"The future ain't what it used to be."

30X the speed of light achieved

johnmcm

Timekeeper
© 2005 This article is subject to copyright laws and my not be reproduced without acknowledgment to the writer John McMaster and dated July 4th 2005.

John McMaster is a commercial writer, philosopher and author.

The problem with most time travel theories is the desire to take our body along.

Time travel is being in a place, past or present, with the ability to observe or participate in events that have either taken palace or that will take place in the future.

Observing signals have already been shown to have made this quantum leap.

Superluminal tunneling (faster than light transmission of
signals) was first observed at the University of Cologne
with micro-wave photons. Soon thereafter these experiments
were duplicated and validated at the University of Berkeley
and Vienna.

For theoretical physics the implication is that there exist
spaces, devoid of time.

Prof. Dr. Nimtz present experiment takes it's inspiration
from an experiment by Jagadis Chandra Bose, an Indian
physicist born in 1858. Bose's successful public
demonstration of remote signaling with radio waves in 1895
predate Marconi's experiments by two years.

In 1897 Bose carried out experiments with semiconductors at
frequencies as high as 60 GHz and was in the opinion of Sir
Neville Mott, Nobel Laureate in 1977, at least 60 years
ahead of his time.

The new experiment of Prof. Nimtz explores total internal
reflection of micro waves inside a dielectric prism, and the
effect and characteristics of a small air gap between two
identical prisms.

One known effect of quantum tunneling is the propagation of
photons at speeds much faster than light.

Prof. Nimtz explaining the tunneling effect on the
dielectric prism. The modulation of the microwave is approx.
1Ghz. and has a wavelength of 3cm. The gap between the
prisms is 5cm, and tunneling takes place.

Prof. Nimtz: "The waves enter on the left and are being
reflected totally on the first wall. Only when the distance
between the two prisms is not too great the can signal
tunnel through the gap. It looks as if this gap here is the
tunnel barrier.

When we increase the gap the signal intensity received at
the other end decreases. This has already been shown by Bose
in 1897. But the time in which the signal traverses the
tunnel has not been reliably measured until now."

Speeds measured on this device exceeded 9x the speed of
light, within the frame of reference of this tunnel. The
speed is achieved by the staggered effect of repeated change
from Perspex to air.

We cannot observe any signal moving faster than light!
----------------------
The superliminal (FTL) speeds are noted to have been
measured at from 9X to 30X the speed of light depending on
the experimental setup. Professor Nimtz' original paper.


Imagine a radio wave as an observer. The radio wave travels to its destination, a receiver. The receiver observes the future and returns the signal to the sender. You have in effect traveled through time.

Now step 2. The receiver is a complex drone able to move in its environment responding to your every move with the help of a mirror suit worn by the observer.

The main reason that we have not successfully been able to do this is that no one has built a drone to receive the signal in the past. Our time is a time of frustration for future time travelers as few people are attempting to build receivers for them to connect too.
Look at it this way. You are the builder of the first radio transmitter and you vigorously send out your signals for the entire world to receive, the problem is no one has bothered to make a receiver. The signals are there but without a receiver they are lost to the listener. Turn on your radio and recognize that you are in effect opening a doorway.

Start building
A machine able to receive such signals must observe some fundamental laws first observed by Professor Nimtz which describes the nature of the signals you will be receiving.

Someone building such a receiver in a primitive form may just find themselves receiving the lottery numbers before they are officially announced if that’s any incentive.

Remember someone is waiting for you to open the doorway to the future.


Your comments are welcome.
 
Imagine a radio wave as an observer. The radio wave travels to its destination, a receiver. The receiver observes the future and returns the signal to the sender. You have in effect traveled through time.

It's interesting, would the receiver also have to be moving FTL? Otherwise the input it gathers will be from the present.
 
So basically we are saying Sublight communications like in Star Trek. A host of relays that send a directed signal to each other faster than light and can either continue to relay or tunnel this message or shift it to a frequency that can be received on other more terrestrial bands
 
© 2005 This article is subject to copyright laws and my not be reproduced without acknowledgment to the writer John McMaster and dated July 13th 2005.

