Discussing the recently appeared science underground papers of "Daniel"

reply to post by Wongbeedman


How can the advancement of man be anything but?

Science has already proven the existence of soul, why is ascension taboo or something?

Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by consolution

 

Why oh why does he deserve the slightest bit of credibility when he's a "scientist" talking about ascension

I think we need to clarify something and I guess I have my part in having creating the confusion about it. So, sorry for that.

Daniel's papers are no scientific papers. I am not even sure if they could be named scientific essays.

The point is that he writes about underground science. That is why I originally posted that thread in the science forum.

Normally that term "underground science" is used for science that is conducted in laboratories undergroud - and I guess if any of the Montauk/Phoenix III projects have been made, then a big part of it has probably happened deep down in some laboratories.

I understand the term "underground science" also in the sense of "scientific underground" or "non-mainstream science" in the context of the epistemological concept of science developing in paradigmatic shifts. Galileo was a "underground scientist" if you want and so is Larson in my eyes.

If we want to discuss the scientific validity of Daniels statements we need to check if Larson is a scientist with real findings that has been suppressed, or if what he wrotes is not factual. I haven't reached that point yet.

Now, concerning scientists writing about "ascension" - if you are ready to accept "transition into a more complex form of consciousness" instead of "ascension" then everything is there in the field of developmental psychology of individual and unified human consciousness. If you look up the works of Dr Clare W Graves, professor of psychology, you'll find it - in scientific terms.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by consolution

 

But in his sentence "one-dimensional" is an adjective of "speed" and not of "object", isn't it?

Exactly. You cannot have motion in a single dimension. You need at least two, so you can move from point A to point B over time T.

I think what he wants to make sure is that everybody understands that although motion is three dimensional, the one-dimensional sum of the three coordinate vectors cannot exceed speed of light. I'll try to draw some charts to explain it if I am able to and have more time.

This must be my favorite thread. I mostly agree what he did with paper 1, It was a nice read, but there are many things i still dont understand. Reading second paper now, will return after.

Sounds really interesting will take a look at this when I have a moment.. always interested in time travel.

Originally posted by consolution

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by consolution

 

But in his sentence "one-dimensional" is an adjective of "speed" and not of "object", isn't it?

Exactly. You cannot have motion in a single dimension. You need at least two, so you can move from point A to point B over time T.

I think what he wants to make sure is that everybody understands that although motion is three dimensional, the one-dimensional sum of the three coordinate vectors cannot exceed speed of light. I'll try to draw some charts to explain it if I am able to and have more time.

Ok, so I have tried my best. If I understand it properly, then

motion in 3-dimensional space moves along the three vectors (x-,y- and z-vector), all of them taken together form however the "motion-vector" which is straight forward, on a line, one-dimensional.

What Dr Satz is saying with his his expression that one-dimensional speed of material objects can never exceed Speed of Light in the material sector is, that the sum of these vectors can never exceed Speed of Light.

reply to post by consolution

What Dr Satz is saying with his his expression that one-dimensional speed of material objects can never exceed Speed of Light in the material sector is, that the sum of these vectors can never exceed Speed of Light.

You explain what he is trying to say much better than he does. For a particle with mass, the vector sum of its motion in three dimensions will always be less than c, the speed of light in a vacuum. If that's what he is trying to say, he is correct, but I cannot help but note that he seems to be overlooking a few vital points. No pun intended.

reply to post by DJW001


Thanks. This is a great compliment.

I read both of Daniel's papers and have come to the conclusion that it is a mixture of science fact mixed with science fiction. The science fact is used to give the impression of legitimacy. Besides he has numerous references to charlatans that have written papers on some of the concepts described. I seriously don't believe the US Government has any reverse engineered ET spacecraft or is dealing with any ET beings, LMs and SMs as Daniel describes. This is more new age drivel headed for the trash bin.

reply to post by eManym


My grandfather served in the air force back then. He was stationed at Nevada at the test site, and was a nuclear "triggerman". Certainly he did not see everything but that which he did see corroborates with Daniel's data.

While you may not feel it is real, thanks to my grandfather opening up like he did before he died I have zero doubt.

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by eManym

 

My grandfather served in the air force back then. He was stationed at Nevada at the test site, and was a nuclear "triggerman". Certainly he did not see everything but that which he did see corroborates with Daniel's data.

While you may not feel it is real, thanks to my grandfather opening up like he did before he died I have zero doubt.

