PDA

View Full Version : Time "control" research - Perhaps the most important technology of all



Chester
26th July 2015, 15:41
I have posted the following in my blog...

Peter Moon did a series of interviews with Dr. David Anderson.

These interviews can be heard by following this link (http://www.digitalmontauk.com/?p=687).

Many interesting aspects of this research are discussed in these interviews.

Here are two quotes from the first interview that caught my attention.


“The gap between moral reasoning and our technological capacities has reached a critical point. It has greatly exceeded our capacity as a society right now for ethical thinking to responsibly manage that.”

"The governments have started a 'time control arms race.'"


Dr. Anderson has an informative website as well here (http://www.andersoninstitute.com/)

Aianawa
26th July 2015, 23:01
Ta Sam, I look forward to looking into this when time allows me.

Shadowself
27th July 2015, 00:27
I listened to the whole thing today. Much of what he is saying I've been touching on lately just to take note. I'd be very interested in finding out more on this technology (chamber) he's discussing.

I searched his site and cannot determine that which he is talking about. Any pointers in the right direction?

This is what I found:

http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time-control-technologies.htm

Just the other day I was posting on CTC's

http://jandeane81.com/threads/7186-6-Degrees-of-Separation-Order-from-Chaos?p=841932864&viewfull=1#post841932864

Chester
27th July 2015, 01:28
Hi Shadowself, the graph at the end of your post #106 (that you linked above) looks very much like the graph I saw drawn by Peter Moon in a newsletter he recently released. All his information came from David Anderson.

It does appear that David Anderson is needing to be cautious as to what he divulges. He did have his patent for a Time Reactor sequestered by the US government.

lcam88
27th July 2015, 18:25
A member here shared a video with me at one point wherein a radio host interviews David Anderson. The doctor goes into some details about what he is doing and how.

I suspect there may be another thread here on TOT where the video is shared.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-viB_iEm0ms

PS Thank you special member who shared this with me before.

Chester
28th July 2015, 00:12
His advancements since 2000 are significant.

Shadowself
28th July 2015, 15:27
Hi Shadowself, the graph at the end of your post #106 (that you linked above) looks very much like the graph I saw drawn by Peter Moon in a newsletter he recently released. All his information came from David Anderson.

It does appear that David Anderson is needing to be cautious as to what he divulges. He did have his patent for a Time Reactor sequestered by the US government.


Yes, in the OP listening the Time Reactor is what I was referring to. I'd be very interested in more on this "Time Reactor" he's referring to. Is there anything on his site that speaks to this tech? The link I provided has several aspects of such and I'm wondering which is the direction of this Time Reactor he's referring to.

ps; That image I provided is a "light cone" and has been referred to for quite some time in scientific circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Shadowself
28th July 2015, 16:39
Ah! Never mind...I found it. It's around the tech he worked on called frame dragging. Isn't if strange that just when he started talking about it in this interview his call got cut off?

Anyhow...it's surrounding "inertial frame-dragging"....which I've also touched upon in my thread. I referred to it as "drag on time" :eyebrows:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy6J2jYuc8Y

Chester
28th July 2015, 20:21
That's it... essentially, the Earth (or any heavenly body for that matter) creates a bending of time via its movement and the component of gravity involved. I am clearly no scientist. What words I might state (just like the first sentence here) almost should not be written for I truly do not have enough understanding.

Yet what I do understand is his questions. Does Earth mankind possess the ethics for using such technology? Based on what I have seen... well, seen from those in charge, I would say the correct answer is a pretty big "no." Another question is... how would human beings react to the actual truth of history - if we could "go back in time at least as an observer" retaliative to what we are told now?

Here's an example... what would happen to those of an orthodox Jewish faith if they found out they weren't from some tribe which was chosen as their God's special people? That it was all just made up?

Here's another. What if there was no Jesus OR if there was a man which lived which later all sorts of legends were created about that were so far from the reality of what that man actually lived that this destroys all these Christian religions... what if the guy was never crucified? Or if he was, he died and never resurrected?

