New Philadelphia Revelations

[dariusdjc]

it also seems dr. john searl stumbled upon the electromagnetic energy and anti-gravity fields as well. as you can research about his claims back in 1960s. you can read about searl's seg - http://peswiki.com/index.php/directo...ator_%28seg%29

and you can check out his website to see for yourself what he is currently working on - http://www.searlsolution.com/

videos all over youtube as well. guess now is the time for all this information o come forth.

[eyez4096]

i did some research last night on this as well as watching as many of the youtube videos as i could find...
i want to believe that their claims are plausible, but a few things stuck out as being a little weird.

first, they insist on using weird terminology such as "the law of squares" while giving very poor explanations -- only good enough to make it seem like a prank or hokey setup... they don't explain how things apply to their setup, and they insist on very vague arguments. furthermore their device setup appears to be nothing more than a fancy and extremely expensive electrical motor... they claim they can get more energy out than they put in yet give no evidence of it or even how it would be accomplished. the best part is on their members section (free), in their technical section, they go over this law of squares and make a few terrible mistakes in their "proofs" ... such as insisting without further explanation that 27/2=14.. which is true if you say for example [27/2]=greatestintfunct(27/2)=14... but they leave this out entirely and without explanation... in their proof! as a mathematician this made me want to scream...

suffice it to say that while i really want to see their setup work, they've managed to all but convince me that they're full of ... bull feces :d

-charles

[Tony P.]

i'm sure people are going to disagree with me. please try countering me so i can learn why i'm wrong.

the earth orbits the sun, and has to maintain a given velocity to prevent from falling into it due to gravity. let us call that velocity v.

let us imagine we take the earth, and make it into a giant hoop around the sun. it maintains the same velocity. the hoop still has the same gravitational pull against the sun, does it not? what if we spun this hoop incredibly fast?

would the hoop store that energy as potential energy in itself, or would it fling the energy inward towards the sun?


under the section "secrets of space, time and quantum mechanics", if space-time starts out as flat, and if accelerating it towards the speed of light makes it curved, couldn't we logically conclude that the earth itself may actually be flat, as in the same kind of flatness that the flat earth society believes in, more or less? probably less, but still.

[soup]

this reminds me of the cowboy rope tricks. the cowboy starts with a small loop of rope spinning over his head, as he spins it faster he is able to expand the rope to be a larger loop spinning around his head which then slows the loop down - he has to add energy to the rope to get the loop bigger. if energy were added to an orbiting ring to somehow make it spin faster, i would expect that the ring radius would expand until a point where some new equilibrium is reached in balancing the gravitational and centrifugal forces acting upon it.

[Tony P.]

this reminds me of the cowboy rope tricks. the cowboy starts with a small loop of rope spinning over his head, as he spins it faster he is able to expand the rope to be a larger loop spinning around his head which then slows the loop down - he has to add energy to the rope to get the loop bigger. if energy were added to an orbiting ring to somehow make it spin faster, i would expect that the ring radius would expand until a point where some new equilibrium is reached in balancing the gravitational and centrifugal forces acting upon it.

the nature of the ring/hoop would be fixed in size, so that energy has to do somewhere, doesn't it? sure, it spins faster, but wouldn't there be a tension force making it want to balance itself out somehow?

[wayshower]

dw wrote, "the lemuria talked about here is very likely what the cayce readings referred to as the "rama" empire. this group would therefore have colonized land in india....
since lemuria is also reputed to have lost land in the great flood, they may have also colonized other island areas in the pacific that sank, like in the legend of atlantis. however, the pacific basin is a huge, empty wasteland that is largely free of any submerged areas that could have been giant island continents before. "

dr. bruce peret surmises:
"we find evidence of this in the legends of mu, atlantis, lemuria, and "ancient lanka (ceylon)". ancient lanka was supposed to exist off of the west coast of india, where a series of islands now exist. however, since the water levels were much lower then, those islands were part of the coastal mountains of india. the topography of the ocean floor at that point indicates only simatic crust--no continental mass. however, by following the fracture zones and stretch marks, the ancient island of lanka can be found.

lanka is also known by the name lemuria, named after the lemurs found in both india and africa, but not in any of the intervening lands. it was assumed a land bridge once spread between africa and india, allowing these creatures to cross freely. and so was the case. consider:

