Jump to content

Time02112

Members
  • Posts

    728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Time02112

  1. Among other possibilities, remains the issue of "Merging Galaxies", that which our own is not exempt from this occurence.
  2. It is too complex, to sum up an imbalance of strange occurrences as such, to blame them entirely upon irresponsible actions on behalf of "Time~Travelers", as opposed to the many irresponsible occurrences, involving many generations of other individuals that might have contributed to these anomalies, yet, perhaps many other unknown aspects that exist within a given Time-Line, add to the creation of this phenomena? I just want to inject another thought here... Has it ever occured to anyone that it just might be possible that Time~Travel itself, might be our only means to save us from ourselves, and to prevent such a dreadfulful occurence from reaching an it's end? (Just a thought.) [This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 21 June 2000).] [This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 21 June 2000).]
  3. Sometimes it is better not knowing.....
  4. As the article states, "Two new experiments have demonstrated how wrong that comfortable wisdom is." It just makes me wonder, how much do we really understand about the environment we exist in, let alone what may exist outside of our comfortable surroundings. I wonder how many others will wake up & realize that they were not only wrong themselves about how they perceived the world to exist around them, but more importantly, how wrong they were to follow like sheep to believe in the misconceptions of incorrect mainstream beliefs, without attempting to explore beyond that which has come to be accepted. There are many things greater in heaven & earth, which do not apply to the calculations of modern science. "Look for what seems out of place" ------------------ "Everything you know,...is Wrong! soon we shall all discover the truth." p)'i4q4
  5. I have heard this before, I can't remember exactly, but from what I recall from reading this article, it goes on to describe:> what is commonly referred to, as the "Loop back Theory" in which Time is stuck in a dimensional loop, moving back & forth, many times over & over again, in order to prevent total annihilation, or "collapse" of that particular timeline of existence, it creates this looping effect to enable itself to adjust, or make repairs. (for lack of the vernacular) It would appear that perhaps an overwhelming bombardment of event collisions, might be responsible for the creation of this temporal flux anomaly. Anyone else here, have more information about this Time Phenomena?
  6. Well put Pamela; this brings new meaning to the words:> "Expanding Universe" yes I am familiar with what you speak of, for I too, am a subscriber of "Science news" and often read "Scientific American" & "Discovery Magazine" among many others. I have a copy of an April 1992 issue of Discover Magazine with a highlighted article entitled:> "Time~Travel" How Science can finally make it happen. (page 52) The article goes on to describe a researcher from a Tel Aviv university "Yakir Aharonov" whom also was a visiting Professor serving on appointment to Berkeley, whom at the "Time" was a 59yr. old cigar smoking mainstream physicist & quantum mechanical theorist, claiming to have designed a means that would enable an observer to travel through Time. According to this version of a quantum “Time~Machine”, it would create a sort of virtual holographic simulation in which you could not interact with the environment, only "observe" If you remember the TV series "Quantum Leap" you would be more like "AL" the fellow that no one else within the past Time-line could see, and the environment was nothing more than a holographic image to AL. I will be glad to send a copy of this issue, or any others I have on file pertaining, to anyone who requests it, as I have it scanned into my PC, I can send it to your email in an "attachment" Also interesting is an article I have on file from a Jan. 2000 issue of Scientific American (page 46) that discusses some very interesting views about negative energy, wormholes and warp drive. [This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 21 June 2000).] [This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 21 June 2000).] [This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 21 June 2000).]
  7. I have been asked on numerous occasions to be more descriptive pertaining to the contents of my posts, as to “ how” I arrived at the information I am attempting to discuss with other members here, by injecting a more suitably acceptable, "mature" conversation. I will do diligence to satisfy that request, on behalf of the readers who suggested this to me, and all future readers that are of such noble critics. Any further statements I post here will display an attempt to reflect such an acceptable format, in order to appeal to a more "mature" and positive response from the reader, but also keep in mind that I am by no means impeccably compliable to everyone’s expectations of what may be considered "acceptable" due to the fact that we all perceive things in many different ways. (i.e. "Inkblot Test" psychiatry 101) [This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 20 June 2000).] [This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 20 June 2000).]
