John Phoenix

Hmm O.k. .. good answer.. What about Einsteins theory of the fabric of space and time that is used to settle the conflicts relativity has with Newtonian physics? - We cannot do experiments on this to 'prove the theory' as we cannot cause the sun to disappear to measure how the orbit of earth reacts nor can we observe this with telescopes because we are only seeing a fraction of space in time. Couldn't you say there was never any evidence to prove this theory and that instead of science it resides only in the realm of speculation that's not scientific? - I thought for something to be scientific it had have been able to be measured with some scientific method.. or at least that is what many scientists on here have lead me to believe. Again I am using an example they give in the show.. BTW, the show The Elegant Universe is a NOVA show.

I just saw a show found on You Tube called The Elegant Universe. What is interesting to me is that it bring to fore the fact that Science in itself is very subjective. No matter how many experiments you do to 'prove' your theories nothing is set in stone and are not truly "facts" of science in the light of new information. It can be said that Science itself is only a philosophy - only one way at looking at and finding answers to problems. It's all Theory, and at times experiments do seem to prove a theories validity yet in the face of new information those theories seem to crumble. So how can anything in science really ever be taken as fact? I will give you example. Newton gave us one understanding of gravity. Maxwell gave us an understanding of electromagnetism. Einstein gave us relativity that joins gravity and electromagnetism together but that in many ways contradicts Newtons idea of gravity when considered with the speed of light. To explain this contradiction Einstein creates the theory of the fabric of space time in relativity Yet just as Einsteins theory doesn't play fair with Newtons so does relativity conflict with quantum mechanics and thus a new theory is needed to straighten this all out.. String theory. Er.. sorry guys you may just have to go watch the show to understand what I am getting at. The show is made up into 10 minute segments starting here: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kaypee1985#p/u/40/ULlR_pkHjUQ What is really interesting is string theory could explain many things that are today not considered scientific depending on who's model you use, Newtons, Einsteins etc Ghost- alternate dimensions- spiritual beings that exist as something other than we understand and come from places we haven't dreamed could possibly exist - time travel - anti gravity devices -for example could be quantified with string theory because they cannot be proven or disproven by earlier models. - Just as Newtonian physics break down in the face of relativity. Or perhaps I shouldn't say 'breaks down', but comes to conflict with, on certain levels and relativity conflicts with quantum mechanics and so on. As in the show The Elegant Universe it seems the questionable science always seems to find answers when new theories come on the scene. Does that mean the ideas were not scientific? No, it simply means that science could not understand these ideas with the knowledge or models they had at the time. It is said when trying to study something as small as strings it is impossible and thus you can never preform experiments to validate your theories. So in light of this is String theory really considered science?

Thus you keep saying.. this guy John Kooiman hinges his findings based on Dr. Forwards work. Well, since I cant find public domain posting of that work I guess we will never know since yo guys don't have any "physics" to look at. I don't know what could be in Forwards work to make John Kooiman think he understands the concept.

