31

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a flat earth map

« on: August 31, 2015, 11:02:53 AM »

If you need a method, work together. It seems as though this site has an international group of users. If, together, you could note down the time and angle of sunset, and the position of the Sun elsewhere at that time, you could work out relative distances with a universal landmark.

From that you can work out the relative locations of the areas of the world: that would find a map no matter the world's shape, and nothing there could be altered.
Does the user group of this site want to attempt this?

32

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and we aren't even close to knowing the true shape of the Earth

« on: August 31, 2015, 10:36:09 AM »

Yes, we are. It's an oblate spheroid (which 'ball' is shorthand for). Willful ignorance and paranoia does not outdo truth. When you are capable of explaining the movements of air, the Sun's light and the length of day, and observable measurements without appealing to clear fantasy, you may insist that there is a controversy. Until then, there is none.
The world is round.

33

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Apparently Light=Sound now

« on: August 31, 2015, 10:33:50 AM »

Three points.

One, paradoxes like "Everything I say is a lie," are entertaining, but flawed. The clear resolution is, as has been said, to conclude that they are lying. It would not follow that everything they say is a truth, however. Better, would be "This statement is a lie."

Two, quantum mechanics are incomplete in this time. This does make them harder to interpret: however, the direct observations cannot be questioned. Further, they are always going to be incredibly complex to explain. They are hard to imagine, and very little behaves similarly on the scales we're used to. The fact that your time has not yet reconciled them with macro knowledge makes it all the harder. However, as with all science, it is impossible to explain to someone who does not want to learn, as it sounds like this Papa Legbe is.

Third, on light and sound, they are quite intimately related. Waves are not composed of a substance, so the only way to tell the difference between two kinds of waves is to examine wavelength, freqency, and medium. The former two could be made equivalent between a sound and a light, so we are left with medium, and this is important.
Two waves may be identical, but what carries them? Sound is transmitted by physical matter: it manifests as vibrations in solids, liquids, gases, and other such states. Light does not require a material medium, however. This is the crucial difference, and for that reason its properties are very different. The waves of light are carried by the field of dimensions that everything exists in. They move through space, because of space. (This is why the speed of light is such a limit: light itself is defined by the spacetime dimensions it exists and moves in).
It's a few years before technology advances to the point that this can be proven (it's possible to change the medium of a wave from matter to space, and vice versa, turning light to and from sound) so it's fine if you don't accept my word, I just thought you'd find it interesting.
The speed of sound varies with medium. The speed of light is simply what that speed is, when the medium is space. As, on a quantum level, we are made up of similar wavelengths, if any matter tries to reach the speed of light, we would observe some very odd behavior indeed because part of what defines light is that it has quantum mass. For a non-quantum mass to move at those speeds through the mediums of space and time, spacetime would bend and stretch as a result.

This is very hard to explain, and harder still to visualize. I am sorry.

34

Flat Earth General / Re: 9/11

« on: August 31, 2015, 07:55:23 AM »

So I went and turned the TV on,  and saw the second plane hit,  and was amazed that the building didn't collapse.    A while later it did, and the poor news reporter just was stunned.   

I just want to say, this can happen all the time. I've seen and done similar. if you set a fire, it can take time for the damage to be done. If you provide a serious impact, even if it doesn't start a fire, it can do serious damage to supports. Cracks take time to spread, but they do, and then the building is ruined.
CERN had a tower in Russia, in my time. One of their towers. I did a fair bit of travelling (not easy, in my time), I took that tower down similarly. Eight well placed explosives (four near the base, and the others going higher up to make it less stable). There aren't any such planes in my time, so I couldn't use them, but after the explosion, and after the damage was done, it was a few minutes before the cracks spread enough for the higher levels to crumble, and crush the weakened lower.

35

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Conservation of Energy and Time

« on: August 31, 2015, 07:39:45 AM »

I'm in digital contact with the man who invented time travel, HK. From some knowledge he shared from different worldlines, certain facts are coming to light. Some of you may find this interesting, and if nothing else this can serve as a record in case I failed.
Two major facts stand out.

