posted 09-26-2001 12:39 PM            

Anagrams can be kind of intereting, espescially when it comes to people's occupations and general nature in relation to an anagram of their name.

posted 10-02-2001 10:15 PM            

This sounds a lot like simply "channeling the English language" -- more than a message from the stars.

The human brain (or at least large portions of it) is by design prone to searching vast quantities of information in order to sense PATTERNS emerging from all of the raw data -- in some ways, it behaves like a very efficient, multi-tasking, multi-processing, biologically-based supercomputer. Therefore, it does not surprise me at all that one could make certain "words" out of the names of most anything.

Not to sound skeptical, but I used to entertain myself for hours with just such word games when I was a child. Lately, I find it fascinating when someone name simply describes their occupation -- but one can hardly call this divine inspiration or precognition (it's more like "auto-suggestion", or perhaps "self-fulfilling prophecy")...

_______________________

Now, as per the debate on the "missing moons", this I find fascinating.

One should note that while D. Kunz and C3Po both support one another in their declarations, AS "amatuer astronomers", neither one YET claims to have spotted as having seen these purportedly "errant moons" with their OWN EYES, through THEIR OWN SCOPES during this time period.

Therefore, one should claim pre-emption on their "premptions", if only for the obvious lack of effort demonstrated while "making their point".

Let's look at an analogous statement (similar to C3Po's and D.Kunz's nonsense): "It's Monday morning, therefore it must be sunny," but then say this without bothering to look out the window first.

posted 10-02-2001 11:12 PM            

Even if the Martian moons are still there, Duncan and I can't see them through our own telescopes. In order to do so, we would have to acquire a fairly large amount of equipment, expertise and time. But if you're determined to worry about their putative disappearance, you are certainly free to do so.

posted 10-03-2001 03:37 AM            

We have always dismissed any message that is not 'conventional'. - Visions of Saints, Channelled messages, messages from people who claim to have been abducted,...etc. I DO NOT accept that EVERY message is valid...but we don't even consider the message only the messenger - he/she is mad/deluded/drugged/attention seeking ..etc

posted 10-04-2001 06:33 PM            

I should assure you I am no stranger to "intuition" -- it's just that I prefer direct experience of the same to derivatives or "word games".

Not to slight your work, but one could hardly call it "research" -- whereas direct experience of intuitive states often leads one to concrete examples of the "fuzzy" things they would otherwise find difficult (or impossible) to relate, creating more of a cause-and-effect type relationship.

Example: One year ago last March, a direct intuitive state led me to purchasing a "toy" blacklight from a local department store, mainly on a whim. What I found upon the first usage of this lamp led to several months worth of discovery and study by numerous individuals across the web, and various revelations about atmospherically released polymer strands (likely a classified project) which is still ongoing, even as this "program" itself remains quite secretive.

I doubt any of this would have happened had I instead been running word games on the terms "polymer" or "ultraviolet", and it's unlikely that even these associations would have ever come to light of day by doing the same for the term "chemtrails" either -- since none of this was prior knowledge to any of us.

posted 10-05-2001 04:49 AM            

"Not to slight your work, but one could hardly call it "research" "

Where did i say it was part of my research?
I merely pointed out a sychronicity as a point of interest.

"I doubt any of this would have happened had I instead been running word games on the terms "polymer" or "ultraviolet", and it's unlikely that even these associations would have ever come to light of day by doing the same for the term "chemtrails" either -- since none of this was prior knowledge to any of us."

Agreed, but the point about crop circles is that some people feel that they could possibly be encoded messages from God/Gaia/ET/ our higher selves...I don't believe that anyone has yet proposed CTs as a form of message.

I don't take them as seriously as you seem to imply Dj I remain open to answers about the universe from wherever those answers come...but I have discernment too.

posted 10-05-2001 12:05 PM            

I am not sure what your questions regarding thermodynamics are, but I have taken the liberty to write something quickly up about the First Law; it might make for semi-interesting reading. Please feel free to ask any questions you want to, either here on the forum or at my home address.

