Time "control" research - Perhaps the most important technology of all

**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 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.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiZP8FS5Ww

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?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHYIGy1dyd8

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?

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

Originally posted by Dreamtimer

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/...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

Originally posted by lcam88

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

Originally posted by Dreamtimer

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

Originally posted by Shadowself

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

Originally posted by Sam Hunter

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. 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, 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...#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...#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;

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsLqtMMxK6s

**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

Originally posted by lcam88

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

Originally posted by Shadowself

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.