There is only one world
I have spoken of worldlines often, but they are not parallel worlds. They are alternative, possible states of affairs, with similar ones grouped together in an 'attractor field'. Think of it like a rope; it looks like one thing, but it's made of multiple strands, and multiple threads.
What matters is, none of these alternatives are real. There may be a multiverse (it seems likely) but that is independent of the worldline model.
Think of every entity in our world as a list: every property, and every event that happens to them is on that list. Altering the worldline is scratching out a term on that list, and writing another. This is important: it's not replacing a term, it's merely writing over it.
There are accounts of people recalling events from other worldlines. HK is one of them, and in a previous issue with time travel, he found many other situations. This would only be possible if the same people existed over multiple worldlines, rather than being multiple, different people who happen to share a history. We are the same people, no matter the worldline we are on.
The science isn't fully understood. It may be possible for non-conscious items to do something similar, but their physical properties would not change; this is conservation of energy, in a way. Their traits couldn't alter if it would change mass for just that object.
Memories however, as non-physical, massless objects are exempt. It is possible to reclaim memories from past worldlines. I am not certain of the mechanism: some people may have a natural inclination. It may be somehow contagious: the only situations I know of came from contact with someone who naturally possessed the ability (after a childhood illness: though that may just have been their first experience). If an illness causes it though, it may be triggered by some alteration to the physical brain.
From this, it follows:

It is impossible to never be born
Time may change, but as it is only the properties of memory, location etc that alter, at not the fundamental of the universe, energy must remain conserved.
The only seeming exception to this rule would be a time traveller, who travels from the future, and changes it. Would this make them never be born?
However, if they were never born, the mass and energy that makes that traveller up would not exist. Extra mass would have come, uncaused, into the universe.
In theory, this means that if a time traveller dies in the past, they would fail to change the future: the attractor field, without intervention, would draw the worldline back to one where they go to the past: so that they would be born, and travel back in time, so that their mass comes from somewhere. A mission could only suceed is they travel back to their time, in which case they would presumably be lost in the transition.
And then, later, when the time traveller is born, they would represent the mass that had existed in the past. Conservation of energy is not necessarily continuous, but everything must exist. Even if, in this new worldline, time travel is never invented, the energy remains conserved.

I hope this aids in understanding time travel, for any readers or other travellers.

36

Flat Earth General / Re: 9/11

« on: August 30, 2015, 05:18:54 PM »

Now let's put this in perspective just to show you what this ,Mikeman is.
When this carry on happened, Mikeman was 4 years old and he's willing to DEFEND his stance on what happened that day.

Why is that relevant? From what I have gathered, this event happened only to a limited area. He could be fifty, but if he wasn't there like most people all he could use is reports and accounts: what he is using anyway.

As someone who's been on your side of the case before, arguing desperately against the official truth, I sympathize with you. However, one thing I had to do, and which everyone like us must do, is to think and rethink every word we utter. The slightest mistake would draw ire, because our views would be so unpopular.
It is this that makes me doubt your veracity. I have been, as you put it, a 'free thinker arguing against official lines.' I know how that feels, and I have lived that life. There is no room for a slip-up, and everything you do is careful, like walking on eggshells. You make sure to check every fact, however minor, you use. You don't utter a single thing that could be viewed as a mistake, and you make secure every statement you make.
You do not use such evidently an obviously false claims as you have done, because you would know that to do so would be to permanently ruin your credibility in the eyes of anyone who does not think as you do: and if the only people you speak to are those that agree with you, then your time as a freethinker is wasted.

For example, were you genuine, the question you would have asked would be "What is your motive in asking this?"
Simple, short, to the point, free of any aspect that could be misinterpreted or turned against you, and evasion would be clear. After his response, you would then begin as you have, stating that the topic is out of date, and that his stated motivation must be inaccurate for some realized, accurate reason, followed by what you believe must be the case.
That was all. No absurd arguments against age, as if that would mean anything, and no guesswork, and no frankly bewildering parables.

