Discussing the recently appeared science underground papers of "Daniel"

page: 7
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Hi Everybody,

thanks for your amazing input. I am trying to keep up with it. You're pulling up so much interesting stuff to think about and research that it'll take some time to post replies.

All the physics/quantum physics stuff is really difficult to grasp though. Could those of you who understand the matter provide formulas from basic physics (like the mass/acceleration one) and show the way to quantum physics? That would be greatly appreciated.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by consolution
Hi Everybody,

thanks for your amazing input. I am trying to keep up with it. You're pulling up so much interesting stuff to think about and research that it'll take some time to post replies.

All the physics/quantum physics stuff is really difficult to grasp though. Could those of you who understand the matter provide formulas from basic physics (like the mass/acceleration one) and show the way to quantum physics? That would be greatly appreciated.


My first suggestion is to look at the Rob Bryanton videos, and see what you think. All free on youtube.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 




And if these papers accept chemtrails and HAARP's ability to control the earth in any way as a reality, then they are automatically false.


What has the ability to control the earth in any way as a reality?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


Thanks. I will watch them later. Are there any good articles on this?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Yes, it is highly speculative and mystical but parts of it are inspiring to me.
The change in the Sun may be on track, though I am not sure it goes with this astrological anniversary in 2012. It could last a bit longer.
The time and space philosophy is inspiring - I still have a feeling that with all due respects to Einstein, some of the basics are not well formed today - it is as if our code (language) would resist the truth.
Time and space being two sides of the same coin really makes sense (they are both niminalizations of processes in linguistic epistemology).

I don't know if the speed of light was a transform into another dimension or an absolute limit for mass - I know that is how relativistic physics works but I am unable to follow the equations. What if it wasn't? Or what if it was valid only up to a point? It boggled my mind that if two spaceships would approach each other with tho thirds of the speed of light, physics would say they would still perceive each other as incoming light only. Why, is there an absolute center of the Universe relative to which everything is measured moving? I would think there is no such thing - physicist friends were not able to answer this without referring to redshift and the Big Bang which is a whole another messy theory.

I don't know about Montauk, it seems blown up a bit to me. But it is certainly a good story to illustrate all this philosophy. The point is we can get to a new scientific philosophy and not that this really happened.

Einstein started from Newton and the problematic Maxwellian descriptions. Quantum was so far basically not really compatible with Einstein on final issues. Mystics claim they found the unified theory but philosophers of science and epistemologists say these explanations fail to address some basic issues.

However, it is quite another thing to develop a new science than FTL travel (which is doubtful at least), and a third step that seems unproven to me is whether we can influence all this by the sheer power of the human mind.
As inspiring suggestions though, they work to some degree. Like, in your life, you can choose among timelines. This is not necessarily a physical assertion, but it works in the realm of psychology and mysticism (theories of karma for instance).

What do you think?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by consolution
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


Thanks. I will watch them later. Are there any good articles on this?


Keep in mind that IF we're following Daniel's method of thinking here, we're following the Dewey Larson Reciprocal System (RS), not the standard model. And on that level, there's (shocker coming...) conspiracy. I took a long hard look at the RS system and firstly I'll say I'm not a physicist. I have no expertise, and few here will. However, in just the simple equations I've bothered to fool with, it WORKS for me.

Reciprocal System covered here, transpower.wordpress.com...

Dr. Satz makes good points, very valid. Since electricity in the real world is more my thing, I especially enjoyed reading about those equations and theories, which experiments can be done on a low cost scale to prove the theory.

Now, if we're talking about "traditional" quantum mathematics, then it will be at odds to what is postulated here, in some ways. I've always found the traditional system to have way too many exceptions and made up workarounds to be "natural". I think the RS system is much closer to the actual truth, but right now the grant money isn't going to RS folks.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by consolution

reply to post by delusion
 




And if these papers accept chemtrails and HAARP's ability to control the earth in any way as a reality, then they are automatically false.


What has the ability to control the earth in any way as a reality?