"because many of its animals, plants and rocks resemble those of africa, some think that... was at one time connected to that continent. but it has also plants and animals seemingly of east indian origin. this is the basis for supposing it to be a remnant of a continent called lemuria, which is believed to have filled, in ages gone by, the central basin of the indian ocean." [comptons encyclopaedia, vol 9, 1946]

when the earth's size is reduced, as it was ages ago, an island does connect india to africa--the island of madagascar. madagascar is lemuria/ancient lanka. (the island seemed much bigger, then, because the earth was smaller)."

further, "continuing extrapolation shows that mu was the continent of north and south america combined with antartica, just after the formation of the pacific basin. the core flare formed the basin, and pushed antartica off of america, rolling it south. those survivors in america saw the continent of the west disappear, leaving only mud and volcanism. but it really isn't gone, just relocated."
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus...earthcore.html

some idea of the effect can be seen in the enlarging earth videos of neal adams which have been referred to previously on this forum.
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html

what occurs to me however, is there seems to be a slippage in time. conventional science insists that these changes took place umpty-ump millions of years ago, yet the idea that the tradition of these events should be passed down over that length of time until they appear in the ancient flood records for example doesn't seem to hold water (couldn't resist that one! ).

could it be that a major distortion of our 'space-time' could manifest the effect of warped time?

love.
neil

[eyez4096]

many of the dating schemes used in science are based on radiometric methods. these are based off of a proportional decay of radioactive matter.

the idea seems to be that the rate at which the stuff decays is proportional to the amount present. using this, if it's correct, leads to the inevitability that if any data can be gleaned about initial amounts of said material, the current amount can be used to date its creation/change.

i've read up a small amount about this method but i must admit that one part of it smells pretty funky to me; namely that such an unbelievably simple model which only contains a small portion of absolutely verifiable data is used as if it were undeniable.

as a person who has heavily studied mathematics and mathematical modeling, i have suspected for some time that the radiometric methods may be flawed. part of the problem is that science is so apt to believe that the conditions which exist today have existed for all of history, which is quite a problematic axiom. it is a nice idea but we don't really have any solid evidence for its truth. yet all of earth-science and a good portion of other physical sciences are based on this assumption.

if the half-life model is, for some reason, flawed (which i can think of very many reasons why it might be flawed but very few reasons why it should be correct) then many of the recorded and/or ancient verbal histories suddenly become more viable.

my point, beside this rant, is to highlight that not only is it possible that expansion tectonics is correct but also that the timescales we memorize in grade-school earth-sciences are set only in as much stone as the careers of those who have created them.

-charles

(((

i will also justify some of my concerns with radiometric dating. the models are based, essentially, on the idea that the rate at which something decays is proportional to how much of the stuff there is. this is a commonly used model.

ds/dt=-k*s (where k is determined by data and is the "constant of proportionality")

which becomes:

s(t)=a*exp(-k*t) where a represents the amount present at time "zero."

when will s(t)=1/2*a?

-> a/2=a*exp(-k*t) -> 1/2=exp(-k*t) -> -ln(2)=-k*t -> t=ln(2)/k

similarly, s(t)=1/4*a:

-> a/4=a*exp(-k*t) -> -ln(4)=-k*t -> t=ln(4)/k=(ln(2)+ln(2))/k=2*(ln(2)/k)

so it takes twice as long for it to decay to 1/4 as it did for it to decay to 1/2 -- it follows with some work that it takes exactly the same amount of time for half of any quantity of material to decay.

but i'm unaware of any good data to show why the material should decay like this. i know that the original versions of the model were based on observations of decaying material but know of no reason based on fundamental scientific reasoning why radioactive material should decay like this (besides the possibility that the scientist who discovered it was pressed to find a decently fitting model and chose one of the simplest and best studied models to test and saw that it fit moderately well). why does a big clump of matter decay more rapidly than a small clump? more accurately, why does 70/30 material become more like 50/50 faster than 60/40 material does? i can think of a few decent answers but they are highly presumptuous about phenomena with which i am only a novice.

in any case, they calibrate this model by data of "how much of material s should be present at some given time based on what we know about the material like s or near s geographically?" but this denies the complexity of things which could have enormous impacts which we know very little about. it is all too common for scientists that i've met to not concern themselves with the fudge-factors of the models they use or to concern themselves with the potential for anomalies by simply stating that it's "statistically unlikely" (which means that it can happen). even worse, if the data which the system is calibrated to is somehow of a statistically anomalous nature, the whole of data produced by the model will be flawed! the more data used to calibrate the model, the less likely this becomes, but it is repeatedly shown in applied mathematics that a "best fit" is almost never a "correct fit".