I find the idea of a Flat Earth laughable. However, the kind of person I do have a problem with is the sort who pretends and claims to be a freethinker, only to ruin it for everything who genuinely thinks as they claim to. If there is genuinely a problem with the official truth, as there certainly is in my time, you damn everyone. You ensure that all they think of, when they think of contrary views, is a joke. What seems like a small deal to you is actually a truly serious matter.
I hate people like you, and believe me, I have reason to. True freethinkers have lost their lives, and you would make light of their deaths by feigning freethought and anti-establishment tendencies, for the sake of sharing absurdities and insults.

Yeah right, you mentioned it before.

Yes, I have heard of it. It has been spoken of a great deal in this time. I didn't know any actual details about it, which is why I said I don't know what it is. Forgive me for my shorthand. What I know could be summed up in a line, unlike what someone who has lived for a long period of time in a world where it is known and referenced and has had an effect.

37

Flat Earth General / Re: Speed of Light?

« on: August 30, 2015, 03:23:23 PM »

The Earth is round, but your reasoning is inaccurate. I don't know how well the theory's understood at this point, but you can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light: high speeds make spacetime alter. If you have a stationary clock, and another clock moving at high speeds, if they're synced at the start, they will end up showing different times. If the time passing alters, then the speed alters subjectively.
Though something, from an external perspective, may appear to be accelerating at or beyond the speed of light, the way time passes in the vicinity of the accelerating object keeps its speed limited.

38

The Lounge / Re: How did you find the FES?

« on: August 30, 2015, 03:07:11 PM »

We wanted a site that both accepts things that would commonly be seen as bizarre, that would accept the kinds of things I say, and that had a fair amount of attendees. Of all the records my cell had access to, this site stood out. I just found it on a list of old forums.

39

Flat Earth General / Re: 9/11

« on: August 30, 2015, 03:04:09 PM »

Petition to move all JohnTitor's posts to complete nonsense

I understand if you don't believe me, but I try to ensure that my posts have content independent of "I'm from the future."
Such as here, I would hope you would agree with my statements as to what would be unlikely to occur in an arranged attack.

40

Flat Earth General / Re: 9/11

« on: August 30, 2015, 10:58:21 AM »

I don't know what 9/11 itself is, but there have been similar attacks in my time: some genuine, and some faked. When people rebel against CERN (such as when some of their accelerators were sabotaged) there are many responses.
Sometimes it is used as a rallying cry, as a chance to criminalize a chosen target. Sometimes it's denied, or blamed on a natural occurence.
Of course, it is true that the resistance does go after such targets. I myself have attempted to bring down more than once. It's also true that CERN do break their own accelerators, or equipment, when they become obselete or unneeded. This might gain them pity, from a few sources, but primarily it serves as an excuse.

There are ways to tell, by the reaction, whether or not something is internal sabotage, or genuine terrorism. If nothing happens as a result, that makes it very unlikely to be internal. If the possible cause gets something they want, that makes it more likely to be sabotage.
Look also at the body count. If there is a high body count, it is unlikely to be internal. They might allow a few casualties, for realism, but not many, and not any major figures (such as business, or known celebrities). They want rage, not sadness. "Look what could have happened," is a far more effective motivator than "Let us mourn the dead."
If explosives were used to collapse the towers, then that would have been the claimed cause of their destruction. The best lies include as much of the truth as possible. If explosives were used, they would say explosives were used, and place the blame on their chosen target. if explosives would not be a practical way for terrorists to bring down the facility, which sounds likely, then they would have chosen something else, and done that.

If there is evidence to believe planes were involved, then I doubt explosives were used at all. As for the cause, I don't know enough about the context, but I hope my above guidelines help a little. As what amounts to a former terrorist myself (I served in a resistance against the leadership) my opinion should be worth something. I know how these things are done, from both sides.
I will try to read more on the issue, to better learn.

41

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 29, 2015, 05:11:20 PM »

It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

I own a machine that could very easily be used as one, especially if you give me a meteorite. I've used it as such in testing, to confirm that it was robust enough. 2015 may be too soon, but by 2055 you could get your wish.

