From: tactik0001@aol.com (Tactik0001) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 23 Nov 1998 22:49:44 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Recently I was trying to imagine what it would be like to go at the speed of light or if you could really time travel. A flaw (possibily a flaw) that I noticed was that if light was only at one speed, no faster no slower, then something else would happen when you reached the speed of light. Before getting to what would happen when you reached the speed of light let me explain....: The sun created everything including us, meaning that we are light. All the little atoms that make up everything, are made of electrons and eons which are light. Now, if you, yourself were to be speeding faster than the speed of light your little light particles that make up you would be going faster then light and therefore would become something differnent than light, because light does not travel faster than light. You would now be speeding at something different than light. You would become something oppisite of anything physical. You would be simply a soul. Have we already time traveled. Wheather it be astral travel or near death experience we have already done it with out physically going anywhere. Traveling at the speed of conciousness is the power to visualize yourself there and in no time at all be in a past experience or any place. Something else that suggests this is that what really defines reality is space and time. Break the barriers of this and you are not in space and time, nor are you in reality. You are everywhere. Why physically try to time travel if what you are trying to reach is not physical. Comments Questions, e-mail me. Gunnar Groth ###### From: "Richard" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:54:05 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com - Discussions start here! Lines: 61 Message-ID: <73d5mu$o69$1@supernews.com> References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.48.95.12 X-Trace: 911874590 I0G4.QBCE5FC CF30C usenet53.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail While I agree that if you traveled near or at the speed of light, you physically would change to energy of some kind. . . I am not sure if any of that pertains to astral travel. If you are not physical while in astral form whatever it really is, why limit yourself with physical laws? A physical law says you can not go through solid objects. But you know you can. A similar law says you can not go faster than the speed of light. Why chose to obey that law and disobey the first one? -- RBWalton Visit this web page for some useful OOB links. . . www.angelfire.com/ca/onestepbeyond/ To respond, delete #nospam# rbwalton@#nospam#bigfoot.com Tactik0001 wrote in message <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com>... >Recently I was trying to imagine what it would be like to go at the speed of >light or if you could really time travel. A flaw (possibily a flaw) that I >noticed was that if light was only at one speed, no faster no slower, then >something else would happen when you reached the speed of light. Before getting >to what would happen when you reached the speed of light let me explain....: >The sun created everything including us, meaning that we are light. All the >little atoms that make up everything, are made of electrons and eons which are >light. Now, if you, yourself were to be speeding faster than the speed of light >your little light particles that make up you would be going faster then light >and therefore would become something differnent than light, because light does >not travel faster than light. You would now be speeding at something different >than light. You would become something oppisite of anything physical. You would >be simply a soul. Have we already time traveled. Wheather it be astral travel >or near death experience we have already done it with out physically going >anywhere. Traveling at the speed of conciousness is the power to visualize >yourself there and in no time at all be in a past experience or any place. >Something else that suggests this is that what really defines reality is space >and time. Break the barriers of this and you are not in space and time, nor are >you in reality. You are everywhere. Why physically try to time travel if what >you are trying to reach is not physical. > Comments Questions, e-mail me. > > >Gunnar Groth ###### From: tactik0001@aol.com (Tactik0001) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 24 Nov 1998 03:12:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <73d5mu$o69$1@supernews.com> Message-ID: <19981123221213.09500.00002507@ng02.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail I am not saying that reaching the speed of light is not ever possible or that it is not worth trying but I am saying that reaching time travel by physical means would be a lot harder than reaching it by means that you possibley possess as the same characteristics as doing it physically. If you shift to an oppistite energy than of any material, as I believe, by going faster than light, that this other energy may be something the same as or similar to the energy that you are when you have an oobe or die, or an energy that is part of you now that cannot be detected in reality because it is not part of this reality. I am suggesting that maybe this time travel that many believe in is actually reachable through an energy or releasing of an energy that has already been done. An energy that has been experienced by oobers, astral travelers, a person involved in a near death experience. I think that the spiritual energy in us is a true "anti-matter" that is hard to believe in because what is the oppisite of physical would take something of the same properties to detect it. I do not know science well at all, in fact I am only in 9th grade and science is not my thing, but this idea is something that facinates me and that I feel may hold a descent theory or personel belief. ###### Message-ID: <365B0434.4268@geocities.com> From: Life-Saver Reply-To: life-saver@geocities.com Organization: none X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <73d5mu$o69$1@supernews.com> <19981123221213.09500.00002507@ng02.