SH3RL0CK, Here's the page you haven't looked at: You state, "Ok, first allow me to state I haven't looked at the links" You say: "A hard look at what? What science is involved?" If you would have looked at the link, then looked at the science of Dr. Forward that is linked to, you would have seen what science was involved. Physics Analysis Of TR-3B From FoucheMedia FoucheMedia@satx.rr.com 11-9-00 Thought you might be interested in an article posted by John Kooiman about the TR-3B gravity warping technology. I will depend on my esteemed friends and colleges who actually understand physics to rebut or support his premise. Love to hear your thoughts. After the revelation about the USAF's saucer programs in the last few months, things are getting more interesting. Especially as I stated 3 years ago that we had researched, reverse engineered, and built many saucer type prototypes since the 50s. Ed Fouche Efouche@satx.rr.com 210 681-2595 _____ From John Kooiman john.kooiman@home.com TR-3B Antigravity Physics Explained To be correct, I probably should say, "TR-3B Antigravity Physics Explained, insofar as General Relativity can be considered an explanation for gravity." Many readers of this list are probably already familiar with Edgar Fouche's description of the USA's Top Secret TR-3B triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace craft. If not, read about it here: http://fouchemedia.com/arap/speech.htm Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows: "A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption. The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent... The current MFD in the TR-3B causes the effect of making the vehicle extremely light, and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet ...My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%. The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to 40Gs... Reduced by 89%, the occupants would feel about 4.2 Gs. The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet - then who knows how fast it can go!..." I was skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claims when I first read them, as I'm sure that many of you are, but I was interested enough to do further research on what happens when you spin a plasma at high speeds in a ring (toroidal) configuration. I came across a physics article (sorry, I can't seem to locate the source right now) that described this exact configuration. The article said that, surprisingly, the charged particles of the plasma don't just spin uniformly around the ring, but they tend to take up a synchronized, tightly pitched, helical (screw thread) motion as they move around the ring. This can be understood in a general way as follows: the charged particles moving around the ring act as a current that in turn sets up a magnetic field around the ring. It is a well-known fact that electrons (or ions) tend to move in a helical fashion around magnetic field lines. Although it is a highly complex interaction, it only requires a small leap of faith to believe that the end result of these interactions between the moving charged particles (current) and associated magnetic fields results in the helical motion described above. In other words, the charged particles end up moving in very much the same pattern as the current on a wire tightly wound around a toroidal core. I thought that this was an interesting fact, but didn't see how it could possibly relate to antigravity, until I ran across the following article: "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Dr. Robert Forward, written in 1962 (available at: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/pdf/tp007.pdf). Dr. Forward's article describes several little known aspects of Einstein's General Relativity Theory that indicate how moving matter can create unusual gravitational effects. When I saw Figure 5 in Dr. Forward's article, the pieces of the puzzle all fell together. I instantly saw how the moving matter pattern that Dr. Forward describes as necessary to generate a gravitational dipole was exactly the same as the plasma ring pattern described in the physics article discussed above! If Fouche's description is even close to correct, then the TR-3B utilizes this little known loophole in General Relativity Theory to create it's antigravity effects! Even though the TR-3B can only supposedly cancel 89% of gravity (and inertia) today, there is no reason why the technology can't be improved to exceed 100% and achieve true antigravity capability! In theory, this same moving matter pattern could be mechanically reproduced by mounting a bunch of small gyroscopes all around the larger ring, with their axis on the larger ring, and then spinning both the gyroscopes and the ring at high speeds. However, as Dr. Forward points out any such mechanical system would probably fly apart before any significant antigravity effects could be generated. However, as Dr. Forward states, "By using electromagnetic forces to contain rotating systems, it would be possible for the masses to reach relativistic velocities; thus a comparatively small amount of matter, if dense enough and moving fast enough, could produce usable gravitational effects." The requirement for a dense material moving at relativistic speeds would explain the use of Mercury plasma (heavy ions). If the plasma really spins at 50,000 RPM and the Mercury ions are also moving in a tight pitched spiral, then the individual ions would be moving probably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times faster than the bulk plasma spin, in order to execute their "screw thread" motions. It is quite conceivable that the ions could be accelerated to relativistic speeds in this manner. I am guessing that you would probably want to strip the free electrons from the plasma, making a positively charged plasma, since the free electrons would tend to counter rotate and reduce the efficiency of the antigravity device. One of Einstein's postulates of GR says that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. This is consistent with Mr. Fouche's claim that inertial mass within the plasma ring is also reduced by 89%. This would also explain why the vehicle is triangular shaped. Since it still requires conventional thrusters for propulsion, the thrusters would need to be located outside of the "mass reduction zone" or else the mass of the thruster's reaction material would also be reduced, making them terribly inefficient. Since it requires a minimum of 3 legs to have a stable stool, it follows that they would need a minimum of 3 thrusters to have a stable aerospace platform. Three thrusters, located outside of the plasma ring, plus appropriate structural support, would naturally lead to a triangular shape for the vehicle. I was extremely skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claimed size for the TR-3B, of 600 feet across. At first, I thought that this must be a typo. Why would anyone in their right mind build a "Tactical Reconnaissance" vehicle 2 football fields long? They must be nuts! However, the answer to this may also be found in Dr. Forward's paper. As Dr. Forward's puts it, "...even the most optimistic calculations indicate that very large devices will be required to create usable gravitational forces. Antigravity...like all modern sciences, will require special projects involving large sums of money, men, and energy." FYI: This article has been posted to KeelyNet. You have permission to post it on your Web site, as long as proper creditation is provided. P.S. Dr. Forward has also written a number of other articles that may be of interest to readers of this list. They are located at: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/TechPubs.html. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ After reading that look at the PDF file "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Dr. Forward that can be found here: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/pdf/tp007.pdf Don't just tell me it can't happen without reading all of this and trying to see if you can make coherent since out of it. That' not taking a hard look at it at all. LOL Now, if any of you read all these things and you do understand this science, and you can put together why his explanation makes since to him to see why he arrives at his conclusions, then you are in a position to tell me it's rubbish or not. Honestly people, I love how you love to make assumptions about something without investigating it. You guys keep claiming there is nothing here but you wont go beyond that. Try to understand by Dr. Forwards science why John Kooiman thinks there is something to this. John Kooiman may have made an error someplace but he obviously believes it, and thinks he understands the science involved. That's what I mean by a hard look. SH3RL0CK. If you wish not to do this that's fine by me, but don't tell me I didn't present anything to look at when you haven't even looked at all the data. Please don't anyone answer this unless you have downloaded Dr. Forwards PDF and read it and tried to understand Mr. Kooiman's point of view. Oh crap, the PDF link is down. I will try to find another link. It is available at the American Journal of Physics But I will try to find another link to view it for free since it should be public domain by now- It was written in 1962. Guidelines to Antigravity by Robert L. Forward.