42

Flat Earth General / Re: Computers don't work how we are told

« on: August 29, 2015, 05:08:20 PM »

Mike's correct, and I shall prove it below:

AETHER.

I have seen aether mentioned a lot. What exactly is it (and what properties do you use?)

I can't tell if it is a fantasy unique to this site, or an idea that falls out of favour by my time.

43

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plate tectonics and earthquakes

« on: August 29, 2015, 05:06:57 PM »

You are right that in the scientific community a theory becomes a fact, and to believe otherwise, places you in the same category as an insane person. How dare I or anyone else question the "theories" of scientists. Disregard the fact that what science knows to be true today will no doubt become untrue when future scientists come up with better "theories".  A layperson like myself couldn't possibly fathom any unknown or new information, it is best to leave all our thinking to qualified professionals.

If you do not understand the concept of a definition, the difference between refinement and replacement, the scientific definition of theory, the notion of expertise, the basic principle of corroboration and peer review, the fact people who keep secrets do not make public their findings and process, the ability to research and verify... how is it you expect to understand plate tectonics?

I come from a time where the world is ruled by one specific organization with eyes and ears everywhere. How is it that I am less paranoid than you?

44

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plate tectonics and earthquakes

« on: August 29, 2015, 03:23:40 PM »

Plate tectonics is just a theory, not a fact. Show me a photo of actual tectonic plates.

Scientific theories are not the same as a layperson's theories. A theory is, in science, a fact for which the evidence is so overwhelming that no sane individual can reject it.
Photos are not good evidence. Some things cannot be photographed, and many things could easily be faked. Why do you ask for one? There are other forms of justification.

45

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Explaining quantom mechanics to flat earthers

« on: August 29, 2015, 01:44:06 PM »

I think you might be thinking of the Planck mass, which is about as heavy as a grain of sand (pretty ridiculous in the quantum scale) and it's reduced to the observed particle masses via relativistic effects.  It's hard to say how primitive string theory is because nobody really knows what all there is to it, but the math behind it is mostly incomplete and mostly just approximations.  String theory is yet to be proven, but it certainly looks promising.

Quantum mass is certainly not related to Planck mass in that case, there are many lighter things than a grain of sand. Think of it as the mass of a photon: I know you don't believe photons have mass, but that should be an indication of how small the mass is.
I can promise you, from all I've heard your string theory is very primitive. Much of the maths behind it relies on too many assumptions, many of which false. i suspect the calculations are, broadly speaking, correct, and once assumptions are corrected for, the truth should be arrived at. I'm not certain, but I think one of the major results came from the realization that what you call the Higgs field is synonymous with a spatial dimension: to exist in space is to have mass.

In string theory particle properties are determined by the vibration patterns of strings and the possible vibration patterns are governed by the shape of the extra dimensions.  Position in extra dimensions causing properties is not even being considered and if it's the case then it would mean that string theory is false.

It's not the position in those dimensions that matters, it's the mass or shape of the particle in those dimensions that is important. This could be viewed as the shape of the related dimensions, from our lower dimensional perspective: from our perspective those dimensions would not exist except for the 'curled' portion directly related to an observed object.
All objects exist in all dimensions, properties determined by their behavior and mass and design in each of those dimensions. (On a side note, this is also tied to dark matter: the gravitational pull on a large scale comes from matter that exists in higher dimensions. This is also how my time machine works: a resonance, similar to Yoneya rotation, pushes an object in a direction: if done properly, this direction is the time dimension).

If our world was a flat plane, it wouldn't exist. Everything must have depth: an atom, for example, would not exist, and by observation we can see it is highly unlikely a 2-D analogue exists: or, if it does, it could not exist in three dimensional space. Similarly, there are twenty six dimensions total, not three: so actually everything expands into those other dimensions, even if we don't see it.
That's flawed as a justification, but I hope it explains the idea.