Nothing man-made, except collaterally (pollution, de-forestation, etc). Certainly no technological device.
I was clumsily trying to include HAARP's alleged weather controlling as well as earthquake generating 'capabilities'.
Was I mistaken in thinking these papers reference chemtrails and HAARP weather control as actual things presumed to exist? I may have been, but that's what I thought I saw referenced. And if those are false (demonstrably so, though not to everyone's satisfaction sadly) then why would anything else in the papers be valid?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by consolution

reply to post by delusion
 




And if these papers accept chemtrails and HAARP's ability to control the earth in any way as a reality, then they are automatically false.


What has the ability to control the earth in any way as a reality?



Nothing man-made, except collaterally (pollution, de-forestation, etc). Certainly no technological device.
I was clumsily trying to include HAARP's alleged weather controlling as well as earthquake generating 'capabilities'.
Was I mistaken in thinking these papers reference chemtrails and HAARP weather control as actual things presumed to exist? I may have been, but that's what I thought I saw referenced. And if those are false (demonstrably so, though not to everyone's satisfaction sadly) then why would anything else in the papers be valid?


Incredible fallacy here. You are creating a false sense of assertion that it is impossible to do these things. Yet cloud seeding (described in the paper) does exactly that. We do that all the time.

Do you KNOW that nothing can control the weather? Do you know what HAARP (or another device like it) can do? That's a bold assumption, based on the available facts.

What about chemtrails? Daniel asserts that it is in the fuel.

Butterfly effect, for one.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 





I don't know if the speed of light was a transform into another dimension


Are we actually travelling with FTL through space/time?




The point is we can get to a new scientific philosophy and not that this really happened.





posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal


Incredible fallacy here. You are creating a false sense of assertion that it is impossible to do these things. Yet cloud seeding (described in the paper) does exactly that. We do that all the time.

Do you KNOW that nothing can control the weather? Do you know what HAARP (or another device like it) can do? That's a bold assumption, based on the available facts.

What about chemtrails? Daniel asserts that it is in the fuel.

Butterfly effect, for one.


Not saying it's impossible to do these things, but I am convinced it is not being done now by any methods described.
Cloud seeding is not the same as chemtrails or HAARP induced weather control, and I'll grant you I forgot to include that as a man-made ability to alter the earth, but is it even in the same scale as what is being discussed? Actually, how does cloud-seeding figure into his overall picture?

It's just not possible for chemtrails to be in the fuel as fuel is subject to high levels of regulation, and some other practical issues. The logistics of 'possible' scenarios don't hold up to what actually happens when people fly and fuel planes. If he asserts this, then he is wrong (for discussions of why, see contrail science and metabunk.org, lots of evidence against, based on real-world physics and experience).

And WHAT about the butterfly effect? Miniscule events that may lead to influencing large events through an unmappable and unpredicatble chaotic chain of events couldn't be used in any practical way, other than praying and hoping for an outcome of some kind, it would be no of more use than a magic incantation, and certainly wont have any science behind it.

I stand by my assertion that anyone who claims HAARP can do anything to the weather or the earth, or that chemtrails are being released by aircraft, immediately disqualifies themselves as a scientist who understands meteorology or electromagnetic/atmospheric research ad therefore cannot comment on things in that area. Only someone not actually trained in these disciplines coud come to any such conclusions.

I guess it's curious as to what standard people are holding these theories - are they just cool ideas and it doesn't matter whether they are 'true' or possible or not? Is it just the thrill of thinking differently? I think there's nothing wrong with that, but it seems like he's trying to bridge the gap between imagination and reality, and it doesn't hold up - it would bemore intellectually honest if he was clear that it was fictional or metaphorical in nature.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 


Well, it seems to me you did not read the full papers. Regardless, HAARP can heat the ionosphere, this is factual. Heating the ionosphere WILL of course disrupt other layers, atmosphere included. Viola weather changes possible.
Its known that quarz crystals will contract/expand when exposed to electricity. A microwave (aka HAARP) device can deliver electricity. So knowing quarz crystals are everywhere in stones and knowing the above, can you really say for sure that there is NO possible interaction??