  8. Physicists have found the law of nature which prevents time travel paradoxes, and thereby permits time travel. It turns out to be the same law that makes sure light travels in straight lines, and which underpins the most straightforward version of quantum theory, developed half a century ago by Richard Feynman. Relativists have been trying to come to terms with time travel for the past seven years, since Kip Thorne and his colleagues at Caltech discovered -- much to their surprise -- that there is nothing in the laws of physics (specifically, the general theory of relativity) to forbid it. Among several different ways in which the laws allow a time machine to exist, the one that has been most intensively studied mathematically is the "wormhole". This is like a tunnel through space and time, connecting different regions of the Universe -- different spaces and different times. The two "mouths" of the wormhole could be next to each other in space, but separated in time, so that it could literally be used as a time tunnel. Building such a device would be very difficult -- it would involve manipulating black holes, each with many times the mass of our Sun. But they could conceivably occur naturally, either on this scale or on a microscopic scale. The worry for physicists is that this raises the possibility of paradoxes, familiar to science fiction fans. For example, a time traveller could go back in time and accidentally (or even deliberately) cause the death of her granny, so that neither the time traveller's mother nor herself was ever born. People are hard to describe mathematically, but the equivalent paradox in the relativists' calculations involves a billiard ball that goes in to one mouth of a wormhole, emerges in the past from the other mouth, and collides with its other self on the way in to the first mouth, so that it is knocked out of the way and never enters the time tunnel at all. But, of course, there are many possible "self consistent" journeys through the tunnel, in which the two versions of the billiard ball never disturb one another. If time travel really is possible -- and after seven years' intensive study all the evidence says that it is -- there must, it seems, be a law of nature to prevent such paradoxes arising, while permitting the self- consistent journeys through time. Igor Novikov, who holds joint posts at the P. N. Lebedev Institute, in Moscow, and at NORDITA (the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics), in Copenhagen, first pointed out the need for a "Principle of Self-consistency" of this kind in 1989 (Soviet Physics JETP, vol 68 p 439). Now, working with a large group of colleagues in Denmark, Canada, Russia and Switzerland, he has found the physical basis for this principle. It involves something known as the Principle of least action (or Principle of minimal action), and has been known, in one form or another, since the early seventeenth century. It describes the trajectories of things, such as the path of a light ray from A to B, or the flight of a ball tossed through an upper story window. And, it now seems, the trajectory of a billiard ball through a time tunnel. Action, in this sense, is a measure both of the energy involved in traversing the path and the time taken. For light (which is always a special case), this boils down to time alone, so that the principle of least action becomes the principle of least time, which is why light travels in straight lines. You can see how the principle works when light from a source in air enters a block of glass, where it travels at a slower speed than in air. In order to get from the source A outside the glass to a point B inside the glass in the shortest possible time, the light has to travel in one straight line up to the edge of the glass, then turn through a certain angle and travel in another straight line (at the slower speed) on to point B. Travelling by any other route would take longer. The action is a property of the whole path, and somehow the light (or "nature") always knows how to choose the cheapest or simplest path to its goal. In a similar fashion, the principle of least action can be used to describe the entire curved path of the ball thrown through a window, once the time taken for the journey is specified. Although the ball can be thrown at different speeds on different trajectories (higher and slower, or flatter and faster) and still go through the window, only trajectories which satisfy the Principle of least action are possible. Novikov and his colleagues have applied the same principle to the "trajectories" of billiard balls around time loops, both with and without the kind of "self collision" that leads to paradoxes. In a mathematical tour de force, they have shown that in both cases only self-consistent solutions to the equations satisfy the principle of least action -- or in their own words, "the whole set of classical trajectories which are globally self-consistent can be directly and simply recovered by imposing the principle of minimal action" (NORDITA Preprint, number 95/49A). The word "classical" in this connection means that they have not yet tried to include the rules of quantum theory in their calculations. But there is no reason to think that this would alter their conclusions. Feynman, who was entranced by the principle of least action, formulated quantum physics entirely on the basis of it, using what is known as the "sum over histories" or "path integral" formulation, because, like a light ray seemingly sniffing out the best path from A to B, it takes account of all possible trajectories in selecting the most efficient. So self-consistency is a consequence of the Principle of least action, and nature can be seen to abhor a time travel paradox. Which removes the last objection of physicists to time travel in principle -- and leaves it up to the engineers to get on with the job of building a time machine.
