Hello again

[paladius]

Re: Real alien abduction

My thesis was called BIOS II. Published in 2000. Water in craters on South Pole of Moon DOCUMENTED in yes, published thesis.... Go nuts....if you can't find it on your computer, take the drive and go to the library. I have no need to lie.

But this thread is for PlanetX, remember? STart a new thread once you read the thesis, bright eyes!

 

[Darby]

Re: Real alien abduction

My thesis was called BIOS II. Published in 2000. Water in craters on South Pole of Moon DOCUMENTED in yes, published thesis.... Go nuts....if you can't find it on your computer, take the drive and go to the library. I have no need to lie.

But this thread is for PlanetX, remember? STart a new thread once you read the thesis, bright eyes!

Am I wrong here, or was it you - not me - who made the thesis a topic on this thread? Oh, well.

Why don't you just give the full citation for the published paper? I have no problem paying the journal for a copy and allowing you to receive your royalty.

 

[paladius]

Re: Real alien abduction

paypal me $10 and I'll send you a CD. [email protected] Put your money where your mouth is.

In an effort to maintain thread....The earthquake that happened in haiti is located in an odd crustal spot for quakes. The small plate in that location is stabilized by larger plates that have not had very much techtonic movement for thousands of years. My bigger concern would be the release of pressure or addition of pressure on other plates. This pressure type migrates very slowly through crust, but will eventually run into a much weaker fault, such as those in california and mexico.. I say cali and mexico, only because the mid atlantic ridge makes me think the pressure vector was facing west-south-west.

The pressure migration goes very slow (remember how when the mississippi flooded a few years ago and it took a week for the water in teh flood to travel to the Gulf of mexico? Well, crust pressures can take weeks or months.

What this means is that there is greater chance of a decent size quake in cali or mexi in next few months... And while after this quake happens there will be many aboard this ship that cry that is proof of planet X, the reality of it will be it was a result of previous quake and has nothing to do with PX.

$10. paypal!

 

[paladius]

Re: Real alien abduction

based on the 5.8 quake in cayman islands this morning, I would guess that a major quake could happen in mexico between 5-8 weeks from now, and in california between 7-10 weeks from. This is not a "prediction", just a shout out to those who live there to be aware of your surroundings.

 

[Darby]

Re: Real alien abduction

paypal me $10 and I'll send you a CD.

If your thesis was published in a professional journal then I'll pay the journal. If it was a senior "thesis" or some other undergrad paper then, no. I won't pay for the paper. You said it was a published post-grad thesis, indicating that it was at the Master's Degree level (PhD's publish dissertations, not theses). "Published" in this sense means that it was forwarded by the university, through you and your graduate advisor, to a professional journal for consideration, passed peer review and was untimately published in the jorurnal.

Just give the citation for the professional journal and I'll be glad to pay the price for pay-to-play. Otherwise I'm still sitting on the BS button.

It really doesn't make any difference to me. It's your assertion that you published your Master's thesis, not mine. If it's something that is valuable to you then you'll direct us to the journal. It's otherwise BS if you continue to equivicate, obfuscate and generally duck the issue.

The bottom line is that no such paper exists on BRASS and if it was an important paper, actually published in a professional journal, then it would reside win that database.

So I'll ask you directly. Do you hold a Master's Degree from the University of California?

And, come on. All of us who attended the University of California (I graduated from UC Santa Barbara) wrote senior theses. What we wrote doesn't mean that it was important, true or even correct. Senior papers are designed to make us graduate because we are tired of being students.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you may have attended Cal but you didn't graduate. I'll go a bit farther out on the same limb to say that you dropped out no later than your sophomore year (and that's giving you a break). My real guess is that you didn't actually finish your freshman year. That much is based on your writing skills. Sorry, but that's the case.

I don't expect that you'll fess up to the facts. But even though the requirements for UC may have fallen over the years, they haven't fallen to the level of your written skills. Something akin to a base 3.5 gpa with a solid SAT score is required, even today, to gain entry into UC. Based on your missives I don't believe that you measure up. At the very least you have never shown any skill that equates to a person who holds a BA/BS degree from Cal let alone a MA/MS degree.

Again: I didn't start this sub-topic on this thread. You started it with your assertion of having published a master's thesis. If I'm wrong just show us the doh. Give us the full citation for your published master's degree thesis. If it's there you can expect a full and complete apology for my doubt.