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:10:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.172.247.67 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:10:07 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news3.bellglobal.com!news1.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail I just had a though about science since we are there... I once said to my firends that if teleportation was ever possible with humans (scientist succeded into teleporting a molecule (only one) recently) I would never do it. ignore for a moment the astral concept. what I thoug, is that when teleporting, they disintegrate you body, copy it as datas, and create it back somewhere else. so I though that the Me inside, woud die, and another one would be created. thus the new be would think! great! the teleportation worked. (like an instant clone) but the real me, (who got disentegrated) would now be dead. This though just surfaced back to me, but now, since I think otherwise, I now think that teleportation would result into an instant astral projection... (of more like a body projection) without any cord linking the two... so: death. scientist would see a hollow body fall to the ground after the teleportation, and the test subject... would be in his astral form, cursing at the scientists... just a though. -- Life-Saver life-saver@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/area51/lair/5498 ###### From: vtailor@gte.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:36:27 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 37 Message-ID: <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.255.244.50 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 26 00:36:27 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x6.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 208.255.244.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail In article <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com>, tactik0001@aol.com (Tactik0001) wrote: > Recently I was trying to imagine what it would be like to go at the speed of > light or if you could really time travel. A flaw (possibily a flaw) that I > noticed was that if light was only at one speed, no faster no slower, then > something else would happen when you reached the speed of light. Before From the scientific standpoint, the whole idea of time travel is absurd. The Earth and the solar system are in (we think) non-accelerated motion in some direction or another at some velocity or another relative to something or another. Going back in time means also going back in space, maybe light years for all we know. Yet, it seems to be possible. Doing it bears out what Jane Roberts' Seth (Jane Roberts' work was published during the 1970s in hardcover form by Prentice-Hall) was saying about physical reality understood as a joint construct of minds, and gives special meaning to Seth's published words about how he finds Jane Roberts' psychic group each session. Doing it also lends credence to and to one or another of Jane Roberts' novels that casually mention time travel as a throwaway topic. Bear in mind when you read these books that Seth was deliberately NOT giving the Whole Truth, and threw in a fair share of allegory along with the Partial Truth. Still, Seth's Partial Truth is a heck of a lot more interesting than, say, the atheistic speculations of the Apostle of Mythology whose lectures appear on American Pubic Television.) Oh well, now I know that the `Earth: Final Conflict' series on the UPN television network will manage to put out enough episodes to finish its second year, complete with a lot of gibberish about time travel and altered timelines. > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### Message-ID: <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> From: KEN TRIPLETT Reply-To: ken3@eurekanet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:16:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.239.134.67 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 13:16:32 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!128.174.5.49!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!NewsNG.Chicago.Qual.Net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!iagnews.iagnet.net!not-for-mail vtailor@gte.net wrote: > In article <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com>, > tactik0001@aol.com (Tactik0001) wrote: > > Recently I was trying to imagine what it would be like to go at the speed of > > light or if you could really time travel. A flaw (possibily a flaw) that I > > noticed was that if light was only at one speed, no faster no slower, then > > something else would happen when you reached the speed of light. Before > > From the scientific standpoint, the whole idea of time travel is absurd. > The Earth and the solar system are in (we think) non-accelerated motion > in some direction or another at some velocity or another relative to > something or another. Going back in time means also going back in space, > maybe light years for all we know. > Don't be too sure. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly - then buy J H Brennans book Time Travel. The New Physics takes us into the realm of what was once considered to be the sole province of the esoterically minded. Many blessings Ken > ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:04:29 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <73d5mu$o69$1@supernews.com> <19981123221213.09500.00002507@ng02.aol.com> <365B0434.4268@geocities.