What if we find out Hitler was assisted in escaping and ended up in Argentina and that elements of the US intelligence agencies assisted with all that?

What if we can prove that 9-11 WAS an OP by some nefarious forces within "trusted" governments and not Bin Laden OR what if we find out is was Bin Laden and 19 hijackers with box cutters all along? What does the latter do to the "truther movement"?

And this is just one tiny area of questions he raises.

Chester
29th July 2015, 00:50
Early in the fourth podcast on this list -

Getting into space/time research... "the first thing you have to realize is that you don't see the universe as it is... you see the universe the way you are."

"Second, Understanding the concept of closed time-like curve."

"Third, understanding how space-time works."

"Study the invariance of the space-time interval."

lcam88
29th July 2015, 13:17
Shadowself shared a "grandfather paradox" idea in here 6 degrees thread. All this info is good to consider without forgetting about that, IMO.

Chester
29th July 2015, 16:07
Shadowself shared a "grandfather paradox" idea in here 6 degrees thread. All this info is good to consider without forgetting about that, IMO.

One possibility in all possibility is that we all experience infinite timelines/infinite realities. In one, you go back and kill your grandfather and as that timeline goes forward "you" do not incarnate as your grandfather's grandson because it would be impossible. Yet in another timeline, you didn't kill him (even if you went back). In ones you didn't kill him, perhaps you are still not born within that direct family line even though it could be possible.

The above simply demonstrates my open mindedness... within all possibility.

lcam88
29th July 2015, 16:50
In the vid that Shadowself posted, a experiment designed to observe the grandfather paradox was done, according to Anderson, with plants. It was noted that the genetics of the descendent plants changed after the experiment even though they where not exposed themselves to the CTC routines.

If you consider them to be in a state of "quantum entanglement" with their ancestor plant that was killed, it is notable that the state did change in that the genetic code no longer resembled the same lineage. That timelines may be more closely related to entanglement then would first appear.

I am especially curious about a timeline shift that is speculated to have happened around 1988 in the vid on post number 8 (http://jandeane81.com/threads/7496-Time-quot-control-quot-research-Perhaps-the-most-important-technology-of-all?p=841933306&viewfull=1#post841933306) above.

Chester
29th July 2015, 18:50
I am open to all possibility.

One possibility is that all possible timelines (infinite) are all able to be experienced by the One that has tricked itself into individualizes who think their experience is separate and that each individual van experience infinite timelines.

Within this grand possibility is what "happened" in Anderson's experiment with plants and their sisters/brothers as he put it.

Perhaps it could be called an OTC (Open Time Curve) when the result is not what Anderson's experiment produced.

lcam88
29th July 2015, 19:45
But Sam, for an idea like yours, you must accept that the Universe is infinite as well.

That might not be the case. In fact a distinct possibility is that the universe is finite. If you imagine a universe with two photons traveling in opposite directions, even as thousands or millions of years go by, the distance between the photos will always be finite.

A model with a universe of infinite size introduces complications where entanglements include interactions between "fundamentals" that are not "the same". That introduces complications that challenge the very very basic of basics. For starters, the issue of how you define infinite boils down to one "fundamental", and then once you establish that "limit" what is beyond being another fundamental? How do they interact or interrelate?

I think of entanglement like two (or more) versions (bodies) of the same fundamental that interact in a way that the two version become an "individual" that then "experience" equilibrium and the changes therein. The finite universe model is much simpler to express in idea, concept and mathematics.

My suggestion is only that these "entanglements" exist, and they have a "state", which could be described simply as "the way it is, at the moment". And states can change from one "way it is" to another in any moment.

Perhaps these states also exist in the scalar plain where time does not perceptible in the sense we experience it. The change of state would occur any time a "manipulation" or equilibrium is altered. And even if the type of "manipulation" described by the "grandfather paradox" does involve manipulation of time, on the scalar perhaps where time is "experienced" differently, changes of state occur throughout the universe would be instantaneous. That does not mean necessarily that the "state" is ambiguous or undefined in some way. But this idea does require the universe to be finite.