 

[paladius]

Re: Real alien abduction

Wow Darby, you really think highly of yourself. I graduated Magna Cum Laude in 2000 from UCB school of Environmental Design and Architecture with a M.Arch degree. I live on the other side of the country now, otherwise I'd march down to library and pull the f'n number you want. I don't have it. I don't need, never did. I have a printed copy and an electronic copy of my thesis.

I just pulled it out, I made a mistake previously, it's called "Across the Universe - BIOS III" (Bios II was in Arizona and Bios I was a NASA can). Committee in charge: Susan Ubbelohde, Edward Arens, Timothy Ferris. Spring 2000. Copyright 2000. PAGE 11 - "The advantages of site that the Moon has to offer include its proximity to earth, where a one way trip would take a day or two. The 280 degrees Celsius diurnal temperature swing offers the great possibility of renewable energy production with thermal turbine generators. There are also polar ice caps, with an estimated 600,000 tons of frozen water crystals, to be used as a source of potable water, breathable oxygen, and hydrogen fuel (fig.4). The ice was discovered by neutron flux density measurements (fig.5). For future technology fusion reactors, the Moon has a plentiful supply of H3. Most importantly, the Moon has represented a symbol of inspiration to humans since the dawn of history. The disadvantage of a Moon site is the severe lack of atmosphere and magnetic field." Dipsh^t, I mean Darby, figures 4 and 5 were from NASA's Clementine Mission and referred to Aitken Basin on the Moons South Pole. The thesis has a 4 page bibliography. Clementine ended in 1998.

Eat Sh^t!.

I vaguely remember submitting 2 very expensive to print copies with some documentation to the UC library system, but past that, I have never looked it up or done anything else. I don;t know how the whole system of documenting a thesis works. I did my research, I wrote, I submitted, I graduated. Then I moved on. Is that called published? I don't know. You tell me. I know it's copy righted.

I'd like to go out on limb myself and ponder if you, Darby, are an over-achiever who never was really good at anything, but tries and tries and tries to be good at something. I don't know why my story is so hard to believe. But you seem to have a need to try to discredit my words, I assume because you want to be like me. All can say it that it is lost cause, as I can prove any aspect of my life as factual, because that what it is, factual, and secondly, you can never be like me. I could fly to Cali and get the number you seek to prove my worth, I could take pictures of my lab and show the world my work, I could scan and copy my degrees (if I can find them)... but all of that would take up my time, only to serve you, Darby, who is as far as I am concerned a loser with nothing interesting to say on topic of time travel, cutting edge science, or unknown/little understood science. My interest on this BBS is science, not you, but it does concern me when someone like you feels the need to discredit my achievements. <font color="blue"> [/COLOR]

 

[paladius]

Re: Real alien abduction

TC86. I agree you can not be ready for nature, just prepared. Having a small water filter and 25 Cliff bars in you garden shed would help you be prepared. Not taking subways is being cautious. Not letting your gas tank in your car get below a 1/4 tank is being prepared. Etc.

A few more ways to be aware....
1. if you hear a low pitch sound that makes your tummy funny, run outside and away from buildings (these are low freq (4-20 hrtz) P-waves).
2. if you see birds or dogs acting skittish, pay attention.
3. if you see emergency lights go on, fire station doors open for no reason, gas appliances shut off for no reason, then run outside and away from blgs. (PGE has gas line shut off valves that monitor P-waves, which are sonic waves that do not cause shaking and travel faster than S-waves, which do damage. Likewise, fire stations monitor P's too and open all exterior doors while there is still power and straight door tracks.) Depending on location from epicenter, there could be as much as a 10 second delay between P and S waves.
4. If you live in a liquifaction zone, such as emmeryville, store a cheap boating life vest in your garden shed too.

I'd tell you I studied Earthquakes at berkeley with the current Architecture dept. head, but Darby would just try to discredit that and I don;t have any more time for Darby.

 

[paladius]

Re: Real alien abduction

ok, time to roll with it again.....

Hubble optics captured an X shaped astronomical anomaly a few weeks ago...

Link to story...
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2010/February19/1991.html

Link to NASA image...
http://jhuappliedphysicslaboratory.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2010/images/HubblePrint2_2_10.jpg

Now...duh?... huh?

Planet X being a literal X? Wouldn't that be ironic.

from another source..."At the time of the Hubble observations, the object was approximately 180 million miles (300 million km) from the Sun and 90 million miles (140 million km) from Earth. The Hubble images were recorded with the new Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3)."...

now doesn't that place Earth smack in the middle of the sun and the X?