  9. Anyhow, on with the show......(Can someone truly build a working *Time Machine?) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Physicists have found the law of nature which prevents time travel paradoxes, and thereby permits time travel. It turns out to be the same law that makes sure light travels in straight lines, and which underpins the most straightforward version of quantum theory, developed half a century ago by Richard Feynman. Relativists have been trying to come to terms with time travel for the past seven years, since Kip Thorne and his colleagues at Caltech discovered -- much to their surprise -- that there is nothing in the laws of physics (specifically, the general theory of relativity) to forbid it. Among several different ways in which the laws allow a time machine to exist, the one that has been most intensively studied mathematically is the "wormhole". This is like a tunnel through space and time, connecting different regions of the Universe -- different spaces and different times. The two "mouths" of the wormhole could be next to each other in space, but separated in time, so that it could literally be used as a time tunnel. Building such a device would be very difficult -- it would involve manipulating black holes, each with many times the mass of our Sun. But they could conceivably occur naturally, either on this scale or on a microscopic scale. The worry for physicists is that this raises the possibility of paradoxes, familiar to science fiction fans. For example, a time traveller could go back in time and accidentally (or even deliberately) cause the death of her granny, so that neither the time traveller's mother nor herself was ever born. People are hard to describe mathematically, but the equivalent paradox in the relativists' calculations involves a billiard ball that goes in to one mouth of a wormhole, emerges in the past from the other mouth, and collides with its other self on the way in to the first mouth, so that it is knocked out of the way and never enters the time tunnel at all. But, of course, there are many possible "self consistent" journeys through the tunnel, in which the two versions of the billiard ball never disturb one another. If time travel really is possible -- and after seven years' intensive study all the evidence says that it is -- there must, it seems, be a law of nature to prevent such paradoxes arising, while permitting the self- consistent journeys through time. Igor Novikov, who holds joint posts at the P. N. Lebedev Institute, in Moscow, and at NORDITA (the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics), in Copenhagen, first pointed out the need for a "Principle of Self-consistency" of this kind in 1989 (Soviet Physics JETP, vol 68 p 439). Now, working with a large group of colleagues in Denmark, Canada, Russia and Switzerland, he has found the physical basis for this principle. It involves something known as the Principle of least action (or Principle of minimal action), and has been known, in one form or another, since the early seventeenth century. It describes the trajectories of things, such as the path of a light ray from A to B, or the flight of a ball tossed through an upper story window. And, it now seems, the trajectory of a billiard ball through a time tunnel. Action, in this sense, is a measure both of the energy involved in traversing the path and the time taken. For light (which is always a special case), this boils down to time alone, so that the principle of least action becomes the principle of least time, which is why light travels in straight lines. You can see how the principle works when light from a source in air enters a block of glass, where it travels at a slower speed than in air. In order to get from the source A outside the glass to a point B inside the glass in the shortest possible time, the light has to travel in one straight line up to the edge of the glass, then turn through a certain angle and travel in another straight line (at the slower speed) on to point B. Travelling by any other route would take longer. The action is a property of the whole path, and somehow the light (or "nature") always knows how to choose the cheapest or simplest path to its goal. In a similar fashion, the principle of least action can be used to describe the entire curved path of the ball thrown through a window, once the time taken for the journey is specified. Although the ball can be thrown at different speeds on different trajectories (higher and slower, or flatter and faster) and still go through the window, only trajectories which satisfy the Principle of least action are possible. Novikov and his colleagues have applied the same principle to the "trajectories" of billiard balls around time loops, both with and without the kind of "self collision" that leads to paradoxes. In a mathematical tour de force, they have shown that in both cases only self-consistent solutions to the equations satisfy the principle of least action -- or in their own words, "the whole set of classical trajectories which are globally self-consistent can be directly and simply recovered by imposing the principle of minimal action" (NORDITA Preprint, number 95/49A). The word "classical" in this connection means that they have not yet tried to include the rules of quantum theory in their calculations. But there is no reason to think that this would alter their conclusions. Feynman, who was entranced by the principle of least action, formulated quantum physics entirely on the basis of it, using what is known as the "sum over histories" or "path integral" formulation, because, like a light ray seemingly sniffing out the best path from A to B, it takes account of all possible trajectories in selecting the most efficient. So self-consistency is a consequence of the Principle of least action, and nature can be seen to abhor a time travel paradox. Which removes the last objection of physicists to time travel in principle -- and leaves it up to the engineers to get on with the job of building a time machine. ------------------ "Everything you know,...is Wrong! soon we shall all discover the truth." p)'i4q4