I don't know if my idea is too abstract or lacking in some way, let me know though because I'm curious about how it can be better expressed.

Chester
29th July 2015, 22:18
I don't box myself in. My mind is ever open.

As synchronicity goes, I found a video posted by Malc here (http://jandeane81.com/threads/7485-Midnight-In-The-Desert-Art-Bell-July-23-2015-Nassim-Haramein) of interest.

What Nassim Haramein talks about in this interview compliments some of what David Anderson and Shadowself have talked or written about.

Both Anderson and Haramein discuss multi-alities ™ and multi-verses as possible.

lcam88
30th July 2015, 00:06
Would it box you in too much to ask for a summary here?

Shadowself is rather a mystery to me, she says some things that are very scientific, so much so that I get lost in the details. But she does share views that are absolutely fascinating.

I must say, I don't think multi-verse (parallel universes or existences [losely] separated from each other?) is required for Anderson's revelations fit. And I would find the coincidence of the revelations fitting into the description given by Russell in his 1926 publication, as confirmation that Russells views are worthy of a very literal consideration in many other areas. That is the scope of the box I seek to find fitting.

Such a fit would, in my mind, validate so many other areas the author touches on. There I revealed my agenda.

Shadowself
30th July 2015, 13:39
Good Morning!

I'd never heard of Dr Anderson before a few weeks ago. However I've been working on this "time" thing for years. I've chosen many avenues to research this area.

Is time travel dangerous as Dr Anderson explains? Absolutely! Imagine the power one would have if they could determine certain trends? Imagine the control one would have with the ability to travel time?

That said I believe Dr Anderson may very well have such a devise. My latest area of research had led me to understand in the unproven theorem paradox that sending "information" back in time to be published should document proof of such. This is also important to understand as it can negate if not well understood the "grandfather paradox" sudden death syndrome. Why? Because it would be sending information back without the dangers. But could be determined and proven by simply understanding a hidden code. Savvy?

Can encrypted information be sent back in time while avoiding the Unproven Theorem Paradox?


Scenario: Suppose, in the future, we generate a one-time pad from a source of perfectly random bits and encrypt (bitwise XOR) a desired mathematical proof. Assuming its existence, we use a communications channel (ex. CTCs) to send this ciphertext back to ourselves in the past. From the perspective of participants in the past, this information should be structurally equivalent to and indistinguishable from random data.

Note that this communications channel can be noisy. Assume that this noise factor makes it so that the probability of a successful transmission of "unproven" information is zero. For example, sending a proof in the clear that has not been proven should not be possible due to noise. This is intended to be a "direct" way of combating the Unproven Theorem paradox.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiZP8FS5Ww&list=RDJOiZP8FS5Ww

This is very important to understand. As for the many world theory of the "Theater of the Parallel Universe" stands this disruption that is being discussed it would seem simply expands to other variations if it so exists in the frame reference. Again Savvy?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHYIGy1dyd8&list=RDJOiZP8FS5Ww&index=2

And last...Ask yourself how a VERY distant civilization from say another world would get here with out it and live to tell about it?


Grandfather pardox...what's the Fixx? :eyebrows:

ps; How did this thread end up in the members only section of the forum? As I recall it was not in the beginning of it's inception?

Dreamtimer
30th July 2015, 15:04
Sam, I've long been concerned about how our ethics and morals aren't matching the acceleration of our technology. It doesn't matter what type, financial, genetic, energy, time.

It's amazing we haven't killed ourselves with nukes or disease. IMO

Shadowself, is the code you found something that was possibly sent back?

Shadowself
30th July 2015, 15:25
Sam, I've long been concerned about how our ethics and morals aren't matching the acceleration of our technology. It doesn't matter what type, financial, genetic, energy, time.

It's amazing we haven't killed ourselves with nukes or disease. IMO

Shadowself, is the code you found something that was possibly sent back?

