At the time, Bara was being interviewed by Brooks Agnew on something called X-Squared radio, which still exists and calls itself "the #1 talk radio program in America on Sunday nights." Agnew is a strange fellow indeed. Some of his on-line résumé is probably true ("an internationally acclaimed lecturer on energy, manufacturing, and quality improvement"), but Metabunk has outed him as a fake Ph.D., and his ideas about a hollow Earth and time travel make me giggle a bit.
The secret door
What made me think about Agnew recently was the fact that he was one of the guests "behind the secret door" for George Noory on 24th October. I dozed off for some of it but I heard Agnew say that Earth's atmosphere has 60% less xenon than the solar system average. Well, this blog and its readers seem to like xenon as subject matter—my article Yes, folks, it's the xenon isotope show from May 2016 has had 5,418 page views so far, and 48 comments—both figures well above average.
So is Agnew correct? I had to research the question (xenon abundance not being something I discuss on a daily basis) and in fact xenon is even less abundant in the atmosphere than he said. The solar system in general has 18.25 times as much xenon as has Earth's atmosphere. Earth shares its relative lack of Xe with the Sun, and most known comets and asteroids. Wikipedia tells me that the explanation may be that the missing gas is trapped inside quartz.
Agnew seems to think that Xe depletion supports the hollow Earth hypothesis. My opinion is that Agnew's books support the hypothesis that he's a dreamer. It's more likely that Mike Bara will get his restraining order than that time travel will be possible in our lifetimes.
© 1975 Columbia Records, John Berg
Time travel doesn't have to be discovered in our lifetimes. It can be discovered at any time in the future or past and someone can kindly bring us a working device. Or, since some designs are quite large, aliens might have left one in space.
Thanks for the comment. I have heard it said (probably on C2C) that there's a fundamental limitation on travel into the past. It is that you can never get further back than the time at which your time travel machine was invented.
Of course the science says that any kind of time travel in the sense of "Oh, let's have a look at what the world was/will be then pop back to the present" is never going to be possible. By travelling intergalactic distances at vast speeds you can get into the future but then you can't get back again.
I guess I'd allow the possibility that some currently-unknown technology could project into the past, but it makes sense that there would be some absolute limit on that.
Agnew is still a dreamer. :-)
Art Bell rhetorically used to ask, "If time travel is ever to be invented, then where are all the time travelers?"
The way I think of it, is that to go back in time would be to change it. To change time would be to destroy the timeline; to destroy all time, itself. Since we are all still here, time travel will never be invented. As far as the string hypothesis of infinite universes or dimensions, so that anything that's possible is in fact reality somewhere, would result in absolute phase cancellation; again, annihilation.
There is strong anecdotal evidence for the phenomenon of bi-location, though, which would render the speed of light, irrelevant. My mother and I have both witnessed that ourselves. Still, that wouldn't take one back in time, but rather into the future, perhaps.
Strange. I time travel twice a year. For some reason around March I go to sleep and when I wake up and it's an hour into the future. Then for some reason around November I go to sleep and I've travelled an hour back into the past.
Clearly alien abduction.
It's time or rather...what does one mean when on casually drops the word time.
Time as we 'learned' to understand it does not exist at all. It is a non existing construct agreed upon
based on the rotation of the planet we live on in relation to the sun we revolve around.
A clock, any clock, does not and will never 'tell time' and or measure time.
The only thing it 'tells' and and measures is its own movement be it mechanical or electrical and the construct's it refers to etc
The egotistic maniac known to history as Einstein only made it worse, exceedingly worse beyond the normal boudoirs of idiocy.
:-) and before anyone reaches the state of a fried noodle because I rumbled at the pedestal of that over glorified and sanctified moron called Einstein;
In science, real science, there always has been a problem with 'time'
The agreed upon concept only works in reverse or backwards if you will. In that direction the laws of Newton and even the silly ideas of Einstein work for the most parts.
However....the agreed upon construct we call time always points to the future and to this day there is no known law of physics
that explains this problem. The problem that it is a one way system although there is no law that prevents it from shifting it in the reverse :-)
We have system builded upon system that had one tiny major flaw in it from the start...and that the key word..start.
Our consciousness is molded around the problem that everything needs to have a beginning and an end resulting in the biggest problem of it all, the flawed big bang concept.
