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

Is this a role-playing game?


Is this a role-playing game? Are all of you children ? Just let me know and I'll let you guys be.
I went to the M.A.G.I. site, and discovered that it was designed by someone who doesn't even know the physics of the black hole theory.
I have been studying and manipulating light frequencies since Jan. 1991. I teach Chaos Theory and Philosophy Major. I am looking for people who understand particle eccelerations and N.T.L.S..
Time travel has always been a study for people interested in PARADOX and CHAOS THEORIES. This is the only site I have found that discusses time travel and isn't a cult. Are any of you interested in finding answers...or do you just want to pretend that Sliders is real?
That's a good question, Howell! It never occured to me, but now that I think of it, I can see how this can be perceived as roll-playing. But, no. I think these guys are for real. God help us, if these guys work together, maybe one day they'll be able to break temporal barriers. God help us all.

Time travel is not child's play by far. There is no evidence to back the black hole theory. Also there isn't evidence to even propagate any of the present day theories on time travel or on "time" itself. I will only believe what I can see. I watch the cosmos, biology, chemisty, electricial phenominum, and visually perceivable physics. I only use what has actually been seen not theorized. We have too many theories already. I want answers, not more questions that go unanswered. Many physicists have described atomic theory as being very much like a galactic system in their descriptions, however they deny that molecules are tiny galaxies to avoid ridicule. When I look at an electron microscope's image of the molecular structure of a piece of matter I can't help but see galaxy clusters. I do not believe in anything except the matrionic-vortice atomic postulate because I can see its fundamentals at work everywhere. Besides that, I have been able to recreate it in the lab quite easily. As a result I do not believe in "time" as a constant, it doesn't exist. Nor do I believe in paradoxes or the possibility thereof. The strange thing is in my twelve years of research even all religions refer to matter as being created by the thoughts of a higher being. "Something from nothing", this is only possible where matter is actually a halographic production of thought, and where atomic particles are vortices that can be created or destroyed by the mind that they are inside of.
What is your "proof" for the atomic theory that you believe in, that society teaches today? Magic charged electrons and protons, pure nonscence! According to laser techology like particles have no response to one another, however varying particles spread apart. Can you expain the difference between photon interacts and electron interactions without using magic? This is a little food for thought to get you to question what you believe.


...The Doctor...
...Magi Systems...

<This message has been edited by The Doctor (edited 03 October 1999).>
I have been to his M.A.G.I. Site, and it doesn't really connotate to what I was trying to say in my earlier post. I DON'T believe his crystal theories, although they look interesting; they are not the idea I had in mind. Sorry, Doctor.

I sitll maintain my belief in that we do not live in reality, this may aswell be regarded as reality, however, as we can never live in reality because we would never allow ourselves to do so. If we lived in reality, all would be acomplished, we need something to carry on.

Breaking the temporal barriers is much more inportant than physical research, as things are only what we percieve them to be. Without the temporal conscience there would be no "physical" things, so isn't it obvious that it's the conscience that needs working on ?

<This message has been edited by Peter J. Attwood (edited 03 October 1999).>
Howell67, these peoples' theories are just as good as anyone elses'.

No matter how mad, 'childish' or insane people's theories are about the universe and time travel, I would always advise you to take notice.

You mentioned you teached; then be glad you have people like Peter and The Doctor around, to do the real ("temporal") thinking for you. We are all involved in this, and we all contribute our little bit.

Any knowledge is good knowledge.

I can't recall if I have ever explained in this discussion, what it is exactly that I do.
For one I'm not looking into particle eccelerations because I believe they have a magical ingredient to open portals.
I study NTLS. That is "Nearsest To Light Speed"
I am involved in the manipulations of certain frequencies of light, because NOTHING that we know of, by fact, will travel beyond the speed of light.
I became interested with time-travel almost at the pretense of my studies. I know that whatever may travel at NTLS is view by our reality "as if we were not moving at all"... Time seems to be frozen at these speeds, which in reality... we are simply moving very slow.
I am working with what I know as current-fact... That nothing travels faster than light... so I am manipulating light frequencies to move beyond their current speeds.
I began this path when myself, my older brother (an engineer), and many of his colleques decided to accept a contest where a spacecraft must be built by private individuals (not companies), orbit the earth with no less than three passengers, land safely, and do it two more times.
We failed, due to design conflicts. LOL...we couldn't get along. But we did have in mind, a craft that hydrolically condenses the airframe when in flight...
I called it the "Ballerina Trick", you've probably seen iceskaters do those spins where they pull in their arms tightly to increase their spinning rate.
Anyway, thats who I am.

<This message has been edited by Howell67 (edited 04 October 1999).>
Thanks for your consideration Dymenzionz. All views should be respected until disproven or another proven. Lets present what we all know for sure and combine the knowledge to form a working basis.
I agree with Einstein's calculations for they seem to work in relation to my theories. Also I believe that we all agree that they work in your own ideas of reality can we not?
I do believe speed can be a key. In Einstein's theories he states that mass decreases with acceleration, so the faster you travel the smaller you would become. At near light speeds you may become smaller than a photon and vibrate at a frequency relative to the density of the passing matter around you caused by the gravitational pull of the molecules around you. Motion of the reality that you were once apart of would be slow or almost motionless (Howell's slowing of "time" by comparison). Moving at the speed of and at nearby nuclei would reveal their true appearance....Which would be what?
Slowing or deceleration would have the opposite effect to bring you back.
But what if you decelerated speed in relation to our universe and increased in mass to the size of the cosmos? What would the appearance of the cosmos be like. This is more food for though.....


...The Doctor...
...Magi Systems...

p.s. The MAGI page was not based upon a "crystal theory" but a matrix theory that many physicists indirectly hold to and teach. To deny it denies everything Einstein had taught and his theories would become void. Also Tesla based his time travel research on it for the Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project in developing the Delta-time antenna. So the idea is not a new one by far.

<This message has been edited by The Doctor (edited 04 October 1999).>
I didn't realize that this TOPIC would start the ball rolling.
Doctor, I cannot agree with Einstein's theory. I was convinced by what he said once, until I joined with my brother to construct an airframe.
Our fastest land jet (I'm almost certain it is Skunkworks' Blackbird) travels at 3+ MACH MPH... at these sonic speeds the airframe is designed to STRETCH. Because at these higher speeds the mass of the airframe would INCREASE, not decrease as Einstein stated.
Now I'm not as familiar with airframe design as my brother, but he claims that the airframe increases in size due to friction, as well as the pushing/pulling of earth's gravitational field. He couldn't specify (at the time) if this would concur out of orbit, but he did say, by what he remembers, that satellite probes are designed with the same friction-resistance.

ALTHOUGH, I recall before we broke the sound barrier... airframe design was unstable. A jet would convulse violently before reaching the sound barrier. When the day happened that first jet reached beyond the SBP, it "flew as smoothly as if it were driving on concrete".
PERHAPS reaching lightspeed, there will be a stability factor, and an airframe will concur with Einstein's theory. But until then, I'm going by what I know.