  10. Anyhow, on with the show......(Can someone truly build a working *Time Machine?) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Physicists have found the law of nature which prevents time travel paradoxes, and thereby permits time travel. It turns out to be the same law that makes sure light travels in straight lines, and which underpins the most straightforward version of quantum theory, developed half a century ago by Richard Feynman. Relativists have been trying to come to terms with time travel for the past seven years, since Kip Thorne and his colleagues at Caltech discovered -- much to their surprise -- that there is nothing in the laws of physics (specifically, the general theory of relativity) to forbid it. Among several different ways in which the laws allow a time machine to exist, the one that has been most intensively studied mathematically is the "wormhole". This is like a tunnel through space and time, connecting different regions of the Universe -- different spaces and different times. The two "mouths" of the wormhole could be next to each other in space, but separated in time, so that it could literally be used as a time tunnel. Building such a device would be very difficult -- it would involve manipulating black holes, each with many times the mass of our Sun. But they could conceivably occur naturally, either on this scale or on a microscopic scale. The worry for physicists is that this raises the possibility of paradoxes, familiar to science fiction fans. For example, a time traveller could go back in time and accidentally (or even deliberately) cause the death of her granny, so that neither the time traveller's mother nor herself was ever born. People are hard to describe mathematically, but the equivalent paradox in the relativists' calculations involves a billiard ball that goes in to one mouth of a wormhole, emerges in the past from the other mouth, and collides with its other self on the way in to the first mouth, so that it is knocked out of the way and never enters the time tunnel at all. But, of course, there are many possible "self consistent" journeys through the tunnel, in which the two versions of the billiard ball never disturb one another. If time travel really is possible -- and after seven years' intensive study all the evidence says that it is -- there must, it seems, be a law of nature to prevent such paradoxes arising, while permitting the self- consistent journeys through time. Igor Novikov, who holds joint posts at the P. N. Lebedev Institute, in Moscow, and at NORDITA (the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics), in Copenhagen, first pointed out the need for a "Principle of Self-consistency" of this kind in 1989 (Soviet Physics JETP, vol 68 p 439). Now, working with a large group of colleagues in Denmark, Canada, Russia and Switzerland, he has found the physical basis for this principle. It involves something known as the Principle of least action (or Principle of minimal action), and has been known, in one form or another, since the early seventeenth century. It describes the trajectories of things, such as the path of a light ray from A to B, or the flight of a ball tossed through an upper story window. And, it now seems, the trajectory of a billiard ball through a time tunnel. Action, in this sense, is a measure both of the energy involved in traversing the path and the time taken. For light (which is always a special case), this boils down to time alone, so that the principle of least action becomes the principle of least time, which is why light travels in straight lines. You can see how the principle works when light from a source in air enters a block of glass, where it travels at a slower speed than in air. In order to get from the source A outside the glass to a point B inside the glass in the shortest possible time, the light has to travel in one straight line up to the edge of the glass, then turn through a certain angle and travel in another straight line (at the slower speed) on to point B. Travelling by any other route would take longer. The action is a property of the whole path, and somehow the light (or "nature") always knows how to choose the cheapest or simplest path to its goal. In a similar fashion, the principle of least action can be used to describe the entire curved path of the ball thrown through a window, once the time taken for the journey is specified. Although the ball can be thrown at different speeds on different trajectories (higher and slower, or flatter and faster) and still go through the window, only trajectories which satisfy the Principle of least action are possible. Novikov and his colleagues have applied the same principle to the "trajectories" of billiard balls around time loops, both with and without the kind of "self collision" that leads to paradoxes. In a mathematical tour de force, they have shown that in both cases only self-consistent solutions to the equations satisfy the principle of least action -- or in their own words, "the whole set of classical trajectories which are globally self-consistent can be directly and simply recovered by imposing the principle of minimal action" (NORDITA