Indeed...that is the direction I'm leaning with in the thread 6 degrees....Smart girl!

Now consider the following modification of the protocol:


Extension: Let us instead generate the pad in the past, then wait on the other end of the communications channel for a transmission. When we have the desired proof in the future (from whatever source), we can encrypt it and send it back through our communications channel to the past.

Our past selves decrypt the information using the pad to recover the original plaintext. Assume that the participants in the protocol operate in good faith and that we have sufficient error correction abilities. Depending on the theorem itself, we may be able to formally verify its correctness.

This situation may be alternatively viewed as us generating two random strings and XORing them together to wishfully produce any desired proof that exists.

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8624/can-encrypted-information-be-sent-back-in-time-while-avoiding-the-unproven-theor

And sorry I've not been more active...my hand is not well. I just had a never block done in my neck yesterday...NO fun! And it seems to have not worked as of yet. I'm giving it a few more days to take effect.

They scheduled me for physical therapy today which I bowed out of as it's not feasible yet. I can't move my wrist at all. Not without severe pain that is.

Chester
30th July 2015, 16:57
Would it box you in too much to ask for a summary here?

Shadowself is rather a mystery to me, she says some things that are very scientific, so much so that I get lost in the details. But she does share views that are absolutely fascinating.

I must say, I don't think multi-verse (parallel universes or existences [losely] separated from each other?) is required for Anderson's revelations fit. And I would find the coincidence of the revelations fitting into the description given by Russell in his 1926 publication, as confirmation that Russells views are worthy of a very literal consideration in many other areas. That is the scope of the box I seek to find fitting.

Such a fit would, in my mind, validate so many other areas the author touches on. There I revealed my agenda.

My recommendation is you spend the time to listen carefully to all the podcasts. I noted Anderson addressed multiple realities.

I also would like to make a statement which only fully applies to myself but as an odds maker, I make odds high it applies to most if not all human beings on Earth today.

"I hardly know &%$#, but at least I know that. What my mind might conclude is impossible today (because I know so much!) I am surprised all the time when I discover what I had thought was impossible is in fact, a reality."

lcam88
30th July 2015, 17:01
Sam, I've long been concerned about how our ethics and morals aren't matching the acceleration of our technology. It doesn't matter what type, financial, genetic, energy, time.

It's amazing we haven't killed ourselves with nukes or disease. IMO

Shadowself, is the code you found something that was possibly sent back?

I can only imagine that it is not in our desire, yet, that we cease to exist.

Unproven Theorem Paradox


Assume that this noise factor makes it so that the probability of a successful transmission of "unproven" information is zero. For example, sending a proof in the clear that has not been proven should not be possible due to noise. This is intended to be a "direct" way of combating the Unproven Theorem paradox.

That is an interesting idea. I'm going to try to prod it with my "truth spectacles". Supposing the subjective nature information can have, let's say Einstein had overcome the noise factor for his proof in General Relativity. Let's suppose the information was sent to him by a future descendent of his who was absolutely convinced of the authentic nature of the information. The theorem fits. But it also depends on willingness for individuals around Einstein to support his efforts in publishing his ideas. Is the social aspect around a brilliant scientist part of a noise factor? one that is dependent on the political climate? As though social growth in the "race" receiving the information also needs to be at a certain level for the information to become clear?

And because a scientist may not be politically affiliated well enough (Frank Znidarsic) his idea does not get published and information he works on is obscured by political "noise" into obscurity. What?

The truth points to itself. It reveals itself reluctantly to anyone who is willing to see, not those who are politically affiliated.

We seem to be listening to the song where we need to be listening closer to the music.

These aspects above are so subjective the whole Unproven Theorem Paradox boils down to a metaphorical equivalent of alignments in the stars. It is too complicated, there has to be easier and more simple "ways" IMO.

Where have I let my logic go astray?

lcam88
30th July 2015, 17:15
My recommendation is you spend the time to listen carefully to all the podcasts. I noted Anderson addressed multiple realities.