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <365B0434.4268@geocities.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.uwa.edu.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 The question here is what is the real Me. I beleive that I myself is purelly physical i.e every part of Me can be seen be anyone else. So any exact copy of me would be Me. So the idea of teleportation you presented would be possible. Trent On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Life-Saver wrote: > I just had a though about science since we are there... > I once said to my firends that if teleportation was ever possible with > humans (scientist succeded into teleporting a molecule (only one) > recently) I would never do it. ignore for a moment the astral concept. > what I thoug, is that when teleporting, they disintegrate you body, copy > it as datas, and create it back somewhere else. so I though that the Me > inside, woud die, and another one would be created. thus the new be > would think! great! the teleportation worked. (like an instant clone) > but the real me, (who got disentegrated) would now be dead. > > This though just surfaced back to me, but now, since I think otherwise, > I now think that teleportation would result into an instant astral > projection... (of more like a body projection) without any cord linking > the two... so: death. scientist would see a hollow body fall to the > ground after the teleportation, and the test subject... would be in his > astral form, cursing at the scientists... > > just a though. > -- > Life-Saver > life-saver@geocities.com > http://www.geocities.com/area51/lair/5498 > > ###### Message-ID: <3662E53F.7BBC@geocities.com> From: Life-Saver Reply-To: life-saver@geocities.com Organization: none X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <73d5mu$o69$1@supernews.com> <19981123221213.09500.00002507@ng02.aol.com> <365B0434.4268@geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:36:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.172.247.1 NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:36:18 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Trent Williams wrote: > > The question here is what is the real Me. I beleive that I myself is > purelly physical i.e every part of Me can be seen be anyone else. So any > exact copy of me would be Me. So the idea of teleportation you presented > would be possible. > Trent ok... but if you keep in though that about everybody in this NG support the idea of soul existance... the soul is not physical... so there goe the hope for teleportation for them one day... (since I believe in it, I would not teleport... unless I am very depressed, htat would be a original way to suicide... :) -- Life-Saver life-saver@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/area51/lair/5498 ###### From: chester basshead Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:55:17 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 1 Dec 1998 00:50:00 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Mon Nov 30 16:55:15 1998 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 55 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust132.tnt7.lax1.da.uu.net Message-ID: <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail KEN TRIPLETT wrote: > vtailor@gte.net wrote: > > > In article <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com>, > > tactik0001@aol.com (Tactik0001) wrote: > > > Recently I was trying to imagine what it would be like to go at the speed of > > > light or if you could really time travel. A flaw (possibily a flaw) that I > > > noticed was that if light was only at one speed, no faster no slower, then > > > something else would happen when you reached the speed of light. Before > > > > From the scientific standpoint, the whole idea of time travel is absurd. > > The Earth and the solar system are in (we think) non-accelerated motion > > in some direction or another at some velocity or another relative to > > something or another. Going back in time means also going back in space, > > maybe light years for all we know. > > > > Don't be too sure. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly - then buy J H > Brennans book Time Travel. > The New Physics takes us into the realm of what was once considered to be the sole > province of the esoterically minded. > Many blessings > Ken > > > I agree. Non-local activity in quantum systems or 'spookiness at a distance' as Einstein called it (and never believed it would be proven) in which twin particles, etc.. behave in the exact same way despite the distance between them, essentially proves that some sort of non-physical or muli-dimensional link or 'oneness of all things' exists. Many confused physicists were at one time trying to determine some way that the particles could communicate 'faster than the speed of light' to explain this but brilliant minds such as David Bohm (as well as his holographic model) helped most realize that their belief system must again be shattered and things must be contenplated on a much deeper level. Oneness. Implicate Order. another great book is 'the holographic universe' by michael talbot! :-) Warmly, brian ps- i don't recommend any physical form travel at the speed of light. YOUR MASS WOULD BECOME INFINITY!!! Perhaps the physical body exploding and freeing the astral would be enjoyable, though... ha ha. ;-) ###### From: chester basshead Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:04:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 1 Dec 1998 20:58:54 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Tue Dec 1 13:05:06 1998 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 41 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2cust79.tnt5.lax1.da.uu.net Message-ID: <366459D3.64E42323@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.idt.