Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mylo.X.

  1. Certainly @PaulaJedi is a paid detractor and the user calling himself @Einstein as already mentioned is criticizing my comments based on dime store comic book physics. You could have remove the "serious claim" label, but you chose instead to label my thread a confirmed hoax, therefore labelling me a hoaxer. I will not be returning to this forum until the label is promptly removed. Lastly as for providing something of substance, I would have by now if I've been tied up by responding to energy sapping trolls and paid detractor.


    You remind me of a character from EastEnders.



  2. 1993... for a "lost" tech... how do you know it existed if it was "lost"... why would you, or your superiors, believe it will exist in "this" T/L since this T/L was created when you entered it?

    (Dimension Theory Of Temporal Travel ) was explained by a technician to me along these lines, that for every decision or action that's made, the alternative is played out in another reality. He when on to explain in the most simplest of terms, That the act of simply travelling back in time creates a new "world-line", distinct from the one from which you left. So by going back in time you can change events but those changes wont effect YOU, or the world-line you came from. You just prevent another version of yourself from a (lag reality) undergoing the experience. However the (Dimension Theory Of Temporal Travel ) means there are already versions of yourself that haven't undergone the experience you want to change. You can only go forward in time in the same world-line, not back without it becoming a new reality. There sadly a number of users on this forum that are not going to grasp these concepts due to being ill-educated in basic mathematics and science and dare I say lacing in common sense.


    Serious Claim - How my temporal displacement device (time machine) works!


    ( I won't begin questioning what "Time Laws" exist that also create a "PAST" whenever a "NEW" T/L is created by all you TT'ers out there... seeing as how " I " remember "existing" before 1993.)


    "Do you know John Titor or heard of him? Does he exist in your timeline?


    Yes, we are part of the same division."


    Hello I'm from the year 2046


    JT and you end up on the same time-line. How fortunate for us... and you. I mean, what are the odds that both you and John would "create" the same T/L.


    Why do you offer revelations of "our" future (or our possible future)? You can only offer what has occurred in "your" T/L. You are engaging in the same mistake JT made when he capitulated and begin answering questions about the future and "his" civil war.


    This sounds to me like just another weak attempt at perpetuating the same story all over again. These Tales FAIL at the statement, "I first went back to XXXX year to retrieve a Blah blah blah... ".


    I'd like to say, "Nice try." but it isn't.

    Good to see you back on the forum.



    • Like 1
  3. Out of all the time-travel claimants to have graced the internet, I found this guy the most convincing. He said back in 1998 that in the future (from where he alleges he is from) that people use a LOT of acronyms in everyday speech. He also added that the language that was been spoken back in 1998 sounded strange, because of a lack of acronyms. Fastforward to 2016 and acronyms are slowly finding their way into everyday (english) speech.

    • Like 2
  4. So David the Time traveller is 500 years from the future/ Who is he trying to kid? I find it extremely difficult to believe that the English language has NOT evolved at all in 500 years from now.


    I know that if I was a time-traveller from 2016 and travelled 500 years back in time, I would find it very difficult to communicate with the people of the differing regions of England during the 15th century. Their language back then and the language spoken by myself in the 21st century are/were literally worlds apart.


    In my humble opinion, David is a hoax :)



    • Like 1
  5. Fair enough. You may think I'm a dunce, but never-the-less, I offered you an explanation (which is what you asked for in your OP). ;)


    P.S. "who doesn't know" NOT "who don't know". Your grammar has just been corrected by a dunce. ;)


    P.P.S. shouldn't NOT shouldnt. Your spelling has just been corrected by a dunce ;)



  6. I find it puzzling that scientists/astronomers etc have telescopic equipment that can detect Exo-Planets that are many light years away, but cannot detect a hypothesised Planet "Nine" that supposedly resides on the edge of our very own solar system???



  7. In order to be able to assess whether the perspective seems right or wrong, one would need to understand where the photo was taken from. This photo was taken from what is called "L1", which is the on-axis Lagrange Point between the Earth and the Sun where the gravitational forces essentially nullify each other. There are several Lagrange Points for any two bodies. Here is a map of all the Lagrange Points where the Earth and Sun's gravitational pulls are nullified:



    The benefit of Lagrange Points is that they are quasi-stable orbital points which require a minimum of expended energy to maintain the spacecraft in that general location. In other words, whereas most objects are actually orbiting around one body or another, the Lagrange Points allow the body to remain relatively motionless with respect to the two bodies the Lagrange Point is defined by.


    Theoretically, you could place an object at any Lagrange Point and it should stay there. But that is the theoretical result. The practical result is that you still need some small station-keeping corrections every so often to keep the spacecraft at the L-point. But the amount of energy for these small corrections is VERY VERY small compared to normal orbital maintenance burns, such as the International Space Station must perform. In practice, orbital engineers will often specify that their spacecraft flies a fairly tight "halo orbit" around the L-point, rather than trying to maintain perfect positioning right at the L-point.


    BTW: The relative sizes of the earth and moon, and their distances, are just about correct in the above photo. Hence, when you consider the spacecraft that took the video was parked at L1, then the relative view seen on that video does appear correct.



    Thanks for the interesting info about L points. For some reason I thought the moon would be bigger than what it is in the video. Also, is that a "ufo" I spotted on the top centre of the video.. :p



    • Like 1
  8. Mylo.X.I came across this today and I thought you might find it interesting, as well as some others.:)



    Thanks for sharing Scott. There is something not quite right (in-my-opinion) with the image. The perspective seems all wrong to me. If I've understood this correctly, a camera has captured the far-side-of-the-moon as it passes the earth? Shouldn't the moon be bigger in comparison to the earth (in regard to perspective etc)?



  • Create New...