Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Earlier
  2. CMAY

    Well, this is how it is:  Most of the time, the 'story' or the 'backstory 'is so 'bad', you decide not to waste your time. Beyond that, you can prove someone is not a time traveler online by interacting with them and questioning them relentlessly. They slip up, give up, or you simply wear them out. They usually confess when they are done. I don't know how things are these days, but we sure were rough on the wannabes.

    IMO, you can not prove someone IS a time traveler online . . . I am not aware of any TT claimant ever following through on a single proof or promise of contact in the future, etc.  JT had great props, great answers on the fly, and a cult following. If a 1-2 % timeline divergence results in this almost total predictive uselessness blah blah blah I can at least be grateful . . . his past was not our present. 

    1. CMAY


      OOPS -why am I posting in an archive

    2. Cosmo
  3. This is yet another phenomena that I have run across with people from my past. Both you and I don't share the same memories we have from our past. But the phenomena is universal. Everyone experiences it. My attitude towards math might not be what you think it is. After all it was me that introduced you to the math that showed centrifugal acceleration was real. I used the Pythagorean Theorem to demonstrate the reality. Of course I rigidly adhered to observations which do lend more validity to the math than if I had used make believe. I don't recall the references you made to you using math to demonstrate more clarity in a situation. I also sensed in your reply that you were just trying to be helpful. Something that is unusual for me to see from you. If you prefer I can use more toned down expletives in my opinions. I wasn't directing them at you just so you know. I have been unsuccessful in locating the pickup truck and bungee cord drop levitation video. But surprisingly I found a car with bungee cord drop levitation video. The video was made by MythBusters Jr.
  4. I'd like to take a brief break from my discussion with @Einstein and make another connection between what we know about humans from a scientific perspective & my theory of "Achieve intent of time travel via frequency travel" The human brain operates at different brainwave frequencies. This is not mere theory, it is fact: GAMMA waves greater than 30(Hz) BETA waves (13-30Hz) ALPHA waves (8-12 Hz) THETA waves (4-8 Hz) DELTA waves less than 4(Hz). https://nhahealth.com/brainwaves-the-language/ RMT
  5. Another tick tock: https://www.foxnews.com/world/hong-kong-police-raid-offices-of-pro-democracy-paper-make-arrests RMT
  6. Well, just because you do not remember me using math in this forum does not mean I have not done it. Besides, knowing your attitude towards math, I know that you would pretend it is useless only because you may not understand it. I distinctly recall using vector mathematics and kinematics equations to show someone (not sure it was you) how they were misinterpreting the motion of some sort of contraption they had envisioned as "defying the laws of physics." TBH, I cannot be sure it was you and do not have the time to search thru this forum (a lot of the old threads are quite mangled, especially when it comes to graphics that I embedded as URL references). I do not have time to reply to your two posts above right now. I am working on a design memo for my latest UAV development customer and it needs to be done by week's end. But I shall return and reply to the above by the weekend. I appreciate the much more civil tone in our discussions. RMT
  7. I did find a video where Veritasium attached a tennis ball to the bottom of a slinky demonstrating his claim that attaching weight to the bottom of a falling slinky produces the same delayed fall pattern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKb2tCtpvNU
  8. And another tick tock: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/15/china-sends-record-28-fighter-jets-toward-taiwan.html RMT
  9. Tick tock... https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-navy-conducts-massive-drills-in-pacific-before-biden-putin-meeting-report RMT
  10. I am not convinced that mankind knows enough about gravity to immediately jump to mathematical models to explain what happens. I've never seen you use math to explain anything so far. In my mind the video suggested to me that I want more data. Objects under the influence of gravity usually experience weight when stationary and supported. Objects in free-fall are weightless. Does the bottom part of the slinky experience weightlessness or weight? This wasn't the video that blew my mind though. I believe Veritasium mentioned in one of his slinky videos that a weight was attached to the bottom of the slinky with identical results. Now one of the rules of gravity is that weight does not influence gravitational acceleration. All objects accelerate the same. The video that did blow my mind was a similar experiment was done with a bungee cord and a pickup truck suspended and released from the top of a crane. The pickup truck exhibited the same delayed fall pattern. It did fall after the bungee cord finished its collapse. So weight doesn't seem to matter. When I eventually find the truck video I'll post it. Anyone that makes a device that would simulate the torsion wave collapse would probably have a working antigravity engine. Seems like one could use something like that to move big stone slabs to build pyramids with ease. You still have not made any mention of the second link to the spinning wingnut.