There are simple answers to many such questions, but they probably don't provide you with what you want to know. So, as usual, I'll err on the side of long-windedness.

The First Law of Thermodynamics (which I will refer to from now on as 1LT) states that energy is conserved.

Energy can be exchanged between the system of interest and its surroundings. However, the total energy of the system plus the surroundings is constant. I can transfer energy (heat, in this case) from the coffee cup to the air. The coffee-cup loses x ergs of energy, but the air gains the same amount. Of course, you don't notice the football stadium getting warmer, but that's because it's a lot bigger than your coffee cup is. It the football stadium is a bazillion times bigger than your coffee cup, then when your coffee cools eighteen degrees, the stadium will heat up eighteen-bazillionths of a degree (assuming no one else is drinking coffee, of course).

But it's a bit more complicated than that. Since heat is one kind of energy and you can create that energy by rubbing your hands together real fast, you need to expand the 1LT to say that work (which is a product of force and distance) can be changed to energy and energy can be changed into work, but the combined amount will stay the same. If you 'create' X ergs of heat by doing some work, it will cost you exactly those X ergs of work to create it.

And there's another side to it. Sometimes a little bit of mass can change into energy, too. When you burn a piece of firewood, you might think that most of it turns to energy (in this case, heat), but that's not true. If you measure the mass of the stick before burning and then measure it afterwards, you'll find out, that when you add up the ashes, coals, water vapor, soot, some other particulates, and exhaust gases, you've accounted for more than 99 percent of the original mass of the stick; only a tiny bit turns to heat. To be exact, the mass-into-energy equation goes like this: Energy (in ergs) equals Mass (in grams) times the speed of light (C) times itself. Does that look familiar? E = MC squared!!

1LT is an empirical law, which means that we know that energy is conserved because of many repeated experiments by scientists. It's been observed that you can't get any more energy out of a system than you put into it . James Prescott Joule did a famous experiment which demonstrated the conservation of energy and showed that heat and work were both of the same nature: energy. His system of interest was water in a thermally insulated container. In this container was also a paddle which was connected to the outside world (surroundings) and connected to weights on a string. Joule measured the work done by the paddle wheel and he also measured the heat created by the wheel turning in the water. Significantly, Joule found that the amount of energy done as work was converted exactly to heat. Energy was changed from one form to another (work to heat); however, no net change of energy in the system plus the surroundings occurred. Energy is conserved.

In a mechanical system, heat is the bad guy. A lot of work you want a mechanical system to do (like, say, spinning a wheel) is wasted because some of that work energy is turned to heat which doesn't do much except employ a bunch of people whose job it is to fix radiators. That's why, for example, you can't have a perpetual motion machine. No matter how you design it, some of that energy is lost to the surroundings as heat, and, if you don't keep pumping more energy into the machine, it finally slows down and stops.

This hasn't stopped people for the past thousand years from claiming that, finally, they've invented a perpetual-motion machine! Yaay! and it doesn't stop people from believing those claims. What it has stopped, of course, is those so-called machines from actually working. We can make machines more and more efficient, but we can't stop some of that work energy into turning into heat, which goes out into the universe and is frittered away.

posted 10-05-2001 05:01 PM            

It'll be a cold day in hell, I think, before we get any straight answers from NASA about anything unusual.

Is this all verified? Where is good old Hubble when we need it? I'm still waiting for a good reason why HST can't even look at the face of the Moon!!

I thought it was interesting that the more recent NASA photos of the 'face on Mars' seemed to show the sphinx was obliterated, or really NASA's assertion that it never was a face. That movie "Red Planet" or "Mission to Mars", the one with Gary Sinese? not Val Kilmer, anyway, the end of the movie indicated that human contact with the sphinx caused a spacecraft to crash through the sphinx with a new human occupant, sort of like a graduation, a step to a higher intelligence as a reward for our reaching Mars. (I did read about this on a website somewhere, something about Carl Sagan being a consultant to the movie, and indicating something about life on Mars, something he denied all of his life).