I also would like to make a statement which only fully applies to myself but as an odds maker, I make odds high it applies to most if not all human beings on Earth today.

"I hardly know &%$#, but at least I know that. What my mind might conclude is impossible today (because I know so much!) I am surprised all the time when I discover what I had thought was impossible is in fact, a reality."

Ok thanks.

I agree with everything you say especially the bolded part above.

I agree with an idea of multiple realities, just not parallel ones unless your reality is parallel to mine. I think the word skewed is better in the mathematical sense; it just means not parallel and non intersecting. We don't share anything between each other besides commonalities in our ways of thinking and this forum. :)

lcam88
31st July 2015, 21:43
Sam the vid has some good information, really. It clarified some aspects about the nature of gravity, being a type of spin. The researcher being interviewed uses different language than Mr Harold Krautz Vella but seem to be referring to the same subject matter. This is certainly someone who has ideas worth researching IMO.

An interesting emphasis on "atomic" level spinning of "particles" caught my attention as something pertinent, it was his explanation for the cause of "gravity". I once heard heat or thermal energy to be described as a spin in context of "atomic envelopes" I think an interesting place to start research would be heating or cooling materials manipulating spin, for example with lasers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling). But perhaps with special observations made on spin states.

Chester
1st August 2015, 15:10
To Shadowself - The more I have been reading (and jeeeez you go far and deep) in your thread 6 Degrees of Separation: Order from Chaos (http://jandeane81.com/threads/7186-6-Degrees-of-Separation-Order-from-Chaos), the more I realize I should have done the OP of this thread as a post in yours.

Maybe it is too late to merge it as it may break up what's there, but I apologize for this.

Some of your posts are taking me all day to grasp... humbling for me.

Shadowself
1st August 2015, 16:23
Speaking of Spin and time....number 84, 85 and especially number 86 posts....Spin



http://jandeane81.com/threads/7186-6-Degrees-of-Separation-Order-from-Chaos?p=841931029&viewfull=1#post841931029


It was determined the center volocity was at 8000 RPM's. Can you imagine! It was also determined that this spiral was not directly over Norway.

http://jandeane81.com/threads/7186-6-Degrees-of-Separation-Order-from-Chaos?p=841931108&viewfull=1#post841931108

RikkiTikkiTavi
2nd August 2015, 18:01
Thanks for starting this thread Sam. I'll have to come back to it when I am not so busy.

To your "What if,..." questions you asked earlier, here is a pretty cool movie regarding time travel;

SsLqtMMxK6s

:popc:

lcam88
4th August 2015, 13:10
Shadowself, this conversation was meaningful to me; I like the Unproven theorem paradox and its implications.

Shadowself
4th August 2015, 13:47
Shadowself, this conversation was meaningful to me; I like the Unproven theorem paradox and its implications.


Me too....So sorry I've somewhat abandoned the subject. Just today I've started to get some relief from my wrist problem. It seems the nerve block may have started to take effect. But it took awhile. Still not over it but it seems a bit better. I'll probably get back to this over the next week. When I do expect successive posting on my part because I have plenty more yet to share here.

ps; It also didn't help getting sidetracked over the weekend with pure nonsense!

lcam88
4th August 2015, 14:22
Me too....So sorry I've somewhat abandoned the subject. Just today I've started to get some relief from my wrist problem. It seems the nerve block may have started to take effect. But it took awhile. Still not over it but it seems a bit better. I'll probably get back to this over the next week. When I do expect successive posting on my part because I have plenty more yet to share here.

ps; It also didn't help getting sidetracked over the weekend with pure nonsense!

No problems. consider my previous posting to be a bump.

Hey I have wrist sensitivity in my right wrist now too! :) I think I slept on it funny.

Dreamtimer
5th August 2015, 12:27
Dang. My wrist was bothering me yesterday too. Woke up and it was really stiff. I also think I slept on it funny. I was knife throwing the day before, but that doesn't usually cause soreness.

I'm very glad your wrist is feeling better, Shadowself. May the trend continue.