Anonymous: I suppose you know that we need to take account of Einstein's special and general relativity for our satnav systems to work accurately?
expat: I was thinking of the Tipler cylinder
which (if it worked) could indeed only take you to times after it was built. Which is why we could only use it to travel into our past if we found one already built out there in space. I first learned of it from Larry Niven's rather good short story "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation".
That's good info. Thanks—I'd not heard of that before.
"Anonymous: I suppose you know that we need to take account of Einstein's special and general relativity for our satnav systems to work accurately?"
Are you playing silly buggers? Naturally every engineer knows how satnav works. But what does that has to do with Einstein? Hardly his invention is it? My argument was solely focused on the problem with time and yes I do not have any respect for that character called Einstein. Most certainly not if one looks behind the pr screen preventing on how this dude was made famous. Anyway,
I focused on the problem with time. But if you want sidetrack the argument by paynig hommage to the workings behind satnav the following scientists spring to mind Lorentz, Larmor, Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Poincaré, De Pretto and Hasenohrl to name e select few.
It's curious that in ancient Hebrew Prophecy, future events are written in past tense, and past events are written in future tense.
Hal Lindsey has noted that it's as if one were to stand in a train tunnel as the train approaches. Never mind the hazard and questionable legality, in this hypothetical example. One would see the headlight coming, but that's about it. However, if one were perched high above the tunnel, perhaps on top the ridge that the tunnel is carved out of, one might have a view of the entire train headed towards the tunnel, as well as being able to see the train exit the tunnel on the other side. When John was taken out in the spirit, and into Heaven, he had such a distant perspective.
It might be possible to view the past, but without actually traveling back in time.
That's it; I've got it! Seriously, if we could position a Hubble type telescope at the center of the Universe where the supposed Big Bang has been imaged and point it towards Earth, we could capture images from the past.
"That's it; I've got it! Seriously, if we could position a Hubble type telescope at the center of the Universe where the supposed Big Bang has been imaged and point it towards Earth, we could capture images from the past."
Accurate sarcasm :-)
And also, let's image the following as a thought experiment.
Position, all at the same time [ oh bugger...there already is the illusive non existing component time :-) ] three Hubble type telescopes.
One at the supposed centre of Genesis 2.0 [ oh sorry Big Bang ]
One in orbit around the Earth and
One around a planet near the edge of the universe in accordance with Genesis 2.0
All three positions considered to be centers have by definition an imaginary maximum sphere. This maximum is defined by were it coincides with the maximum border that the universe could have reached according to the pimped version of Genesis aka the Big Bang.
Now...if we would and could point the Hubble type telescope orbiting the planet near to the edge of the universe backwards to the the centre of Genesis 2.0. We would and could see what the universe would be like before this so called eruption know to mankind as the Big Bang ....yes?
[RE: 'Genesis 2.0']
The exact words of Genesis 1:2 "and the earth was (became) formless and void", are recorded in chapter 4 verse 26 of Jeremiah. The majority of Christian scholars believe Gen. 1:2 means that the earth was created in an imperfect state. Genesis 1:1 lays the reality of creation out clearly: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The next sentence, "and the earth was formless and void", is in error in most English translations. It should read, "and the earth became formless and void." The Hebrew word translated "was formless" in English versions of the Bible is "toh-ho" a verb which means, "to lay waste".
Thea/Orbs/The: I'm not at all keen on biblical rubbish in this blog. Please cool it.
In the ancient Hebrew Scriptures found at Antioch, Syria, from which the most accurate King James is the only version translated from, there are more than twelve hundred Prophecies on about eight hundred topics, eighty percent of which have all come true, exactly as foretold. That's scientifically impossible, yet true.
The other twenty percent are for future events, most of which are to occur within a seven year period of time. Just because eighty percent have been fulfilled, in and of itself doesn't prove that the remaining twenty will, so it still has to be taken on faith, but not blind faith.
Like a trusted old friend who has never betrayed you, the compilation commonly called The Bible, has a proven track record which may be similarly relied upon. If you don't like The Bible, Patrick, you would better protect your credibility by avoiding ad hominem derision, and stick to the facts.
That Dick Hoagland doesn't like the Bible either. Is it fair to state that Expat and Richard C. Hoagland are like to peas in a pod?
Theadora/The orbs whiperer [sic]/THE/anonymous: Keep your silly superstitions off my blog!!
Uncle: Ha-ha, I don't think that one point of agreement is enough. There are so many points on which we violently disagree. Go here for a partial list.