Originally posted by delusion
I stand by my assertion that anyone who claims HAARP can do anything to the weather or the earth, or that chemtrails are being released by aircraft, immediately disqualifies themselves as a scientist who understands meteorology or electromagnetic/atmospheric research ad therefore cannot comment on things in that area. Only someone not actually trained in these disciplines coud come to any such conclusions.

So, taking you´re word for this, what do you say about this video, start from 2:40 on. There you have it. A real scientist shows you what haarp is and simulates it for you.

Watch from 2:40 to start at the part I told you.
edit on 9-11-2012 by StareDad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I will start to look into Reciprocal System papers.

As far as HAARP and chemtrails, a limited covert application is very likely. Mostly, that they can disrupt electric grids and communication vital to militaries worldwide. I somehow doubt that countries such as Russia and China would have invested in HAARP-like institutions (which they have) solely for the purpose of scientific research. There is something here they are not telling to the public.
Obviously, as with all conspiracy theories, the general public suspects that there is more to it than meets the eye. I participated on numerous HAARP threads, and became convinced that it is bull that HAARP-like devices could ever affect earthquakes - as soon as you start to calculate the sheer mass, the argument of resonance falls away (in Japan, they would have had to have deep parts of the Earth resonate for a very long time for an earthquake to happen, which Japanese scientists would surely have noticed).

Weather is a chaotic system so hard to influence with planned purposes, they are seeding clouds, but little else is done. It may be possible that aluminum is dispersed to counter the effects of global warming. Who knows.

All this conspiracy theory stuff does not disqualify Reciprocal System thinking.
Neither does the new age section (which independently may be untrue).

As for FTL, depending on the definition, we may be travelling that way already.
There are thousands of galaxies that seem to approach the FTL barrier from what a researcher at the Space Telescope told me. The only cogent explanation, the Big Bang, pretty much falls apart when subjected to rigorous civilian questions - however, he conceded science is pretty much obligated to try explanations there first. I also asked him if there was a basic nonmaterial matrix of the physical universe against which we measure speed. He said no, but the Einstein theory presupposes one anyway. (This guy works with the mathematical patterns of newly discovered galaxies every day).

He said most of my civilian philosophical questions really do not have a received scientific answer these days. (This was in the mid-nineties.) Whatever theory works, they use, they are simply not interested in theories after completing the university... Interesting.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by StareDad
reply to post by delusion
 


Well, it seems to me you did not read the full papers. Regardless, HAARP can heat the ionosphere, this is factual. Heating the ionosphere WILL of course disrupt other layers, atmosphere included. Viola weather changes possible.
Its known that quarz crystals will contract/expand when exposed to electricity. A microwave (aka HAARP) device can deliver electricity. So knowing quarz crystals are everywhere in stones and knowing the above, can you really say for sure that there is NO possible interaction??


haha, yes you are correct.
I am however interested in the general outline and the discussion around it, even just the psychology and emotional investment some people seem to have to anything seen to be a challenge from a maverick outsider to accepted science. I think we all want fantastic things to be possible, but what we want has little to do with reality. For some this seems to be irrelevant.
I think the connection you make between the ionosphere being heated and it therefore affecting other layers is where you are wrong. It seems common-sensical of course, but knowing the details is where it is shown not to be so. For example, how much does the ionosphere fluctuate in temperature under normal conditions, just from variatons in solar weather? And then how does HAARP's influence compare? Also, how dense is the ionsphere? Apparently, it's very spread out and very thin, so while you may be imagining something similar to atmosheric layers and thermals closer to earth, it is not at all like that, and has much less flow-on effect because of its sparsity.
I haven't studied this in any way other than listening to conversations on this site, from those that obviously do know actual real science.
And I would double-check your statement that HAARP delivers electricity. Pretty sure the microwave energy being manipulated/transmitted, and electricity, are two totally different beasts, so to collate effects from one to the other would lead to very erroneous conclusions.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   


The point is we can get to a new scientific philosophy and not that this really happened.