  11. As usual, all you've got are vague generalities. You do realize that no one takes you seriously when all you do for "debate" is throw out generalizations? But congrats for getting taken in by the video's click bait title. And the answer to the click bait question is : No. Not in the slightest! You see, because I don't stop at observing (which I did do. Watched the whole video before commenting). The next functional steps after observing are analyzing, modeling, and quantifying. It's safe to say you've done none of those because, much like a child who is amazed by a magic trick, you are under the mistaken assumption that observing with your senses can never lie to you. The video is not a statics problem. It involves dynamics from the moment the slinky is released at the top. Additionally, there is precisely zero point in identifying or tracking the center of gravity of the slinky, because this is also not a rigid body problem. The slinky is, obviously, elastic. And as such you cannot assume a 1 Degree Of Freedom (DOF), rigid body formulation to predict the slinky's motion. Although, the gentleman in the video does allude to how this problem must be solved in order to explain the aspects of the slinky motion in this situation. Prior to release the slinky is in a stressed state. It is not in its natural, relaxed spring state. Once you release it from the top, the stress will flow. Yes, stress can & does actually flow through an elastic structure. You need to model the stress flux within the slinky to predict it's motion. If you even know the elements of Einstein's general relativity equation you will see there is a stress-energy term that is used to predict things exactly like this. Of course, since I teach a class in kinematics I can actually model the situation of the slinky in that video. But showing you how to do it would be casting pearls before swine. So rather than throwing out your usual, vague, unspecific nonsense, how about you make some risky claims for what you believe is happening in the video? Because observation alone doesn't cut it in the real world RMT
  12. Perhaps you should observe first before you speak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29FvQgiRNXc
  13. Yeah, ummmmm, no...none of the above fantasies. Let's recall: YOU are the one with demonstrable "schizophrenic delusions of grandeur": 1) You are the one elevating yourself without any demonstrable engineering knowledge with the "Einstein" moniker. 2) You are the one who actually believes you have falsified battle-tested physics which have been proven through their implementation in many engineering products. 3) You are the one looking at a decidedly Newtonian object as a slinky believing you have an alternate, unproven observation about it despite the fact that spring dynamics were known well before you were even a challenged sperm swimmer in your Mama's coochie. It's all you, man. RMT
  14. Did I push your bullshit defense button? Bruised ego? Or your faulty belief systems? Possibly I just discovered that you have no cognitive abilities at all in the subject matter you profess to have. And zero observational skills. Of course it could be just a simple case of schizophrenic delusions of grandeur. Sadly there is no cure for that.
  15. And this is your typical bullshit. Pretend generalized debunking. You can't do anything specific, because you do not even understand the underlying physics of what you claim to debunk. Hell, it's even worse, you don't understand the math. And that really is the height of your arrogance: you don't understand something, ergo you conclude it is bullshit. How mature! How scientific! Not only do you not understand the mathematical construct of a tensor (nor what makes a tensor covariant or contravariant) you do not even have an intuitive (much less technical) understanding of Einstein's metric tensor and how fundamental it is to the battle-tested, still not falsified, general relativity tensor equation. And your slinky video? LMAO. Yep, another exhibition of your lack of understanding! And the funny thing is, you think it is insightful, amazing, and you want people to pay attention to you because you think you've found something unexplained. In reality, any engineering graduate with a knowledge of flexible (non-rigid) structural mechanics can explain it perfectly. But they would do it with tensor math, and that's where the blank stare would appear on your face because you do not understand tensors as mathematical explanations of physical reality. Keep thinking you're on the bleeding edge. Keep congratulating yourself. The height of ignorant arrogance! RMT
  16. You can't falsify bullshit. It's already false. Nobody gets a Nobel Prize for exposing the scientific community for the frauds they are. Facts aren't peer reviewed. Only falsifiable theories are. God does play dice with the universe. Einstein would hate that fact. Observations are facts. Here are a couple of dice for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vklY1bHIi1I
  17. World War Three Scorecard? Axis = China, Russia, Iran, Nork, + client states. Allies = US, Europe (NATO-Turkey?), Balkans, Israel, Canucks, Aussies, Japan, SouK, etc. Recall, according to my reading of the actions of the last 4 years that WW III technically started in Dec 2019 with China act of bio war. WW II was Pearl Harbor WW III was COVID This also correlates with my discussion of the Age of Information that we live in, and how the end of this age would see a massive information event used in war. COVID is a DNA (information) weapon. Internet yields information weapons (the recent cyber attacks on US). The war is upon us. When will we all admit it & act like it? RMT
  18. I heard in Poland there are very high police mandates prizes for not wearing a mask.
  19. Hi everyone, I've been head-down for a while learning some things and planning out some features. Now that I have the knowledge to execute some things I've been wanting to do (for a long time at this point), it's time to start making those changes. I began outlining some of what I have planned on the Curious Cosmos Devlog, but here's what's changing with TTI: First, we're archiving these forums and starting fresh. These forums, the one you're reading now, will remain here at https://archive.timetravelinstitute.com for as long as I own the site. This place will continue to function the way it is now until the end of the year. Feel free to make threads, make posts, use private messages, whatever you like. At the end of the year, we'll officially say goodbye to the old forums and set everything to read-only. I currently have new registrations disabled, and no new topics will be allowed in the Paranormal or I'm a Time Traveler forums. In the meantime, the new forums are ready to go at https://bbs.timetravelinstitute.com. This is a clean slate, and there are a LOT of little things about the new software that I think