46

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Explaining quantom mechanics to flat earthers

« on: August 29, 2015, 11:15:43 AM »

You (understandably) got Planck's constant mixed up with the Plank length.  The Planck length is the smallest thing we could measure if string theory turned out to be correct and Planck's constant is the relation between the wavelength and the energy of a particle like a photon.  Max Planck was actually a string theorist so he assumed that there were 7 more curled up dimensions to calculate things like Planck length.  Planck's constant is actually known via measurement, so there is no doubt that it is what it is.

Thank you for the correction; there is little discussion of Planck in my time. Even his string theory model sounds outdated (the Planck length may have lead to the quantum mass however, I'm not sure. Mass is more important than length when it comes to existence; mass is actually the definition of existence).
Recall that particles exist in more than just our three dimensions, however: the energy of a photon is more than what you can directly measure (in this time). Your result is still limited to three dimensions, where I never questioned it. Why would the Planck constant, as you describe it, hold over dimensions where the energy has not been taken.

In my time there is a study of what's called Yoneya Rotation (after Tamiaki Yoneya, I don't know if he's known at the moment) which measures properties of quantum objects over multiple dimensions by setting up a torque and 'twisting', and reflections of properties of higher dimensions could be read.
Do you know of anything similar to that? String theory seems like it's very primitive in this time, but I don't know.

47

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New to the forum, can someone explain in simpler terms please!

« on: August 29, 2015, 03:47:39 AM »

Not that far really, I have read a load of stuff an theres to much going on. I can't help but think why would the government cover it up

They wouldn't. People need to pay attention to the real problems in the world, like CERN's gathering power base and black hole weapon, rather than easily falsifiable fantasy.

48

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Explaining quantom mechanics to flat earthers

« on: August 29, 2015, 12:26:24 AM »

you cannot know everything about a particle's position or velocity because there would be no solution to the uncertainty relation because of the zero multiplicative property.

Which is true: in the only dimensions we can measure, and the only ones that could have been taken into account in this time. I think that formula still relies on the Planck system: a value that only makes sense over three spatial dimensions.
My knowledge of Planck isn't perfect, but I think it relates to the smallest thing that can meaningfully exist; I could be completely wrong, he's outdated in my time. However, as I've said before, the smallest thing that can exist would have quantum mass over all dimensions: Planck is only concerned with three.

49

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Explaining quantom mechanics to flat earthers

« on: August 28, 2015, 04:44:01 PM »

A quick caveat, as the addition of knowledge from the future might help this. What you term the uncertainty principle may be true only in limited dimensions. One of the reasons, beyond technological limitation, for it is the fact that at the quantum level, particles get closer and closer to not existing in the dimensions you're observing. They have a velocity, or a position, but those are dteermines by behavior in higher dimensions: you can learn one, but in doing so you erase its other trait from the dimension you're observing.
Theoretically, if it were possible to observer all twenty six dimensions, you might be able to get a far more accurate reading on both position and velocity, though there is still debate in my time as to what the likely error would be. Uncertainty may still hold, it's far from certain, but there is one possible loophole.
Quantum theory, as it stands in your time, is half a theory. It's direct observations made in lower dimensions, with very little focus on reconciliation or on why what you observe happens. It's how all theories start, but several aspects are wrong, because dimensional laws aren't taken into account.

50

Flat Earth General / Re: Computers don't work how we are told

« on: August 28, 2015, 04:36:10 PM »

I did pick up on your intent with this post. I am just enjoying the time I spend here.
If you mean evil spirits rather than a man called Desmond, then your post does make more sense. The main question to ask is "What would be the motive?"

The Omelas Hypothetical is less relevant if you appeal to spirits, and not Desmond.
Just for completion's sake, the Hypothetical is a moral question: if you could create a utopia, preventing anyone from suffering or committing a crime or desiring evil, and without impacting such notions as free will (which I think is still accepted in this time. It doesn't matter if this action would be possible; that's the point of a hypothetical), and the cost of doing so would be to lay all that suffering and evil and pain onto one innocent, randomly chosen child, would it be worth it?
It felt a little like Desmond was that child: enslaved and forced to work so that technology and life could advance. I'd thought that was where you got the idea from, but if the Omelas Hypothetical doesn't exist in this time, and you meant spirits and not a person, I must be wrong.