Could it be called quantum philosophy?
edit on 9-11-2012 by consolution because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Although I follow the advances and theories of physics somewhat closely, I will not say that I completely agree that faster than light travel is impossible. I think that until we have a grand unifying theory, which can explain both the attraction of bodies on a large scale, as well as the repulsion of particles on a smaller scale, we can not be certain as to the nature and makeup of time. I could be wrong, and Einstein's theory may be all there is, but I am holding out hope that it is not. This is because if there really is something grander, the possibilities for the human race are that of modern day science fiction.

With that said, I do not really believe what this person is saying. It just sounds and feels fishy to me. That is the rub with things that are unverifiable, from my point of view. What say you ATS?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
americankabuki.blogspot.com...

Another Daniel post



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 



Another Daniel post


The bullet points, annotated by yours truly:


The substance of the universe is not matter, but motion, a abstract ratio of change that we call space/time.


Motion exists without bodies changing their relationship to one another?


Faster-than-light speeds are commonplace; the rule, not the exception, which is a slap in the face to Einstein.


Please don't slap the old man in his face; in fact, he might not disagree with you. It all depends on your definition of time, and attachment to the concept of causality.


Astronomers have everything backwards; stars begin their life as red giants and end it as blue giants exploding in a supernovae. [7] Galaxies form from globular clusters, to irregulars, to spirals, to giant sphericals and also explode, producing quasars.


This suggests that negentropy is universal, which means that if you put something in the fire, it will get colder.


The geological dating system is based on a false premise; things are much younger than stated by geologists. Correlations are missed because of this, such as the Biblical appearance of Adam and Eve coinciding with the sudden appearance of Cro-Magnon man.


Because, presumably, the direct measurement of isotopic decay is plagued by some hitherto unsuspected systematic error.


Anthropology became the study of how to hide the true origins of homo sapiens. Fact is, mankind may have more in common with Godzilla than with the Neanderthals.


Erm, you realize that Godzilla is make believe, right?


Religion is not what you think… it's the code of enslavement, not enlightenment.


I agree with you 100%. Seems to me the above absurd statements suggest you are trying to start your own religion!
edit on 9-11-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 



With that said, I do not really believe what this person is saying. It just sounds and feels fishy to me. That is the rub with things that are unverifiable, from my point of view. What say you ATS?


The only reason I have not officially asked for this to be chucked in the [HOAX] bin is that I'm hoping it might inspire some critical thinking about the nature of time and space. "Daniel's" claims are poorly thought through rubbish. Someone, please, try to prove me wrong.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by knowledgedesired
 


Not sure if this was mentioned yet, but who's to say time is linear? In various interpretations, time is multi-dimensional. Consider this: if time is the fourth dimension, it could not possibly be linear.
Also: The many worlds theory states that there are separate "worlds" for every possible outcome of every situation. Yet another interpretation of time that would make a linear timeline impossible.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmaox
reply to post by knowledgedesired
 


Not sure if this was mentioned yet, but who's to say time is linear? In various interpretations, time is multi-dimensional. Consider this: if time is the fourth dimension, it could not possibly be linear.
Also: The many worlds theory states that there are separate "worlds" for every possible outcome of every situation. Yet another interpretation of time that would make a linear timeline impossible.


It's already been mentioned before in this thread, but time is not a 'thing' that exists as an actual dimension of the universe that can be understood, mastered through mathematical equations and manipulated. It only exists as a concept for us to make sense of events in the human dimension, it's simply part of how our brains organise information. It's not an objective force of nature to be mapped or understood, except as a qualia - like the experience of colour, or love, or what hot feels like.
Some might call this being 'multi-dimensional' I suppose, it keeps it vague enough to say anything you want to about it.
Given that time takes place within us, it's hard to see any practical applications of its study outside of psychology or phenomenology.





top topics
 
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join