will make TTI a more interesting place. I won't dive into those details, but try it yourself and see what it's like. If you get stuck or confused, I'm happy to help via PM. We will not be converting these forums. I have other intentions with this place that I'll discuss another time. I'm doing this for a few reasons. First, I'm tired of traditional forum software. There are more interesting alternatives out there, and I don't think we need to mangle a 22 year old database in order to try something new. Second, I think we could use a fresh start. Not because of any one thing in particular, but I do generally feel that the "traditional" forum setup has run its course. At least for TTI. I will be maintaining a more regular and active presence here and on Curious Cosmos. That'll be a mix between feature development, livestreams and just communicating with you all much more in general. The Curious Cosmos forums are also restarting, and will us Discourse too. TTI will ONLY contain time travel/chronology discussion, so head to https://bbs.curiouscosmos.com for everything else 🙂 There's a lot of other things moving, but I'll talk about those when I have something to show. Hope to see you all on the new forums 👍
  20. @Einstein Go ahead. Try picking out any one of the scientific facts I've pointed you to, and try to convince me they are wrong. Why don't you start by exposing the fallacies of Emmy Noether by explaining what's wrong with Noether's Theorem? It is merely the foundation of all conservation laws of physics, which have yet to be Popper-falsified. Hell, you could win a Nobel Prize if you could Popper-Falsify any of the battle tested physics mathematics. RMT
  21. Yawn. You've eviscerated absolutely nothing. But you do like to talk big & pretend. But once again, I can & do align with the gist of this idea, because as I have made clear above, any of the three primary dimensions (Mass Space Time) are nothing but approximations when taken by themselves. So sure, I'll play along with that name game: Mass cannot & does not exist without SpaceTime. That's because Mass tells SpaceTime how to bend, and SpaceTime tells Mass how to move. It's an intricate dance, and when you try to separate them you introduce errors & (the big clue) you uncover contradictions at some level. But the effects that we see from Mass, namely inertia, are very real & very much quantified in the laws of physics that include SpaceTime, such as those I've cited above, and more. Still cannot point to anything specific I've said & explain why it's wrong? Yep, cuz that's your one trick pony. RMT
  22. Poker Face like in Lady Gaga song.
  23. As you may or may not recall I totally eviscerated the concept of mass quite a while back. I believe it merely exists on paper just so scientists can claim it has to exist or the fictitious model of physics they created would crumble. Mass = Fairy dust is the only way the math models will work. So please do attempt to convince me that mass is real. Almost forgot, I'm providing a Democratic platform for you to make your case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUu2HKZGxJ4
  24. Unfortunately, your questions are not "real" because they are founded upon the fallible belief that your human senses always report "the truth" to you. There is a giant difference between a "math model" and the foundational mathematics that quantify physical interactions. I completely agree that both climate, and to a lesser extent, weather models are highly fallible, especially as to how "experts" arrive at conclusions about what those math models tell them. The mathematics used in GPS for relativistic corrections to position and time, while not perfect, are much more accurate than all prior position determinating systems, combined. This is because no physical implementation of any pure mathematical concept can ever be completely precise. The N-body problem in orbital mechanics should make this obvious to any casual observer. Let's take the climate models. They are ALL based upon the battle tested Navier-Stokes partial differential equations. These are battle tested because they have never been falsified. The reason there are so many variations of climate models is the problem, and it stems from the assumptions & considerations of simplifications that individual model developers must make in order to get their models to execute. There is always the problem of the "unknown unknowns." Even if one could accurately describe all the variations in atmospheric temperature, pressure, density, humidity, & ionization, there would still be the problems of knowing initial conditions to a sufficient degree of accuracy. By far, the largest (and we are talking massive) hole in ALL the climate models is they cannot account for how precipitation occurs & how it modifies local temperates on their finite difference grids. For example: NONE of the climate models can simulate or explain the very simple concept of virga, which is rain that falls from clouds as droplets but never strikes the ground before it turns from droplets to water vapor. But the fact you conflate approximate math model implementations with formalized mathematical descriptions of physical reality is not surprising to me. It reveals the limitations of your knowledge. And all you do is attempt to cover up those limitations with your hubris. Perfect example is using a blanket assessment of "bullshit" to everything I write without pointing out precisely what aspect of my writing you believe is erroneous. You haven't changed a bit. Moreover, unlike you, I KNOW all of my descriptions contain some levels of errors & imprecision. And if, instead of making blanket assessments to dispel what I write, if you actually pointes to specific statements, you would find that I am more than willing to admit to where the errors of approximations are contained in my writings. You should try it sometime. RMT
  25. Sometimes our dreams literally come true. Like you saw in u ur dream, u r having a cup of coffee with some random man/woman... & after someday u realized ur dream came true literally exactly. U wear even weae dress what was in ur dream. How do we explain this??? how do one can see the future in dream???
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...