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Lars Foleide wrote: > chester basshead wrote: > > > > > ps- i don't recommend any physical form travel at the speed of light. YOUR MASS WOULD > > BECOME INFINITY!!! Perhaps the physical body exploding and freeing the astral would > > be enjoyable, though... ha ha. ;-) > > Not according to http://www.autodynamics.org > > A flaw have been found in einstein's theory and it is corrected > in autodynamics... > Check it out if you want the correct answers... > It also allow faster than light travelling... > > So stop telling people that mass will become infinity at the speed of light with solid > proof.... ;-) > > Cheers, > Lars haha. well.. I am familiar with the THEORY of autodynamics and certainly don't want to be misinterpreted as proclaiming love for the THEORY of special relativity. I wish you the best on your quest for proof. ;-) The only point I was trying to make is how many view the NEED to travel at the speed of light or beyond the speed of light for space travel to other star systems or to explain the behavior of non-local particles as an archaic mode of thought. But I'm definitely more interested in the pariahs of physics like Bohm then mainstream thought. I'm much more interested in the non local 'Aspect' experiments that speed of light stuff. To make you happy, I officially withdraw my comment about mass.. now let's attach you to a particle accelerator and see what happens. hee hee. peace from within, brian ###### Message-ID: <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:02:56 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com Lines: 21 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!ibm.net!uio.no!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p6.telia.com chester basshead wrote: > > ps- i don't recommend any physical form travel at the speed of light. YOUR MASS WOULD > BECOME INFINITY!!! Perhaps the physical body exploding and freeing the astral would > be enjoyable, though... ha ha. ;-) Not according to http://www.autodynamics.org A flaw have been found in einstein's theory and it is corrected in autodynamics... Check it out if you want the correct answers... It also allow faster than light travelling... So stop telling people that mass will become infinity at the speed of light with solid proof.... ;-) Cheers, Lars ###### Message-ID: <36640951.A3084F2@netparadise.no> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:20:49 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com Lines: 13 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p6.telia.com Lars Foleide wrote: > So stop telling people that mass will become infinity at the speed of light with solid > proof.... ;-) For that didn't understand what I meant... This is the correct line: So stop telling people that mass will become infinity at the speed of light without solid proof.... ;-) Lars ###### From: dromero@no.spam.roanoke.infi.net (Douglas J. Romero ) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: 2 Dec 1998 12:04:18 GMT Organization: InfiNet Lines: 38 Message-ID: <743ac2$102$2@nw003t.infi.net> References: <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-175.roanoke.infi.net X-Newsreader: Ink Spot 1.16 for Newton Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!208.131.160.208!news.infi.net!not-for-mail In message <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com>, KEN TRIPLETT wrote: > > > > vtailor@gte.net wrote: > > > In article <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com>, > > tactik0001@aol.com (Tactik0001) wrote: > > > Recently I was trying to imagine what it would be like to go at the speed of > > > light or if you could really time travel. A flaw (possibily a flaw) that I > > > noticed was that if light was only at one speed, no faster no slower, then > > > something else would happen when you reached the speed of light. Before > > > > From the scientific standpoint, the whole idea of time travel is absurd. > > The Earth and the solar system are in (we think) non-accelerated motion > > in some direction or another at some velocity or another relative to > > something or another. Going back in time means also going back in space, > > maybe light years for all we know. Your basic statement is incorrect. Bear in mind that the Earth, solar system, local cluster, galaxy, local galactic group, cosmic string etc... constantly experience both rotation and translation (which is rotational) therefore subjecting us all the time to centripetal and centrifugal forces (which are basically acceleration). Therefore Our scientific evidence points to just the opposite of your post... we experience NOTHING but accelerated motion systems in our daily life. You can even take it to the molecular level that comprises yorr body. The physical one that is ;). The DoggieMon -- Douglas J. Romero, MD University of Virginia Salem.