 

[henrylwh]

Re: Real alien abduction

I am still waiting Charlie to show up again............................................

 

[henrylwh]

Re: Real alien abduction

Charlie where are you? Are you kidnapped by government?

 

[eric1]

Re: Monlith on Mars (further ref)

In keeping with Rainman's request to stay on topic, Planet X is NOT the entity which actually causes the potential earth changes. It is a brown dwarf star which Planet X affiliates itself with(numerous guests on Coast to Coast am overnight radio have forwarded this theory---one which I subscribe to). Why does it do so? Because Planet X is reportedly inhabited by nasty reptilian types who basically scavenge planets after the brown dwarf wreaks its havoc on them. This is what the movie War of the Worlds(Tom Cruise) was about some years ago---preparing and dealing with these reptilian scavengers. Reportedly back in the early 90s a reptilian invasion fleet was sabotaged by grey elements here on Earth which sent them plummetting into Jupiter(Shoemaker-Levy---they were riding the back of the comet). The latter info was gleaned from channelled sources which I find credible. Anyway, hopefully this will get the discussion back on track.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Monlith on Mars (further ref)

In keeping with Rainman's request to stay on topic

Thanks for that, Eric. Now on to the tough questions... :D

Planet X is NOT the entity which actually causes the potential earth changes. It is a brown dwarf star which Planet X affiliates itself with(numerous guests on Coast to Coast am overnight radio have forwarded this theory---one which I subscribe to).

I don't so much care what anyone calls it. I am more interested in evidence that it is actually there. Where are the effects of what would be its gravitational impact on the rest of the bodies in our solar system? And I am sure you realize that guests on Coast To Coast do not necessarily count as veridical evidence. I am even sure Darby, a one time guest, would attest to that!

Because Planet X is reportedly inhabited by nasty reptilian types who basically scavenge planets after the brown dwarf wreaks its havoc on them.

It would be good if we could actually establish that "planet whatever" is actually there before we attempt to tackle claims of what types of beings inhabit it! :eek:

Reportedly back in the early 90s a reptilian invasion fleet was sabotaged by grey elements here on Earth which sent them plummetting into Jupiter(Shoemaker-Levy---they were riding the back of the comet). The latter info was gleaned from channelled sources which I find credible.

Uh oh.... before I ask why you find them credible, do you have any veridical evidence whatsoever to support this? Any little remnant of the well-photographed Shoemaker-Levy collision with Jupiter? And then finally: OK, I'll bite. Why do you find these channelings credible?

Anyway, hopefully this will get the discussion back on track.

Thanks for that. Now let me continue... I asked people a few posts ago if they were even aware how many of "Charlie's" predictions have now been falsified? The biggest problem with those who choose to believe without solid evidence is that you are a perfect audience for hoaxers for the very fact that you NEVER follow-up on their predictions, especially those that fail. You simply move on with life like those predictions never happened, and that is just what hoaxers want you to do: forget their failures, and focus only on those predictions that can be stretched into making people believe they got it right... just like Peter Novak and the tale of Zeshua.

So once again, I will ask: Would anyone like me to review the "hits and misses" (mostly misses) of the Original Poster of this thread? I think in doing so we will all find his time is up as far as being even remotely believable. But I suspect no one will respond in the affirmative, asking me to post my "scorecard" because they wish to continue in their uninformed belief.

But just say the word and I will post the results...
RMT

 

[eric1]

Re: Monlith on Mars (further ref)

With respect to failed predictions by time travellers, rainman, one HAS to remember that their predictions are based on what is happening on THEIR timelines. I believe when they are travelling back into the past, they are no longer on their timelines, but on alternative ones.

As per the channelled material, the entity I find credible is referred to as "The Awareness." Its(his/hers) latest prediction was regarding the recent Mexican quake which it(he/she) made in February. See link below(scroll down to February 13 earthquake prediction in red):

http://www.cosmicawareness.org/html/hotlines.html

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Monlith on Mars (further ref)

With respect to failed predictions by time travellers, rainman, one HAS to remember that their predictions are based on what is happening on THEIR timelines. I believe when they are travelling back into the past, they are no longer on their timelines, but on alternative ones.