Wow! That's a pretty strong statement.

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
reply to post by Realtruth

 

With all due respect... I can look around at the universe and it's magnificent perfection and come to the conclusion that a creator exists to make such beauty...

What I can't due is look around and see things that would lean towards time travel being real.

Regards,
B

How so, you travel through time your whole life, or is your life not real?

reply to post by consolution


It is the only reason why I bother to follow this stuff.

I can totally get why a lot of people don't "believe" in things of the esoteric. It isn't exactly mainstream news, and it is only available to those who seek it out directly. You won't hear about this stuff by the watercooler, and you won't see it in a newspaper. But ONE direct experience and things liven up, like an alarm clock going off in your life. That happened for me. When a family member, a trusted and extremely down-to-earth member at that, speaks to you with words you've never heard before except in a sci-fi novel, you really have to stop and take a moment, and listen.


Now Daniel could be cointelpro or he could be the genuine article, but SO FAR , things match up. My grandfather was not around the time travel experiments, I'm only speaking to the "visitors" and the compartmentalization that was used to keep everybody slightly clueless as to the big picture. Yet when all the guys get together and share their personal experience, a big picture emerges, just like Daniel is saying. He's merely after answers too, only in his case he knows a few things directly and was around others that knew things too, that then collaborated.

If he's making it up, that's some seriously coincidental shiz and I don't think you could get that lucky.

Rob Bryanton recently had a video and discussion about how everything you look at is in the past, but you live in the now even still. Even if you're just looking across the street, that light took time for you to receive it, therefore you are looking at the past. But consciousness is now, present without delay.

How's that for a mind trip?

Originally posted by fourthmeal

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.

I am kind of disillusioned after having read this about Larson, the Reciprocal System and Satz on RationalWiki

Dewey Bernard Larson (1898-1990) was an American engineer best known for developing a Theory of Everything known as the "Reciprocal System." Most of his writing dates from the 1950s and 60s and predates much of the Standard Model of physics, which effectively nullified many of his claims. However, Larson still maintains a strong and passionate following among a few cranks who think that they've stumbled upon some great secret body of knowledge.

None of Larson's work was ever published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. The only evaluations of Larson's work were performed by known supporters of the Reciprocal System, and have an alarming tendency to use the word "published" when they really mean "uploaded to a WordPress blog."

Because Larson was nothing more than a lone crank, his Wikipedia page was deleted for the non-notability of the subject. The article in question was entirely a piece of fancruft, based largely on a biography of Larson hosted by his supporters.

Now I am pretty sure that the guys from Rational Wiki throw the baby out with the bath water on a regular basis, but if Larson's page has even been deleted from Wikipedia I don't know anymore what to think about it.

Need to do more research into stuff that has been posted here.

For fair comparison Dr. Satz thoroughly refutes the statements made by rational wiki in an impressive line by line breakdown, and to me at least made a good return argument. Rational wiki is anything but, in this case.

I found the refuting document in a Google search found just under the rational wiki link dealing with reciprocal system

Originally posted by fourthmeal
For fair comparison Dr. Satz thoroughly refutes the statements made by rational wiki in an impressive line by line breakdown, and to me at least made a good return argument. Rational wiki is anything but, in this case.

I found the refuting document in a Google search found just under the rational wiki link dealing with reciprocal system

That is in fact a very good answer of Dr Satz to the Rational Wiki article. Here is the link.

reply to post by consolution

That is in fact a very good answer of Dr Satz to the Rational Wiki article.

Perhaps you can explain how motion exists independently of bodies that can move relative to one another?

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Science has already proven the existence of soul

Source? I see this claim a lot these days and I have no idea where it comes from because there has never been any definitive evidence outside of personal experiences and the completely bogus "soul-weight".

Originally posted by consolution


He claims that faster-than-light propulsion system have been developed or in use in the Phoenix III/Montauk project. Is that a reasonable thing to say and if so how would these propulsion system work in theory?

Most sci-fi authors will say ships can go faster than light by entering a black hole. The problem is, as black hole holds an infinite number of energy (singularity), the ship would be destroyed. In Star Trek, the ship goes faster than light by warping and stretching space-time itself - thus, relative to space-time, the ship is not moving, but, relative to other spatial reference points, it moves faster than light. Anderson Institute is currently working on warping space-time, but, so far, nothing made it to the newspapers.