Thought that was funny when I saw the NASA photos of the obliterated sphinx. Like the movie was a case of art imitating life, or an indirect way for ??? to tell us that may have really been what happened, and that we've already made contact with Mars.

I've always felt that true missions of the Shuttles may have been trips to Mars/Moon. How could that have never occured to anyone at NASA? I'm sure they have calculated reasons how that's impossible, that it could never happen, but how can we ever know what NASA tells us is true?

posted 10-05-2001 05:39 PM            

As I understand the first law of thermodynamics, "Energy is neither created nor destroyed".

If correct (and though this has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, it can be verified in a lab environment) then there is a finite amount of energy in our universe.

Matter, on the other hand, is more of a particular "vibrational wavelength" of energy, wherein what would normally be simply "radiated" into the surroundings is, under specific conditions and for a time, "locked" into a closed loop "field" (for lack of better description in layman's terms).

Matter, in short, is nothing more than "crystallized energy". As such, all matter carries with it the entire energetic potential of it "creation" (the sum of it's potential and kinetic energies at any given point in time -- taking into account any "expended" energy).

"Solid matter" is the biggest fallacy in physics today -- because it basically doesn't exist. The truly "solid" portion of matter -- the various "components" of atoms, molecules, and the like -- is so infinitesimal as to be able to be ignored if one can show that electromagnetic fields alone can demonstrate all the same characteristics and properties as "solid matter", given proper conditions.

So, where I would depart from Duncan's description would be that while a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible (due to the entropy inherent in all physical systems), it is still entirely possible to create "Free Energy Systems" which would rely solely on concentration/generation/liberation of appropriate field energies (strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational, etc.).

Such a system would likely not be "creating" any new energy, but rather collecting, concentrating, and then refocusing EXISTING "weak" field energies into something entirely more useful -- and as such, the First Law of Thermodynamics could be maintained indefinitely (as in "needing no moving parts"). Within this area lies a great deal of promise for the future of non-polluting power generation for humankind (assuming we don't destroy ourselves first)...

posted 10-06-2001 04:35 AM            

The most beautiful part of this low (which is the corner stone of every segment of our society) is that it clearly shows where to look if you want more than it allows. It tells that any technology which leans only on the use of any resource form within system only makes the overall efficiency of the production of end product/ result worse. For example, if you live growing potatoes, doing it all only by your hands only, you can barely feed your family. If you use the horse so you could make lot more potatoes the overall costs of the whole operation rise because now you must feed the horse also. Some would say that the food for horse is free, but this is not so. Somebody else made it. Ultimately, in the closed system, all advanced technologies boil down to the ever-greater use of energy (order) thus constantly degrading the system itself until it collapses. Of course, system’s boundaries can be enlarged but, as the system is the closed one, this is only a temporary solution of the same quality level. System’s end is as near as boundaries of its expansion are.
In the other words it is necessary to ask how came that the ordered system existed in the first place so we could degrade it? Who made it?

Answer to all this is obvious one: we must look on the other side of the barrier of our closed system. Here goes a paragraph from my article SATURATION WITHIN at
http://www.deepspace4.com/pages/questions/saturationwithin/saturationwithin.htm

which gives some idea about this in concise form, through examples, which can be easily, substantiated using some of long-existing findings in quantum mechanics field:

In the last few years, strong indications at first (the article The Gravitational Spacecraft, which was published on 27 December 1998 issue of Electric Spacecraft Journal by Brazilian physicist Fran de Aquino, now working at Los Alamos Laboratory, and many other publications by researchers working in zero point energy field as well) and now announcements of patents soon being granted (Bearden's Motionless Electromagnetic Generator - MEG) and applications already made (Pravda July 26, 2001 article, which is accessible through Pravda logo, about Prof. Dr. Valerian Sobolev's free energy sources and materials, Prof. John R R Searl who makes real flying saucers already for 40 years and now looks for investors and still some more) point out that electro magnetically disrupted space-time fabric, of that what we perceive as the reality in which we all live in, is instantly self-repaired by the influx of energy from the outside of the system. In another way it could be said that the entropy of the system (measure of degradation of a contained system) is lowered by the influx of the information from the outside of the system itself.