Preprint, number 95/49A). The word "classical" in this connection means that they have not yet tried to include the rules of quantum theory in their calculations. But there is no reason to think that this would alter their conclusions. Feynman, who was entranced by the principle of least action, formulated quantum physics entirely on the basis of it, using what is known as the "sum over histories" or "path integral" formulation, because, like a light ray seemingly sniffing out the best path from A to B, it takes account of all possible trajectories in selecting the most efficient. So self-consistency is a consequence of the Principle of least action, and nature can be seen to abhor a time travel paradox. Which removes the last objection of physicists to time travel in principle -- and leaves it up to the engineers to get on with the job of building a time machine. ------------------ "Everything you know,...is Wrong! soon we shall all discover the truth." p)'i4q4
  11. Tesla was right, our GVT is still wrong! *Wrong for hidding the truth of Tesla's amazing discoveries from the rest of the world. *Wrong for plotting his financial demise and supporting other corporate vultures to assist with stripping away any credentials he had, and preventing Mr.Tesla from proving to the rest of the world that his designs do in fact work! *Wrong for virtualy burying him alive, and then stealing everything he had, for their own special intrests, and then lying to us about it. *Wrong for not admitting to the rest of the world the ugly truth of how big GVT & "Old Money" had abused their power over Mr. Tesla, and even to this day refuses to set the record straight in our public schools history books, in spite of all of the pleas to do so by many it's private citizens, and those sponsored by the Tesla Society. *Wrong for the blatent lies, cover ups, disinformation, refusal to turn over documents requested via the "Freedom of Information Act" by denying their existence, and those that are proven to exist, are blotted out by black marking over what they consider "sensitive information" while the rest of the evidence gets fed into the shredders. *Wrong
  12. Look, I did not come here to argue with anyone, nor do I care to continue feeding fuel to the furnace, nonetheless I did not come here to be patronized, mocked, or insulted by suggestive innuendoes indicating that nothing I have to say here matters, has any basis of merit, or validity. (which in itself, was based upon someone else's personal predisposed judgments, or biased misconceptions.) This is totally unacceptable. I have never professed, or claim to have an impeccable perception of how the laws of nature work, in relation to the laws of physics, however I did not arrive at these precipitins of mine, without influence by others around me. (*Others including, but not limited to Physicists, Scientists, Doctors, Philosophers, Professors, & etc. many of which have earned them credentials of high caliber,which lead them to recognized status within the many communities in which they served within the world around them, and for the countless accomplishments, and contributions they have made world wide. The truth is that I "have" posted some references to demonstrate how I arrived at some of those perceptions I have shared with everyone here, and never once did anyone acknowledge them, outside of being insulted for my ability to "cut & paste" (with the exception of Dr. Anderson) pertaining to the references given, never was I asked to elaborate further details as to where I received my information from, or where else might we find more information on the subject of discussion. There is nothing wrong with asking for more information, in relation to where that source of information originated from, but personal attacks, or biased opinions based upon irroneous arguments geared to diminish, or destroy that idea instead of finding out other ways to support that idea, is nothing more than an outright challenge to keep defending each & every idea with an equal amount of opposition which can lead to endless debate. Although we are all aware of the fact that our planet is "round" ... however, if we really wanted to, I'm almost certain that we could come up with some very creative ways in which to demonstrate with logical, and very good scientific reasons as to why we should all start believing that the world is really "Flat" and what point would that prove? I understand that objective views are necessary to an extent, but when those objective views have an ulterior motive to destroy anothers intentions to explore other possibilities, and to hear the thoughts, and input from others in support of those ideas, that too is not acceptable. <This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 19 June 2000).>
  13. Look, I did not come here to argue with anyone, nor do I care to continue feeding fuel to the furnace, nonetheless I did not come here to be patronized, mocked, or insulted by suggestive innuendoes indicating that nothing I have to say here matters, has any basis of merit, or validity. (which in itself, was based upon someone else's personal predisposed judgments, or biased misconceptions.) This is totally unacceptable. I have never professed, or claim to have an impeccable perception of how the laws of nature work, in relation to the laws of physics, however I did not arrive at these precipitins of mine, without influence by others around me. (*Others including, but not limited to Physicists, Scientists, Doctors, Philosophers, Professors, & etc. many of which have earned them credentials of high caliber,which lead them to recognized status within the many