-Roanoke Psychiatry Program ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: 02 Dec 1998 22:33:02 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 69 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lars Foleide writes: > > chester basshead wrote: > > > > ps- i don't recommend any physical form travel at the speed of light. YOUR M ASS WOULD > > BECOME INFINITY!!! Perhaps the physical body exploding and > freeing Why explode? Rather implode from the gravitation. Instant small black hole. But actually you will never get to that speed, because to get that infinite speed and mass you would need infinite energy to accelerate. You will run into an energy crisis long before. So instant travel will remain in the astral realm. > > the astral would > > be enjoyable, though... ha ha. ;-) At least with that OBE you would have no problems with your body calling you back :-). Or in fact getting out. The vibrations will be heavy though :-). > Not according to http://www.autodynamics.org > > A flaw have been found in einstein's theory and it is corrected > in autodynamics... > Check it out if you want the correct answers... > It also allow faster than light travelling... Claims. Based on some mathematical derivations. But where are experiments to prove that their theory fits observation better than relativity does? > So stop telling people that mass will become infinity at the speed of light wi th solid > proof.... ;-) Solid proof such as: Accelerate an electron to some large fraction of light speed. Then try to deflect it with an electrical field. It gets knocked out of straight flyining path _far_slower_ than if it was traveling at lower speed. With other words: the expected behaviour of something that has gained weight. Repeat this at different speeds and you get the mass-increase curve that relativity predicts. m = m0 * sqrt ( 1 - v / c ) where: m = mass as observed, m0 mass at zero speed, v speed, c light speed And then there is all that energy and mass-defect stuff in chemical and nuclear reactions. Less energy gives less mass, more energy more mass. Observed. So chesters claim seems to fit well with observation. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### From: chester basshead Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 16:50:27 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <743ac2$102$2@nw003t.infi.net> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 3 Dec 1998 00:44:55 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Wed Dec 2 16:45:09 1998 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 52 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2cust75.tnt5.lax1.da.uu.net Message-ID: <3665E052.B57ACF21@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.217.77.43!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Hi. Dr. Romero! Great post! Please post more often! I especially enjoyed the reference to the molecualr level.. reminded me of some of the discussions within Capra's ' Tao of Physics' Thanks! Peace from within, Brian Douglas J. Romero wrote: > In message <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com>, KEN TRIPLETT > wrote: > > > > > > > > vtailor@gte.net wrote: > > > > > In article <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com>, > > > tactik0001@aol.com (Tactik0001) wrote: > > > > Recently I was trying to imagine what it would be like to go at the > speed of > > > > light or if you could really time travel. A flaw (possibily a flaw) > that I > > > > noticed was that if light was only at one speed, no faster no slower, > then > > > > something else would happen when you reached the speed of light. Before > > > > > > From the scientific standpoint, the whole idea of time travel is absurd. > > > The Earth and the solar system are in (we think) non-accelerated motion > > > in some direction or another at some velocity or another relative to > > > something or another. Going back in time means also going back in space, > > > maybe light years for all we know. > Your basic statement is incorrect. Bear in mind that the Earth, solar system, > local cluster, galaxy, local galactic group, cosmic string etc... constantly > experience both rotation and translation (which is rotational) therefore > subjecting us all the time to centripetal and centrifugal forces (which are > basically acceleration). Therefore Our scientific evidence points to just > the opposite of your post... we experience NOTHING but accelerated motion > systems in our daily life. You can even take it to the molecular level that > comprises yorr body. The physical one that is ;). > > The DoggieMon > -- > Douglas J. Romero, MD > University of Virginia > Salem.-Roanoke Psychiatry Program ###### Message-ID: <3666BDA8.2FA5E94@netparadise.no> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 16:34:48 +0000 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p37.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p37.telia.com Lines: 40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!uninett.no!newsfeed.online.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p37.telia.com Neil Franklin wrote: > > Claims. Based on some mathematical derivations. But where are > experiments to prove that their theory fits observation better than > relativity does? They mostly focus on proving that the neutrino doesn't exist, something I think they have done quite well. Not sure about what experiments they have done. Haven't studied the theory that much, but will when I get the time and the right priority on the case. > > Solid proof such as: > > Accelerate an electron to some large fraction of light speed. Then try > to deflect it with an electrical field. It gets knocked out of > straight flyining path _far_slower_ than if it was traveling at > lower speed. > > With other words: the expected behaviour of something that has gained > weight. Repeat this at different speeds and you get the mass-increase > curve that relativity predicts. > > m = m0 * sqrt ( 1 - v / c ) > > where: m = mass as observed, m0 mass at zero speed, v speed, c light speed Don't think it says that mass remains the same. Just that it doesn't become infinite. But I couldn't access the server for some weird reason to check it out... So I wouldn't be too sure on that your experiment prove autodynamics wrong. Cheers, Lars ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: 03 Dec 1998 22:51:47 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 58 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> <3666BDA8.2FA5E94@netparadise.