51

Flat Earth General / Re: Computers don't work how we are told

« on: August 28, 2015, 02:02:51 PM »

Three questions:

1. Is it exclusively computers you refer to, or does this extend to the other kinds of digital technology I've seen, such as phones and calculators?
2. Who, what and where is Desmond?
3. How does Desmond work so quickly?

(Is the Omelas Hypothetical known in this time? Your post reminds me a little of it).

52

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New to the forum, can someone explain in simpler terms please!

« on: August 28, 2015, 01:58:47 PM »

I dare you to go to this forum and ask them how a V8 works.
http://www.aussiev8.com.au/
They will tell you to F... O.. and apply yourself, there is plenty of information and do not waste peoples time.
Mikemans response was corny as ever and some REer will chime in now and say "Oh tappet that's not a very nice way to welcome a new member". And tappet will LOL.

That's not any way to welcome anybody. You didn't answer the question, you made an apparently random statement with a dramatic assumption and an unjustified conclusion, and rejected anotehr's words with no understanding.
Admittedly I have little knowledge of forum etiquette, as I come from a future where CERN has taken over the world and the internet as you know it does not exist, but I have learnt enough in my time in your present to know that your addition is rather meaningless.

Welcome to the new member, though.
I hopefully won't be around too much longer (my time machine's temporarily broken, but I'm working on fixing it: once I do, I'll be gone), but I hope you enjoy your time here.

53

Flat Earth General / Re: if we're moving in space how can we go out to space ?

« on: August 28, 2015, 09:46:20 AM »

In addition, rockets can be seen to accelerate at 28,968 kilometers per hour

*sigh*  Don't they teach the difference between speed and acceleration in the future?

Very true, thank you for the correction. I intended to say 'can be seen to accelerate to.'

Yes...but when you go out to space and out of the atmosphere your immediately suppose to stay still because the earth is moving in 67,000 miles per hour..

This is untrue. If no forces act on something, there is nothing to make it slow down. In vacuum, there is no air resistance: if something is already moving in one direction, it will keep moving at that heading and at that speed. What would slow it down?
You're used to thinking in terms of what happens on Earth, that's fine, but it isn't relevant in this case.

54

Flat Earth General / Re: if we're moving in space how can we go out to space ?

« on: August 28, 2015, 02:20:35 AM »

Have you ever put your hand outside a car window? I've enjoyed doing that these last few weeks. Something does not slow immediately, just because it leaves whatever accelerated it. The only thing that would make something stop outside of a car is air resistance: which there is none of in space.

In addition, rockets can be seen to accelerate at 28,968 kilometers per hour, and that's with air resistance as a factor. Even if keeping up were an issue (which it isn't) it would be no problem.

I didn't realize just how interesting a topic rockets were, thank you. We don't have them where I'm from.

55

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 27, 2015, 09:13:28 AM »

If light had any mass at all then it would require infinite energy to get a photon going the speed of light, it's speed wouldn't be constant, and it could be stopped.  The speed of light is constant while the speed of something with mass like a car can change.  Either people in the future know nothing about physics or you are lying about being from the future, probably the latter.

Or your knowledge is incomplete. As I explained, quantum mass is the smallest possible amount of mass. Something must possess that in order to exist: photons included.
It wouldn't take infinite energy to reach the speed of light. Also as I explained, many formulas (such as those used in relatavistic calculations) actually include an m-m_q rather than an m. Quantum mass is so small as to be negligible most of the time, so you might not be aware of that, but it is the distance from quantum mass which is important in the vast majority of calculations.
Existence (quantum mass) only implies existence. Any other details, such as how much force it may exert or how much force it would take to accelerate it, rely on more than just the basic definition of existence.

You cannot keep assuming that the knowledge of your time is complete. I've noticed you doing so often, and it's a dangerous mistake. Even in your lifetime, there will be corrections and alterations and refinements. You cannot cling only to that which you learned first.