and this is why applied mathematicians are at odds with physical scientists :d


)))

[eyez4096]

i also found this link while browsing around.. the author presents his arguments far better than i recently attempted to, though he occasionally comes to weird conclusions and starts from a position i don't necessarily agree with (validating biblical data).

i can't stress enough how much i've come to distrust conventional scientific conclusions having completed my bs degree -- and talked directly with some professors trying to probe them for information which they seem to lack or have overlooked/denied. some of the assumptions which are axiomatic to traditional science are so presumptuous that i find them borderline absurd.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

"of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. on the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. we are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods. we are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous. this gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points. since there doesn’t seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.

however, this causes a problem for those who believe based on the bible that life has only existed on the earth for a few thousand years, since fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be over 500 million years old by radiometric methods, and some fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be billions of years old. if these dates are correct, this calls the biblical account of a recent creation of life into question.

after study and discussion of this question, i now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. i believe that there is a great need for this information to be made known, so i am making this article available in the hopes that it will enlighten others who are considering these questions. even the creationist accounts that i have read do not adequately treat these issues."

[soup]

there seems an esoteric form of dating related to coral bed fossils, looking at density structures within them not so unlike counting tree rings. they call such dating efforts "paleoceanography" and attempts have been made using this to look at things like the earth's orbital precession (and related climate changes.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0129064804.htm

[inside-up]

dw:

"to deal with the basics, these guys call themselves "gypsies" at least once. i would encourage you not to take this literally, as it may well be a code for a secret society or insider group..."

i'm not ready to dismiss the possibility that they really were gypsies. if they were not gypsies then they at least had some background knowledge of gypsies. this is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for a non-gypsy. still, the material makes a good deal of sense when you read it as written by gypsies with at least one of them having some inside knowledge of the philadelphia experiment.

it was difficult for me to follow which ones were saying what, but it seemed like it was only allende who talked of gov. projects, and the others talked about ancient knowledge and science and whether humans could handle it with their lack of philosophical understanding, etc. take into account that this was written in the 1950's and the general lack of spiritual awareness of the time, and you get a very pessimistic and negative sounding analysis or criticism on the state of humanity. also, gypsies were enslaved and persecuted by european governments and churches which led them to distrust non-gypsies.

when explaining the cross that was found buried in the state of georgia (pp 71) one of them state:

cross is atruscan-lemurian, language is that

now called "black tongue" spoken by "gitana"
the world over. show this to a brother-gypsy
& lord know what the reaction would be if the
original were shown. it is a chiefs or nabobs
own insignia of clan. he flew to that place
but had to walk, later. he died from walking
for his muscles were not used to or for such
purpose. manner of death indicated by horses
head, even tho there were no horses on this land
at that time. his name and address & his accomplishments
are signified on the metal. the cross
was left so that the body might be brought home.

gitanos are one of the main groups of the roma people (known as gypsies) recognized by some authorities. he says they speak the same language, black tongue, that is written on this ancient cross. if he is merely an insider and not a gypsy then he has deemed it important enough to have studied them and their connection to atruscan-lemurian culture (or he knew gitana are gypsies and made the rest up).

also notice the similarity between 'roma' and 'rama' (may or may not be coincidental), and that "both linguistic and genetic evidence indicate that the roma originated on the indian subcontinent". although the sudden appearance of the roma in europe remains a mystery. the first written records of them is from 800 a.d. according to wiki. they have had a reputation for having magical or psychic powers since at least the year 803.

the following suggests that this (particular?) group of gypsies have through the generations passed down knowledge of the "great war" and reiterates that their own origin is unknown to humanity.

if the history of the great war of the ancients
were ever recorded, except by the black-tongued
ones own tales, it would cause man to stand

in awe (or disbelieve) that such huge satelitic

masses were ever deliberately tossed throo

this atmosphere in an attempt to demolish all

of the "little men"2 great works. fortunately
for mankinds ego only a gypsy will tell another
of that catastrophe. and we are a
descredited (sic) peopole (sic) , ages ago. hah! yet,
man wonders where "we"2came from, and i
do not believe that they will ever know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/roma_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/history_of_the_roma_people