communities in which they served within the world around them, and for the countless accomplishments, and contributions they have made world wide. The truth is that I "have" posted some references to demonstrate how I arrived at some of those perceptions I have shared with everyone here, and never once did anyone acknowledge them, outside of being insulted for my ability to "cut & paste" (with the exception of Dr. Anderson) pertaining to the references given, never was I asked to elaborate further details as to where I received my information from, or where else might we find more information on the subject of discussion. There is nothing wrong with asking for more information, in relation to where that source of information originated from, but personal attacks, or biased opinions based upon irroneous arguments geared to diminish, or destroy that idea instead of finding out other ways to support that idea, is nothing more than an outright challenge to keep defending each & every idea with an equal amount of opposition which can lead to endless debate. Although we are all aware of the fact that our planet is "round" ... however, if we really wanted to, I'm almost certain that we could come up with some very creative ways in which to demonstrate with logical, and very good scientific reasons as to why we should all start believing that the world is really "Flat" and what point would that prove? I understand that objective views are necessary to an extent, but when those objective views have an ulterior motive to destroy anothers intentions to explore other possibilities, and to hear the thoughts, and input from others in support of those ideas, that too is not acceptable. <This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 19 June 2000).>
  14. Janus; I could say... "I accept your statement. (Whether I agree with it or not.) but I will not, since that kind of statement reflects nothing more than a blatent contradiction. Hmmmm.....I wonder where I heard that from? (care to comment Valkerie?) <This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 19 June 2000).>
  15. Janus; I could say... "I accept your statement. (Whether I agree with it or not.) but I will not, since that kind of statement reflects nothing more than a blatent contradiction. Hmmmm.....I wonder where I heard that from? (care to comment Valkerie?) <This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 19 June 2000).>
  16. I still remain by my claim; "They got it all wrong"! and I will do whatever is necessary to prove it! and it makes no difference if I succeed, or not, because the Truth always prevails. ------------------ "Everything you know,...is Wrong! soon we shall all discover the truth." p)'i4q4
  17. I still remain by my claim; "They got it all wrong"! and I will do whatever is necessary to prove it! and it makes no difference if I succeed, or not, because the Truth always prevails. ------------------ "Everything you know,...is Wrong! soon we shall all discover the truth." p)'i4q4
  18. Janus, would you please elaborate as to what the Hell you are implying when you say that I will "never give in"? give in to what exactly? are you trying to say that none of my points are valid, and only yours are? if so, then that itself speaks of arrogance, and has no validity niether!
  19. Janus, would you please elaborate as to what the Hell you are implying when you say that I will "never give in"? give in to what exactly? are you trying to say that none of my points are valid, and only yours are? if so, then that itself speaks of arrogance, and has no validity niether!
  20. It is good to see somone here has a real thinking cap on!
  21. "EAT CROW" Valkerie!...you earned it. I do not have to prove a thing to you! Nonetheless, for those of you who are interested in crulling through all of the pages to find somewhat detailed information in reference to many of those ideas I have posted, you can begin with this link:] http://einstein.stanford.edu <This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 17 June 2000).>
  22. "EAT CROW" Valkerie!...you earned it. I do not have to prove a thing to you! Nonetheless, for those of you who are interested in crulling through all of the pages to find somewhat detailed information in reference to many of those ideas I have posted, you can begin with this link:] http://einstein.stanford.edu <This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 17 June 2000).>
  23. "Rotating Electromagnetic Fields" I cannot stress the isssue enough, as to the importance that this has in relation to the underlying principles necessary to achieve an understanding of those many unanswered questions pertaining to "Time~Travel" I mean really now, just how much research, and information have we gathered "recently" pertaining to the effects of REMF combined with other areas of physics & scientific studies? ------------------ "Everything you know,...is Wrong! soon we shall all discover the truth." p)'i4q4
  24. "Rotating Electromagnetic Fields" I cannot stress the isssue enough, as to the importance that this has in relation to the underlying principles necessary to achieve an understanding of those many unanswered questions pertaining to "Time~Travel" I mean really now, just how much research, and information have we gathered "recently" pertaining to the effects of REMF combined with other areas of physics & scientific studies? ------------------ "Everything you know,...is Wrong! soon we shall all discover the truth." p)'i4q4
  25. In relation to this thread; ..... ...can someone please tell me why I am reminded of the song "Band On The Run" from Paul Mcartney & Wings?
×
×
  • Create New...