Well, OK, but you should know the first thing I am going to say: There is absolutely NO actual evidence that "other timelines" exist, especially in the romantic sense that time travel hoaxers love to presume. I trust you have understood what Darby has related regarding scientific thinking about "Many Worlds Interpretations"?

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend it is as you say. Even if it IS as you say, then what would be the point of ANY time traveler coming here and telling us about "Planet X" and what is going to happen here to US, in THIS timeline? If such was the case for how things "worked" (and by no means to I believe this IS the way they work), then there is absoutely NO POINT in Charlie predicting the things he has, because according to your explanation above he cannot know how this timeline differs from ours. Do you understand how pointless it would be for him to make predictions? And oh BTW, Charlie NEVER gave us any such cautions in the posts in this thread. No, in ALL of his predictions he is very certain and always has his explanations for "what he meant" in past posts that did not measure up to his predictions.

Besides, this whole scheme as you have presented it is absolutely nonsense, because it de facto "allows" you, or anyone else wishing to "believe", to be selective of predictions. In other words, you simply explain-away any prediction that does NOT come to pass with your explanation above... but ah ha!!! When one of the predictions MAY come to pass, or seems close enough for your purposes, suddenly the explanation you gave goes out the window, and "he had a hit! HE PREDICTED what would happen."

This is terribly, horribly unscientific baloney. No offense to you. Just pointing out that in no way does it cut ANY KIND of scientific mustard!

RMT

 

[eric1]

Re: Monlith on Mars (further ref)

Well I definitely respect you, Rainman, for your efforts to hold up to the scientific method! : ) Still assuming my differing timeline theory to be correct, I agree with you with respect to the total wisdom of time travellers making predictions. However, I believe their reasoning is that because THEIR timelines and OUR timelines are so similar(though not clearly the same), they feel that the LIKELIHOOD/PROBABILITY of similar outcomes on our timeline occurring do indeed warrant them giving us warnings in the form of predictions. In this light, I support what they are trying to do. They are trying to prevent bad outcomes here I believe because negative scenarios only mean more negative timelines which I don't believe bodes well for our planet as well as our universe.

 

[paladius]

Re: Monlith on Mars (further ref)

ok RMT, I'm in! Lets hear Charlies scorecard. (Summary please only - I'm a slow reader).

 

[Darby]

Re: Monlith on Mars (further ref)

Still assuming my differing timeline theory to be correct

It's not a theory. It's at best an assumption, possibly a simple opinion but more likely speculation. Fine as far as it goes - everyone's entited to an opinion. A theory however requires a lot more than assuming something to be true without a solid factual basis. In science this means a "bit" of math to build a model of what is proposed and maybe some experimental verification - at the very least a gedankenexperiment as a plaecholder until a physical experiment can be done. Publication of the proposal in a peer reviewed journal and acceptance by the scientific community is also required for a proposition to rise to the level of a theory.

Confusing what an (unread) paper on quantum mechanics says with what one wants it to say is the basis for the misinformation about "alternate timelines". I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that there are, at most, two people here who have actually read Hugh Everett's paper on "many worlds". It doesn't say what the Internet alt-sci culture state. In fact you won't find a single reference to the term in the paper. (Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics vol 29, (July 1957) pp 454-462.)

But don't pay money to buy the paper from RMP. You can find it here:

http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/PhilPhys/EverettHugh1957PhDThesis_BarrettComments.pdf

 

[RainmanTime]

Destroying Timeline Divergence Plot Mechanism

paladius: Thanks for asking. I will post his scorecard (summary followed by detailed quotes) over the weekend.

Eric:

Still assuming my differing timeline theory to be correct, I agree with you with respect to the total wisdom of time travellers making predictions. However, I believe their reasoning is that because THEIR timelines and OUR timelines are so similar(though not clearly the same),

There is a major problem here. Your presumption that our timelines are "so similar" is in direct conflict with your other presumption that there are "multiple timelines." Let me explain:

If you accept the fallacious "multiple timelines" then you likely believe the mechanism for timelines splitting is when people make choices of one thing over another. (If not, please explain your mechanism). So now do a little calculation: For the sake of argument assume there is only two distinct options for any choice (we know there are more, but hang with me here). Then multiply that number 2 by the 7 billion people on earth (ignoring there may be other beings in the universe that make choices). Then multiply that 14 billion times an "average" number of choices that people might make in any given day... let's be conservative and say something like 100 per day (even though we could clearly count a helluva lot more). We are now at 1.4 trillion branchings of timelines per day. Now multiply that by the average number of days that a person might live. Again, let's take a conservative average and say 50 years, which is 18,250 days. We are now at 2.555E+16 branchings of timelines and that is just within a single generation of humans, here on earth only. Multiply that number by the number of generations (who the eff knows?) and you can see how massive this number is.