The issue I have regarding dragging Einstein into any discussion is you cannot falsify his theories. When standard relativity breaks down special relativity takes over and vice versa.
With the news these days I'm going with the ancient theory first proposed by the ancient philosopher Comicus. In response to Aristotle. "There is no gravity, the earth sucks"
Replying to Anonymous:
"The issue I have regarding dragging Einstein into any discussion is you cannot falsify his theories. When standard relativity breaks down special relativity takes over and vice versa."
Nonsense. If the deflection of starlight passing the Sun fit the Newtonian prediction rather that the Einsteinian one, GR would be falsified. If satnavs worked without applying the SR and GR corrections, both SR and GR would be falsified. If Newtonian mechanics predicted the orbit of Mercury accurately, GR would be falsified. If particle accelerators could accelerate anything to much faster than the speed of light (which in Newtonian terms they should be able to do) SR would be falsified. I could go on, but what's the point?
You seem nice.
People hate when you mess with their world view. Things can be wrong. Herbert Ives never bought into relativity. Despite the interpretation put on the Ives-Stillwell experiment. People rarely go back to the original sources like Herbies take on things. Like the poop show Einsteins original paper as written is. That thing wouldn't have made it in a high school writing class, so how it got into a German physics journal, I'll never know. (Come on, show Mach a little love).
When they went back to Millikan they found out he was a choosy man when it came to picking data sets.
People say they know Maxwell's equations, but what they actually know are Heavysides interpretation of Maxwell.
Of course Maxwell wrote in the same format as Nostradamus's quatrains when it came to math.
I don't know why questioning Einstein causes so many panties to bunch. Like Gallahger said "I before e except after c. Einstein got it wrong twice in his own name.
Okay, I'll bite. What's all this bait about wondering how Einstein got famous? If searched and found this question raised on a few sites, but I don't find any conclusive explanation, or even a clear reason for the question.
Is it all just a timid sort of hint for some conspiracy to impose Einstein's view in order to bury Kozyrev's, hypothesis of, Time, Torsion, and Ether?
« Of course Maxwell wrote in the same format as Nostradamus's quatrains when it came to math. »
He did not. Maybe you think, or somebody told you, that the words "quatrain" and "quaternion" are synonyomous. FYI they are not.
Quatrain: 4-line verse, usu. rhyming ABAB. Asin a Provençal clairvoyant.
Quaternion: Mathematical operator of the form a + bi + cj +dk, where a,b,c,d are real numbers and i,j,k are vectors in 3D space. As in a Scottish genius.
It is also not true to say that the equations taught today are only Oliver Heavyside's interpretation. Heavyside converted the equations to vectors and ditched the concept of electrical elasticity. He only threw out the bathwater, not the baby. The equations as taught today describe electromagnetism very well. Every time you use your cellphone you're re-confirming it.
The Nostradamus comment was a joke. Just referring to a dense archaic math form not used much anymore.
People get too serious about subjects on this site.
The point was not to throw out Einstein or go Hoagland torsion god forbid. Merely to point out to keep an open mind, because most people get a cliff notes version of research most of the time. Rarely do they go to the source material.
I was part of a research project that did a meta evaluation of various topics in science going back to original research in order to, for lack of a better phrase, be devil advocates, and we found multiple interpretations could be had from that in some cases. Most of the time a cigar was just a cigar. Some promising different interpretations(weirdly, we found the order of discovery effected interpretation to a much larger degree than you would think). Those went upstairs and probably wound up sitting in an old filing cabinet still to this day. Still fun though.
EX: Most people are taught in a circuit that electrons wiz around rapidly lighting your light bulb. It can be expressed by E=IR. From this I can make calculations, predictions and design more complicated circuits. And it's not quite right. Electrons move in millimeters and hour. Poynting anyone.
To seriously change the topic since people seem to be getting miffed.
www.goldenage-wtic.org/encounter.html. If you ever wondered how 19 year old Hoagland got started on his doomed path, just give this a listen. You have Hynek, potential life on mars. The whole shebang.
Oh, brilliant! A cut-down version of "Night of the Encounter." The radio show that RCH likes to say was "nominated for a Peabody." But that's "nominated" as in "Dick Bertel filled out the application form correctly, enclosed a check for the correct amount, put the correct amount of postage on the envelope and sent it off." It did not win.
As far as this blog being too serious: We enjoy a joke like anyone else.
Post a Comment