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lars Foleide writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > Claims. Based on some mathematical derivations. But where are > > experiments to prove that their theory fits observation better than > > relativity does? > > They mostly focus on proving that the neutrino doesn't exist, something > I think they have done quite well. Proving non existance? Now that could be difficult. Cries of "you did not look hard enough". Hmmm, scientists talking just like usually parapsychologists do it to skeptics who deny PSI :-). Anyway proving no neutrinos would only break the existing theory on quantum physical particle reactions (that is where the neutrino got proposed), but not relativity. Even worse for you it would not prove autodynamics, just that an new theory is needed. If autodynamics contradicts observation on the behaviour of mass then it is doomed anyway. > > m = m0 * sqrt ( 1 - v / c ) > > > > where: m = mass as observed, m0 mass at zero speed, v speed, c light speed Mea culpa. That should have been /, not *. Just checked it in physics book. > Don't think it says that mass remains the same. > Just that it doesn't become infinite. But in above formula it does. For v->c, v/c -> 1, 1-v/c -> 0, sqrt -> 0 m0/sqrt -> infinite. And observation follows this formulas curve as far as scientists have tested it. Physics book gives table going up to 99.995% c -> m/m0 = 100, but that seems to be just the maths curve, no mentioning how far up it was tested. BTW: 10% c is 1.01, 90% c is 2.29, 99% c is 7.09, 99.9% c is 22.4 > So I wouldn't be too sure on that your experiment prove autodynamics wrong. If autodynamics claims (as you understadn it) that mass does not become infinite. Then this does prove it wrong. I lack the time and deep understanding of relatiity to go and check it. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### From: vtailor@gte.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:29:12 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 22 Message-ID: <7473bk$nt6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> <36640951.A3084F2@netparadise.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.255.243.24 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Dec 03 22:29:12 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 208.255.243.24 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.207.0.26!nntp.giganews.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail In article <36640951.A3084F2@netparadise.no>, Lars Foleide wrote: > Lars Foleide wrote: > > > So stop telling people that mass will become infinity at the speed of light with solid > > proof.... ;-) > If you just send a mind back in time, as in the Seth books by Jane Roberts (Prentice-Hall, 1970s and 1980s, translated into Swedish and Danish), then you aren't talking about the speed of light at all. In fact, all you are talking about is a Sethian past-life regression using hypnosis. It is even theoretically possible to have the subject become a `real' time traveller by exchanging bodies with his past-life persona, although I personally have not tried this, and I haven't the foggiest idea of how it will work in practise, and what kind of problems in life support at the very least that might cause. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### Message-ID: <366C0BDB.A6A8ED@netparadise.no> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 17:09:48 +0000 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> <3666BDA8.2FA5E94@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p16.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p16.telia.com Lines: 96 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p16.telia.com Neil Franklin wrote: > Lars Foleide writes: > > > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > > > Claims. Based on some mathematical derivations. But where are > > > experiments to prove that their theory fits observation better than > > > relativity does? > > > > They mostly focus on proving that the neutrino doesn't exist, something > > I think they have done quite well. > > Proving non existance? Now that could be difficult. Cries of "you did > not look hard enough". Hmmm, scientists talking just like usually > parapsychologists do it to skeptics who deny PSI :-). > - AD does not need the neutrino. - An experiment performed at MIT by Buechner and Van de Graaff published in PR proves that the electron neutrino does not exist. > > Anyway proving no neutrinos would only break the existing theory on > quantum physical particle reactions (that is where the neutrino got > proposed), but not relativity. Too bad for quantum physical particle reactions.... > > Even worse for you it would not prove autodynamics, just that an new > theory is needed. If autodynamics contradicts observation on the > behaviour of mass then it is doomed anyway. I'm sure that you will get a reasonable answer to this if you ask them on their mailing list. Or send an email. I'm sure there isn't one single issue that the skeptics haven't asked them about. I have been on their mailing list for quite some while, so I should now... > > > > m = m0 * sqrt ( 1 - v / c ) > > > > > > where: m = mass as observed, m0 mass at zero speed, v speed, c light speed > > Mea culpa. That should have been /, not *. Just checked it in physics book. It is in fact * in autodynamics... motion mass decrease when the the kinetic energy rise. > > > Don't think it says that mass remains the same. > > Just that it doesn't become infinite. > > But in above formula it does. Motion mass is zero at speed light in autodynamics... Just pure energy.... > For v->c, v/c -> 1, 1-v/c -> 0, sqrt -> 0 m0/sqrt -> infinite. > > And observation follows this formulas curve as far as scientists have > tested it. How was this mass measured? Through kinetic energy? > Physics book gives table going up to 99.995% c -> m/m0 = 100, but that > seems to be just the maths curve, no mentioning how far