Nov 14th questions of course, because he probably hasn't been through them yet. (as of Nov 14th 3:15PST) I picked up great additional info there.


The questions and Daniel's answers have been compiled into a 7-page-document and posted on www.ascensionwithearth.com.

Extract:



Q: Roxane,

Well.. there's tiny thing I'd like to know... regarding Montauk... so apparently the scientists involved in the Montauk experiment all had their memories wiped out... did daniel go through that as well? if yes.. how did he recover..?

A: I did not have my memory wiped--well, at least I don't remember if I did! I was a part-time subcontractor, not an employee. I wasn't there the week the project closed. Most of the subcontractors were hired by local management, so when their minds got wiped, knowledge of who we were went with them! The base kept no records of us, other than our authorizations at the gate.

Q: The other thing is if he's had contact with Preston Nichols and aware of the new projects he's working on?

A: I have stayed clear of any of the surviving Montauk bigshots, Particularly my old boss, Nichols. Or as we used to refer to him when he wasn't around, the "Brookhaven Blimp." I don't know what he is like these days, but he had quite the ego back then. He was the technical engineer, working with the radio equipment
edit on 18-11-2012 by consolution because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by consolution
 

Seems you just don't get that the people claiming to have participated in the Montauk project are hoaxers. Regardless if such a project really existed or not, someone claiming to have worked with these people on the project, when it has been proven that these people were not part of anything, has to be lying.

www.bielek-debunked.com...
The Beginning
Along Came Bielek
Meet me in Montauk
Lingering Questions About the Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik


Thanks for those, I was trying to find some definitive information about these projects in ATS, but there's a LOT of threads, mostly just repeating each other.





top topics
 
74
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join