The speed of light is constant because of the quantum mass. Mass is the definition of existence in a dimension. Nothing can move faster than that which takes the smallest force (negligible) to be accelerated as much as possible. The reason the speed of light takes the specific value it does is a very complex topic. (It relates to the quantum mass itself, and the 'forces' exerted by spatial and time dimensions).
If you're interested, the faster an object gets, its mass actually decreases: it just decreases by reaching infinity and, through that, negative infinity: however, it's impossible to reach that state because it would mean it has a smaller than quantum mass, which can't exist.

56

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 27, 2015, 05:19:23 AM »

If photons were not massless then they couldn't travel the speed of light, and light obviously travels at the speed of light.

I'm not sure why you'd believe that. It is certainly true that photons have the smallest mass that it is possible to have, and it is a result of that, that they are able to travel faster than or as fast as anything else (the speed of light).
Or are you referring to the phenomenon of mass increasing with acceleration? Your time may not have the complete formula. Indeed, in many cases the 'm' for mass must be replaced by 'm - m_q' where m_q is the quantum mass. We do teach the simpler version to children, as they don't need to worry about quantum mass, but it's important to add in notable cases. The quantum mass is the basic limit for what it means to exist: alone, it can exert no force because there is a 'counter' from what you term the Higgs field. This may appear as no mass to those without proper understanding of dimensional physics, but the point is mass is, practically, measured as how far above m_q the mass is.

57

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How time proves quantom mechnics

« on: August 26, 2015, 11:49:48 AM »

So we were just using different terms for the same thing.  This means we are in a agreement right?

Perhaps. It is very unclear how you can use terms like disorder and randomness in this context, however.

58

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything

« on: August 26, 2015, 11:48:09 AM »

When you're done, you should make your family billionaires a couple generations back. Figure, it's payment enough. Whoever won that  lottery instead of you, they didn't deserve it.

When I have succeeded, I wouldn't want to risk changing time any more.

59

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 26, 2015, 11:46:08 AM »

Actually, mass is required for movement in time.  Massless particles like photons always travel through space at the speed of light and for them time doesn't exist and they are emitted and absorbed at the same instant.  All of it's light speed space-time motion is diverted to space.

Photons aren't massless: they do have negligible mass however. They still exist in spatial dimensions, they simply have quantum mass. Mass is a necessity for existing in a spatial dimension, as everything we come into contact with does.
Nothing has zero mass. Mass is required for existence in space.

For movement in time alone, mass isn't necessary. However, anything that exists exclusively in time is purely theoretical (with the exception of attractor fields), and has no impact on everyday life.

60

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How time proves quantom mechnics

« on: August 26, 2015, 10:40:37 AM »

A recent hypothesis suggests that the universe is infinite and therefore the Big Bang happened everywhere meaning that the universe was in perfect equilibrium.

Go to google.com and search "entropy" or "second law of thermodynamics".  It is defined as the degree of randomness of disorder and it always increases or stays the same in a closed system.  It's one of those laws like quantum mechanics and special repativity that is hard to wrap your head around before you really look into it.

How about this, try to give me one example of a closed system where disorder decreases.

Just because something happens everywhere does not mean there is equilibrium. Equilibrium is where all competing forces are balanced: if there is any, for example, acceleration, then forces are not balanced, even if the acceleration happens everywhere.

Thank you for informing me of how research may be done in this time. One of the earlier results lead me to something which seems to confirm what I suspected: you're still using very outdated terminology. Disorder is a very misleading term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)#Difficulties_with_the_term_.22disorder.22

Disorder to a layperson decreases in most systems. If you create a closed system with already-moving particles meeting resistance, you will end up either with stationary particles or oarticles moving at a constant speed: particles apparently moving in an ordered fashion. However, they will be at equilibrium.
This is expressed in the information I found above: "Technically, entropy, from this perspective, is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium — that is, to perfect internal disorder."
Perfect disorder would be predictable behavior. Forces would be balanced: this is not randomness.