up it was tested. > > BTW: 10% c is 1.01, 90% c is 2.29, 99% c is 7.09, 99.9% c is 22.4 > > > So I wouldn't be too sure on that your experiment prove autodynamics wrong. > > If autodynamics claims (as you understadn it) that mass does not become > infinite. Then this does prove it wrong. I lack the time and deep > understanding of relatiity to go and check it. I'm far from an expert in autodynamics, but this should be the least problem for the people at autodynamics to explain.... They have been faced with bigger problems... I lack the interest to check out relativity further, but if I one day find the time and motivation will I certainly look into autodynamics... It is not a new theory, it has been around for at least 50 years... It just has big problems getting accepted... It is like changing the religion to someone... Cheers, Lars http://www.autodynamics.org ###### Message-ID: <366C0E7A.434357DC@netparadise.no> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 17:20:58 +0000 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> <36640951.A3084F2@netparadise.no> <7473bk$nt6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p16.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p16.telia.com Lines: 41 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p16.telia.com vtailor@gte.net wrote: > In article <36640951.A3084F2@netparadise.no>, > Lars Foleide wrote: > > Lars Foleide wrote: > > > > > So stop telling people that mass will become infinity at the speed of light > with solid > > > proof.... ;-) > > > If you just send a mind back in time, as in the Seth books by Jane Roberts > (Prentice-Hall, 1970s and 1980s, translated into Swedish and Danish), then > you aren't talking about the speed of light at all. In fact, all you are > talking about is a Sethian past-life regression using hypnosis. Time travel has nothing to do with the speed of light... And I think I will have to read one of Seths books one day, it is just that they are soooo thick... > It is even theoretically possible to have the subject become a `real' > time traveller by exchanging bodies with his past-life persona, although > I personally have not tried this, and I haven't the foggiest idea of how > it will work in practise, and what kind of problems in life support at > the very least that might cause. That was an interesting idea I haven't thought of......Thanks... Would be fun leaving the body, travelling to the future and get to know someone in the future... Then some day when both are out of body you might try to exchange bodies. But that must be difficult. You have to travel into the future while out of body, while the other has to travel to the past. I guess it would be easier if you just travelled to the future and "borrowed" the future body for a few hours while your own was sleeping back home in the past. Cheers, Lars ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: 07 Dec 1998 23:18:13 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 49 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> <3666BDA8.2FA5E94@netparadise.no> <366C0BDB.A6A8ED@netparadise.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lars Foleide writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > Anyway proving no neutrinos would only break the existing theory on > > quantum physical particle reactions (that is where the neutrino got > > proposed), but not relativity. > > Too bad for quantum physical particle reactions.... Bad for quantum physical particle reactions, but insignificant for relativity. That was the point I was making. > > > > m = m0 * sqrt ( 1 - v / c ) > > Mea culpa. That should have been /, not *. Just checked it in physics book. > > It is in fact * in autodynamics... > motion mass decrease when the the kinetic energy rise. Hmmmm. Have they got experiments to back up that by observation? What are these experiments? > Motion mass is zero at speed light in autodynamics... > Just pure energy.... Which with m = E/c^2 has mass. At least in relativity. > > For v->c, v/c -> 1, 1-v/c -> 0, sqrt -> 0 m0/sqrt -> infinite. > > > > And observation follows this formulas curve as far as scientists have > > tested it. > > How was this mass measured? > Through kinetic energy? Send accelerated electrons through an electrical field that tries to pull them off of the straight line. With an constant field (and therefore constant force F) the sideways acceleration a becomes smaller (which means more mass was being accelerated a = F/m -> m = F/a), the faster the electrons are. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### Message-ID: <366CE9E5.1B7D074@netparadise.no> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:57:10 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> <36640520.FF73C874@netparadise.no> <3666BDA8.2FA5E94@netparadise.no> <366C0BDB.A6A8ED@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p27.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p27.telia.com Lines: 67 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.online.