John McMaster is a commercial writer, philosopher and author.

I'm saying that we focus to much on the obvious because someone once upon a time made an observation. That didn't mean we had to stop observing! Light is not the answer. It is time and the space we occupy. It's time to reinvent the wheel. I know, "what's wrong with the wheel" It sucks! To much friction.

Let me give you an example. We have spent so many years looking at how they made those darn pyramids. We build elaborate rolling systems "wheels" and ramps to show how they did it. Well here's the answer to an age old mystery. The pyramids were built using a canal system. Look at the evidence. The Egyptians invented the pump. They also built amazing water and sewage systems.

"Canals have a very long history, with the earliest example of one being dated to 4000 B.C."
Source http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=canal

It would have been very stupid of those smart Egyptians to float those huge rocks down the Nile then unload them only to drag them 100's of yards to their final resting place. They simply build a canal with the early stones all the way to the top. Pumping water into the rising channels to raise the stone to the top, float it into place and let out the water onto a pile of sand shuffle into place and washout the rest of the sand. Done! The reason the canal isn't still there is that they used the canal stones at the top for pure economy of time. They were smart! And we are still trying to figure out how so few people (according to the evidence) build such huge pyramids in such a short period of time. Using the wheel they couldn't! Still stuck on the wheel theory?

Anyway the purpose of this demonstration is to show you that it is only when we take our eyes of the wheel that we are able to see the real power behind the machine. “Nature never reveals its secrets, it only responds to a method of questioning”. It’s the question that counts not the obvious answer based on what we see.

So I challenge you, with the words of a baboon (appropriately) in the movie lion king. “Look beyond what you see”.
 
They found small barge like boats buried with a lot of the people who ran the project. They still haven't figured out what the significants is. Guess you know now
 
Well here's the answer to an age old mystery. The pyramids were built using a canal system. Look at the evidence.
Not buying the story. Main reason being that building canals gets exponentially more difficult as the height change that the water must achieve gets larger. Are you aware of how large (and how strong) the locks would have to be in order to raise something as heavy as a pyramid block from the level of the Nile up to even half the height of the pyramid? Take a look at the Panama canal for one example. Speaking hydrostatically, the Panama Canal could not work if it were not for the gravity power available from the water of Gatun Lake, which is the highest point of the canal. Since there is no source of water geometrically higher than the pyramids anywhere around there, the effort to build locks, operate LARGE displacement pumps, and then deconstruct the locks such that there was no evidence (which there is none) would be a larger engineering feat than current theories of how they moves the stones. Remember the history of the Panama Canal: The French couldn't pull it off, and it was only with America's industrial might to build equipment that we could do it.

I'm afraid you are going to have to provide a LOT more scientific information about your theory (along with the hydrostatic equations) before it can ever be taken remotely seriously.

RMT
 
They found small barge like boats buried with a lot of the people who ran the project.

But where are the remains of the locks? Your description above is too simplistic. The locks could not be made out of anything that would not hold water (i.e. sandstone). You need to find evidence of some material that actually constituted the locks that could hold the water as it was pumped up into them.

RMT
 
I knew this would happen. The point becomes about the obvious. The canals didn't have to be that large. In fact the largest stones would only be about 8 ft wide. We’re not moving the Titanic here.

The canals did not hold the water all the time, they were only flooded when moving blocks. The dimensions of the lift channels were only 50ft by 15ft and were built like steps up the side of the structure as it was built. The pumps worked all the time to move water to the top of the structure and the water was dropped down to flood the channels as the block was moved up. I really didn’t want to get into this.

You had to have been there
 
The canals didn't have to be that large. In fact the largest stones would only be about 8 ft wide. We’re not moving the Titanic here.
You say that as if you are not aware of the laws of buoyancy and how they relate to mass density. It's not only size, or even only weight that is the issue. It is density and wetted surface area. Those blocks are dense, and they don't have a helluva lot of surface area being they had flat surfaces.

