Jump to content

Bransonian


Titorian45
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bransonian

 

stranger

 

Reged: 05/18/07

 

Posts: 2

 

Re: Yet another time traveling claim [re: ruthless]

 

05/18/07 12:16 AM (64.12.116.5)

 

Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply

 

Test

 

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator

 

Bransonian

 

stranger

 

Reged: 05/18/07

 

Posts: 2

 

Re: Yet another time traveling claim [re: Bransonian]

 

05/18/07 12:18 AM (64.12.116.5)

 

Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply

 

Testing

 

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator

 

Was this a special day too?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bransonian

 

stranger

 

Reged: 05/18/07

 

Posts: 2

 

Re: Yet another time traveling claim [re: ruthless]

 

05/18/07 12:16 AM (64.12.116.5)

 

Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply

 

Test

 

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator

 

Bransonian

 

stranger

 

Reged: 05/18/07

 

Posts: 2

 

Re: Yet another time traveling claim [re: Bransonian]

 

05/18/07 12:18 AM (64.12.116.5)

 

Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply

 

Testing

 

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator

 

Was this a special day too?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I believe Titorian already not only explained the concept of time travel but also told you folks how to build one, or a landing base at lease.

He did? Where,' prey tell, did he explain time travel? I believe his comment was something along the lines of, "I am a layman. I couldn't even explain the simplist concept..."

 

About all he did was state that E=mc^2 thus C = mE^2 (which means that C = m^3 and C = E^3 therefore any and all m (or E) = cube root of C. Huh?)

 

According to Titorian you're the brains behind the outfit. Why don't tyou take a crack at showing the mathematical proofs that lead to C=mE^2?

 

PS: Do it on another thread. We don't really want to hijack this one.

 

First Person Physics is not based on truths as you traditionally call them as much as proofs. Titorian alluded to this with the Trinity Test. The best theory ever is still a theory until it is proven, C=ME2 is based upon proofs.

 

Additionally (and personally, Darby), there is a whole new branch of physics that is about to open that will beget a whole new generation of physicists that will send everyone scrambling- yourself included. Foremost from this will be the practicality of time travel, and we're only a few years away from a workable theory... be patient!

 

And to answer your follow-up question ahead of time, traditional physics fails because although it can define the outcome, it can't tell us what caused it. As such (and since E=MC2 is based on the truth of the Big Bang), there is something bigger than traditional physics and that is where C=ME2 comes in: C=ME2 is a larger expression of E=MC2. Just as the United States is 50 states operating under one flag, C=ME2 is one proof that has many names- among them E=ME2. Think bigger.

 

And I believe that Bransonian registered for this site long before it was announced he was going to.

We all have Titorian45 to thank for that- he registered my name and sent confirmatory test messages before I arrived.

 

"Because the universe is E=MC2. It's relative to light and light is everywhere, it's not relative to any "thing" in the universe. There is no "you are here" to the universe."

Exactly.

 

About all he did was state that E=mc^2 thus C = mE^2 (which means that C = m^3 and C = E^3 therefore any and all m (or E) = cube root of C. Huh?)

This is a proof, and the only way it makes sense is it you think bigger. Perhaps there is something bigger than E=MC2 that dictates E=MC2 to tangable matter. You're looking right at the answer and still not seeing it.

 

(To answer the follow-up questions), physics cannot tell us what the Big Bang was, it can only tell us it mathematically happened.

 

According to Titorian you're the brains behind the outfit. Why don't tyou take a crack at showing the mathematical proofs that lead to C=mE^2?

Mathematical proofs? Reality is not a math formula, the outcomes of actions are. E=MC2.

 

The bulk of my postings here will be copy and pasted from our earlier version of this discussion.

 

As to other threads, Titorian's name was Joseph. We know this because of a decryption of his posts. Apart from that, I have no personal knowledge of him. I jumped after him and had the luxory of reading this entire thread in advance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Titorian already not only explained the concept of time travel but also told you folks how to build one, or a landing base at lease.

He did? Where,' prey tell, did he explain time travel? I believe his comment was something along the lines of, "I am a layman. I couldn't even explain the simplist concept..."

 

About all he did was state that E=mc^2 thus C = mE^2 (which means that C = m^3 and C = E^3 therefore any and all m (or E) = cube root of C. Huh?)

 

According to Titorian you're the brains behind the outfit. Why don't tyou take a crack at showing the mathematical proofs that lead to C=mE^2?