After all somebody said long ago that at the beginning there was only the word.

If this is so than the gravity, a force which is believed to hold everything within the universe together, is a manifestation of a modulated electromagnetic field which propagates (communicates) instantly making the state of the emissions of the Sun/ suns directly dependent of the state of the galaxy core or on the state of the intent which is behind it's own operation.
Otherwise, it would be very difficult to understand how such a complex structure, as our reality is, could be kept together against constant, strong abuse from within.

As applied locally second low of thermodynamic is a basic concept of control of our society.

All the best.

posted 04-26-2002 08:35 AM            

The following proof is irrefutable. There will be many that will doubt it, there will be many that will be astonished, however, it is for every individual person to decide for themselves. As always your opinions are welcome.
~~~~~~~~~
IntroductionAbout two years ago we were expecting something to take place between the quiet little comet 76P and the planet Mars. The date came and went. TMG experienced administrative problems (a polite way of saying that the you-know-what hit the fan), people went their separate ways and health problems just about defeated us. But this story is bigger than individual people. Readers, literally thousands of them, demanded answers to the outcome of the comet/planet encounter. Our critics felt bolder with each day of our silence; nasty emails and public name calling rose to an all time high. But there were those out there that knew that what we had been saying was not bunk, but that it was honesty. We sat quietly, restraining our anger, gathering the evidence and continuing to research the issue. We have gathered so much information and the findings are so profound that we feel we can no longer withhold all that we have from our readers. So you may want to sit back, it's going to be a long rough ride. The images that you see in this article will be disputed, not only by our critics but by your very own eyes. I can only say to you something very "unscientific"... let the Spirit guide you. Let your common sense tell you what you are seeing, not those that would enslave you and keep their failures hidden. But then again truth is not the domain of science.To briefly explain; This article is titled as it is because of four immediate threats to the safety of the earth and her inhabitants. We will present each one according to our discovery of each as we researched the encounter between 76P and Mars and other issues on this site. We can say that we believe the threat is real and that we recognized the threat in reference to the last two years of work. It very may well be that what we present is conjecture at times or that we simply just do not know. We are human and guided by the resources available to us. One more final point, before we get started. We believed at the time that Phobos may or may not have been affected by 76P. What we have discovered is that Phobos may have left Mars' orbit prior to June 2000! In fact the story appears to go back to before the passage of comet Lee. The following will reflect the fact that at first we thought June 2000 was significant. But what we found was a story much broader and more fitting to the behavior of NASA and their involvement with the planet Mars.
~~~~~~~~
The distinctive shape of Phobos can be seen in each of these images. We believe that these images are all of the same object - namely Phobos. Stickney Crater can be seen in each image. The entire body is masked in the photos due to darkness of the shot or by the increase of ambient light in the image. The first image, "A" was a 35 millimeter camera shot of the moon at night, Christmas 1998 (more on this image in a few paragraphs). The second shot, "B", was taken over Turkey during the August '99 eclipse (Credit is given to the photographer on the larger image). And the the last shot is an image shown previously in this article and was taken on April 13th, 2001 in Western Europe. We first estimated the distance of each object and then postulated if each object were actually Phobos and ten miles in diameter, would the size and distance collate. Down to a point each object is ten miles in diameter! Our doubts, if any, were crashing down like the Berlin Wall. This is Phobos and it is absolutely not obeying natural laws.But we kept looking through our files for more. And we found more!.... http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/76P_phobos1.html