The point becomes about the obvious.
This is also the kind of comment I hear all the time from people who think something is obvious, but are not familiar with the laws of science that govern specific phenomenon. What seems obvious from an intuitive sense is anything but obvious once you break out the equations... for instance:

The dimensions of the lift channels were only 50ft by 15ft and were built like steps up the side of the structure as it was built.
This statement shows a serious lack of understanding of hydrostatics. Size of a vessel is not germain to hydrostatic forces (of which buoyancy is a primary hydrostatic force). Hydrostatic forces (i.e. pressure and its ability to support something) are only based upon the fluid's density and the height of the fluid column. This is freshman level fluid mechanics.

I really didn’t want to get into this.
Then maybe you should do some more homework, and come back with more convincing material. You can make all the insinutations you wish about being a time traveler, but the laws of physics don't change, and your theory does not.... ehhhh... hold water! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
The boats.
Certainly. Used for traveling up and down the Nile. You need to come up with some specific evidence that these boats may have also been used in a lock system to raise them to the Giza Plateau. Now... if the pyramids were hundreds of miles away from the Nile, or another large body of water, and they were found near the pyramids, THEN you might have some convincing evidence for your canal/lock theory.

How about some archeological evidence for these high displacement pumps they would have needed?
RMT
 
but are not familiar with the laws of science that govern specific phenomenon

I do think you should stick to the wheel. You are so far off even moving a simple block in water. The chance of you building a time receiver is about a million to one. And giving you one chance is assuming you can dress yourself in the morning.

With all due respect, look at the facts. No offense intended.
 
You are so far off even moving a simple block in water.
This is how you refute my facts of hydrostatics? Your theory might be a great one, but if you can't support it with real facts and real evidence (rather than innuendo) then it won't go far.

With all due respect, look at the facts. No offense intended.
No offense taken. However, you need to be able to present the facts behind your theory before I can look at them. So far, you have not presented facts, but opinions. Opinions which are not in concert with the realities of hydrostatics as we know them.

What you present as evidence has alternate explanations which are more reasonable (i.e. the boats). Occam's razor, sir.

RMT
 
My sincerest apologies!

My sincerest apologies! It’s the kind of response that I gave that makes us the idiotic self righteous sloth’s that we have become. We often talk about how to make the world a better place then like greedy children we squabble over the spoils in a futile attempt to immortalize our own names. And who will care. What will it matter? Time will indeed go on and scholars beyond our pathetic ponderings will laugh at how we could have not seen the obvious only to be ridiculed themselves in their not to distant future.

I attempt once again to humbly offer as a study my theory, which is indeed a theory.

My thoughts are intended to help progress an otherwise pathetic species to a level they my never attain unless we learn how to solve problems together.

I have achieved happiness in my life but we all have bad days. I wrote my refute on one of those :oops:
 
Boats

Notice that in most of the boat images they are punting. There are few water ways now in Egypt that have shallow water ways that you can punt down

oarsmen.jpg


"Sometimes we know what the boats looked like without knowing what they were called, at others we have their names but do not really have much of a clue what they looked like. On the coffin of the 4th dynasty prince Minkhaf, which was found in a mastaba in the eastern Giza cemetery, there are inscriptions of offerings and among them a list of boats:
1000 SAbt-boats, 1000 wAHt(?)-boats, 1000 sTr-boats, 1000 nHbt-boats
W.S.Smith, The Coffin of Prince Min-khaf, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Volume XIX, 1933
W.S.Smith surmised that the nHbt with its determinatives of 'lotus-flower' and 'boat' was probably a light reed boat."

Source
 
Re: Boats

they may have built the pyramids from the top down....

I thought it was kind of obvious that those big pyramid blocks were levitated into place using science that has been shielded from the publics view for centuries. And they probably cut the huge slabs of granite with large ultrasonic shearing beams.
 
Back
Top