 

PS: Do it on another thread. We don't really want to hijack this one.

 

First Person Physics is not based on truths as you traditionally call them as much as proofs. Titorian alluded to this with the Trinity Test. The best theory ever is still a theory until it is proven, C=ME2 is based upon proofs.

 

Additionally (and personally, Darby), there is a whole new branch of physics that is about to open that will beget a whole new generation of physicists that will send everyone scrambling- yourself included. Foremost from this will be the practicality of time travel, and we're only a few years away from a workable theory... be patient!

 

And to answer your follow-up question ahead of time, traditional physics fails because although it can define the outcome, it can't tell us what caused it. As such (and since E=MC2 is based on the truth of the Big Bang), there is something bigger than traditional physics and that is where C=ME2 comes in: C=ME2 is a larger expression of E=MC2. Just as the United States is 50 states operating under one flag, C=ME2 is one proof that has many names- among them E=ME2. Think bigger.

 

And I believe that Bransonian registered for this site long before it was announced he was going to.

We all have Titorian45 to thank for that- he registered my name and sent confirmatory test messages before I arrived.

 

"Because the universe is E=MC2. It's relative to light and light is everywhere, it's not relative to any "thing" in the universe. There is no "you are here" to the universe."

Exactly.

 

About all he did was state that E=mc^2 thus C = mE^2 (which means that C = m^3 and C = E^3 therefore any and all m (or E) = cube root of C. Huh?)

This is a proof, and the only way it makes sense is it you think bigger. Perhaps there is something bigger than E=MC2 that dictates E=MC2 to tangable matter. You're looking right at the answer and still not seeing it.

 

(To answer the follow-up questions), physics cannot tell us what the Big Bang was, it can only tell us it mathematically happened.

 

According to Titorian you're the brains behind the outfit. Why don't tyou take a crack at showing the mathematical proofs that lead to C=mE^2?

Mathematical proofs? Reality is not a math formula, the outcomes of actions are. E=MC2.

 

The bulk of my postings here will be copy and pasted from our earlier version of this discussion.

 

As to other threads, Titorian's name was Joseph. We know this because of a decryption of his posts. Apart from that, I have no personal knowledge of him. I jumped after him and had the luxory of reading this entire thread in advance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi bransonian, good to hear from you. Hope you will stay a while.

 

So what is the divergence value you came from to be here? This will give us an indication on how accurate you prediction will be. Or just give us a definition of divergence if you believe in it since John Titor did.

 

For the two equation sitting side by side seems a bit impossible since they contain all the same variables don't you think, so does C=ME^2 belong in another dimension to make it work?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi bransonian, good to hear from you. Hope you will stay a while.

 

So what is the divergence value you came from to be here? This will give us an indication on how accurate you prediction will be. Or just give us a definition of divergence if you believe in it since John Titor did.

 

For the two equation sitting side by side seems a bit impossible since they contain all the same variables don't you think, so does C=ME^2 belong in another dimension to make it work?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best theory ever is still a theory until it is proven, C=ME2 is based upon proofs.

So proove it, already. Show the math steps - the underlying equations - from which your equation was derived.

 

Remember, this is your story, not mine. If you want more than the two or thre people who have been following the thread to get interested stop boring them. Think bigger; be original - show the proof.

 

In the mean time, as I anticipate a typical post-Titor time travel saga response, I'll take a nap and dream about your best two posts..

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

 

"Test"

 

"Testing"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best theory ever is still a theory until it is proven, C=ME2 is based upon proofs.

So proove it, already. Show the math steps - the underlying equations - from which your equation was derived.

 

Remember, this is your story, not mine. If you want more than the two or thre people who have been following the thread to get interested stop boring them. Think bigger; be original - show the proof.

 

In the mean time, as I anticipate a typical post-Titor time travel saga response, I'll take a nap and dream about your best two posts..

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

 

"Test"

 

"Testing"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know, i know barely anything about physics, but i do know that this sounds very peculiar.

 

heres my guess, c= acceleration times velocity times a constant multiplier + no mass. or maybe c= acceleration times vibration divided by time? i know that probably sounds ridiculous, but i probably wouldnt be the only one sounding ridiculous. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know, i know barely anything about physics, but i do know that this sounds very peculiar.

 

heres my guess, c= acceleration times velocity times a constant multiplier + no mass. or maybe c= acceleration times vibration divided by time? i know that probably sounds ridiculous, but i probably wouldnt be the only one sounding ridiculous. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...