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p27.telia.com Neil Franklin wrote: > Lars Foleide writes: > > > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > > Anyway proving no neutrinos would only break the existing theory on > > > quantum physical particle reactions (that is where the neutrino got > > > proposed), but not relativity. > > > > Too bad for quantum physical particle reactions.... > > Bad for quantum physical particle reactions, but insignificant for > relativity. That was the point I was making. SR values - EXPERIMENTAL values = NEUTRINO SPECTRUM AD values - EXPERIMENTAL values = ZERO See? The math in SR is wrong compared to EXPERIMENTAL values, therefore are they making up this socalled neutrino. > > > > > > m = m0 * sqrt ( 1 - v / c ) > > > Mea culpa. That should have been /, not *. Just checked it in physics book. > > > > It is in fact * in autodynamics... > > motion mass decrease when the the kinetic energy rise. > > Hmmmm. Have they got experiments to back up that by observation? What > are these experiments? Don't know... > > > Motion mass is zero at speed light in autodynamics... > > Just pure energy.... > > Which with m = E/c^2 has mass. At least in relativity. This one if found in AD too. At light speed, mass is transformed to energy. In SR, energy and mass becomes infinite. (Which means that light speed is impossible...) > > > > For v->c, v/c -> 1, 1-v/c -> 0, sqrt -> 0 m0/sqrt -> infinite. > > > > > > And observation follows this formulas curve as far as scientists have > > > tested it. > > > > How was this mass measured? > > Through kinetic energy? > > Send accelerated electrons through an electrical field that tries to > pull them off of the straight line. With an constant field (and > therefore constant force F) the sideways acceleration a becomes > smaller (which means more mass was being accelerated a = F/m -> m = > F/a), the faster the electrons are. > Did you know that according to AD: any particle no matter what mass, can use all its mass to accelerate itself to light speed Cheers, Lars ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:40:12 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <73d5mu$o69$1@supernews.com> <19981123221213.09500.00002507@ng02.aol.com> <365B0434.4268@geocities.com> <3662E53F.7BBC@geocities.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3662E53F.7BBC@geocities.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 hehehe, I thought my views would be a radical idea in this ng. But what about the view of a soul not centred around that of the physical body. What about a soul which encompesses the whole universe. This way, it will not matter what physical material your body is made out of at the other end of the teleportation, because your soul belonged to everthing in the first place. Trent On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Life-Saver wrote: > Trent Williams wrote: > > > > The question here is what is the real Me. I beleive that I myself is > > purelly physical i.e every part of Me can be seen be anyone else. So any > > exact copy of me would be Me. So the idea of teleportation you presented > > would be possible. > > Trent > ok... but if you keep in though that about everybody in this NG support > the idea of soul existance... the soul is not physical... so there goe > the hope for teleportation for them one day... (since I believe in it, > I would not teleport... unless I am very depressed, htat would be a > original way to suicide... :) > > -- > Life-Saver > life-saver@geocities.com > http://www.geocities.com/area51/lair/5498 > > ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:10:51 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <19981123174944.17168.00001963@ng63.aol.com> <73i7qa$qo7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36618F73.83CF009A@eurekanet.com> <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <36633E74.F5D19020@earthlink.nXXXet> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!easynet-fr!uunet!in2.uu.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 > another great book is 'the holographic universe' by michael talbot! > > :-) > > Warmly, > > brian I started reading that book and thought it was sh*t. What do you think? Trent ###### From: ageofself@aol.com (AgeofSelf) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Lines: 4 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 23 Dec 1998 23:20:56 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: Message-ID: <19981223182056.01146.00000737@ng-cb1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail yep... talk to me... ###### From: smick818@aol.comspamnate (SMICK818) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Lines: 1 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 2 Jan 1999 20:19:57 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <19981223182056.01146.00000737@ng-cb1.aol.com> Message-ID: <19990102151957.25649.00005753@ng20.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail I, for one, am very interested in this topic. ###### From: "Red2" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 21:48:26 -0500 Organization: FASTNET(tm) PA/NJ/DE Internet Lines: 7 Message-ID: <76mm16$n5m$1@news1.fast.net> References: <19981223182056.01146.00000737@ng-cb1.aol.com> <19990102151957.25649.00005753@ng20.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: maxtnt04-abe-247.fast.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newshub.northeast.verio.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.fast.net!news.fast.net!not-for-mail Have you read "Adventures Beyond the Body" by William Buhlman?? SMICK818 wrote in message <19990102151957.25649.00005753@ng20.aol.com>... >I, for one, am very interested in this topic. ###### From: silkdick@aol.com (Silk Dick) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Is Einstein's time travel really astral travel? Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 04 Jan 1999 18:56:16 GMT References: <19990102151957.25649.00005753@ng20.aol.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Message-ID: <19990104135616.23605.00002583@ngol01.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!212.63.192.161.MISMATCH!newshub.bart.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <19990102151957.25649.00005753@ng20.aol.com>, smick818@aol.comspamnate (SMICK818) writes: > >I, for one, am very interested in this topic. > Einstein's theory was based on objects traveling near, at, or faster than the speed of light. "Astral" MEANS "Light", so yes, it could be reckoned as such... Dick Silk, The Computer Tutor www.citysearch.com/nas/computertutor SilkDick@aol.com pager #615-923-1696