What could possibly make you, or any alleged time traveler, come to the belief that "our timeline is so similar to theirs" when you have that massive amount of variablity? It is not at all probable that they are similar given just the number of "timeline branchings" that could occur to change a"timeline" within the space of even a few years of time. Rather, it is quite the opposite. It is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that our "timeline" would be NOTHING like theirs.

But wait...I already know your answer, and it shows how once you assume something for which there is no evidence (and scant possibility) that you have to keep inventing new "plot twists" and mechanisms to make the story hold together. In this case, you invent the "timeline divergence" measure. And now you add a new ridiculous presumption that we can somehow "measure the divergence between any two timelines." In fact, this is the precise ridiculous mechanism that John Titor knew he needed to use to make his story hang together.

Pay attention now, because I am going to finally, once and for all, absolutely, positively destroy that plot mechanism used by Titor (and anyone else). No one has, as yet, ever pointed this out, and I have been saving it for many years for an opportune moment. Since we are addressing the whole "multiple timelines" assumption, now is probably the best time to put it to rest.

John Titor's presumption about "divergence" was that it could be measured "empirically" (redundant terms) by accounting for all of the forces of gravity, which are an indication of the total mass distribution of the universe. Most people (including myself) have pointed out how impossible such a measure is. But most people (not including myself) have failed to see that this metric does not fit with the presumption about what causes timelines to split.

<font color="red"> Splitting timelines come about (per the unscientific presumption) not as a result of mass, but as a result of personal choice!!! [/COLOR] This means that measuring gravitational (i.e. mass) distribution <font color="red"> cannot possibly account for timeline divergences!!! [/COLOR] The ONLY way that you can account for timeline divergences, and thereby measure one timeline against another, it by accounting for ALL of the personal choices that occur between any two points in time. How are you going to account for that??? Interview everyone and ask them what choice they made for breakfast cereals on every single day of their lives???

Read that over very carefully until it sinks in. It is important. In all the years I have been on this board, NO ONE has pointed this out about Titor's whole "divergence measure." If personal choices are what cause different timelines to arise, in parallel with one another, then you MUST account for all those personal choices if you ever have a hope of knowing if any two timelines are "so similar."

The only way around this is if you dream-up some new mechanism by which timelines split... and then, there you go again changing the rules of the game (not scientific at all).

RMT

 

[Darby]

Re: Destroying Timeline Divergence Plot Mechanism

John Titor's presumption about "divergence" was that it could be measured "empirically" (redundant terms) by accounting for all of the forces of gravity, which are an indication of the total mass distribution of the universe. Most people (including myself) have pointed out how impossible such a measure is. But most people (not including myself) have failed to see that this metric does not fit with the presumption about what causes timelines to split.

Good points.

I'll go back to the extremely long scissors analogy. Titor travelled, in his story, 76 years from 1975 to late 2001. That's 76 light years. Even the slightest divergence, in the scissors analogy taken to a length of 76 light years, gives a larger seperation of the lightcones (where otherwise simultaneous events occur on each). Thermodynanic events do occur and if seperated by 76 light years it makes no difference if two systems began in the same state. They are seperated by ~715* 10^12 km of spacetime (715 quadrillion km). With that spacetime seperation there is no reason to believe that the two systems would even approximately resemble each other given the spacetime seperation. One parallel world person having green eyes vs. the other having blue eyes (Titor's words, not mine) being the only significant difference between the worlds is a farce. I seem to recall that Dr. Brown pointed that out in his response to me.

 

[Darby]

Re: Destroying Timeline Divergence Plot Mechanism

Ray,

The real problem here is two-fold. First, the average person who posits an opinion has absolutely no science background...not even basic high school physics. Second, they have an opinion that for some reason they want to believe in and no one, not you, me or even God Himself can change. They don't want evidence, they want agreement. I still wonder whow many of them have been prescribed psychotropic meds. It's not a matter of not agreeing with me that is the defining factor. The defining factor is the manner in which their positions are put forward and defended.

Oh well. It's only the Internet and it surely has no effect on my IRL. The truth of what is going on in science escapes them. It is far stranger than even their most bizarre speculations can imagine.