So.. it's been days and still no one will look into the science claims seriously to prove or disprove this? Someone who knows the science involved and is able to take a hard look at it? I have to find a more serious science forum. JPL doesn't have one. Oh well.

You're right. I should have said insulator instead of non insulator. I know the difference believe me..I have been in ac and heating repair for over 16 years.. thing is I don't know where my mind was...

Hey..what about using a rubber hose that you get from Home Depot? It's cheap and non-insulating..say, 5 foot long should be long enough to keep any static in your vacuum away from the PC. Just attach it to your existing vacuum hose. What do you think?

That is a very good question. I wish I thought of it..If this thing is real my best guess would be that no one else thought to try to build one of these things, exactly like they built it. This would make since to me especially if they are exploiting a little known quirk of relativity. Perhaps they did start at 1% at first and worked their way up. There are videos of these craft, or what's claimed to be these craft because people mistook them for UFO's. These were seen and filmed by thousands of people in Phoenix 1998. Of the videos I have seen they do seem to behave rather UFO like. They can hover noiselessly for long periods of time then take off in the blink of an eye. Here is one interesting video and comments. Even people who are in the service have claimed to have seen it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZpqpBVOa1U&feature=related

Thanks for the title fix. As for your answer..O.k. Thanks. I have never had a problem with the vacuum, but I don't like the idea of the dust flying all over the place. How do you keep the dust from scattering and falling back into the PC when you give it that big blast? Also, couldn't you just make a hose out of non insulating material to solve the vacuum's static electricity problem?

Timo, I copied the article just like I found it so 150 Kelvin would be correct I suppose. You bring up a good point. I would like to know what the original author says about that. Why do you suggest I discuss this with my friends and family? They know nothing of science. Top Secret is not a very high security clearance. So many people contract for the Government all the time that stuff gets leaked to the public. This is a fact. Just because the government doesn't acknowledge the leaked material doesn't make it false. For Government to go public and say yes this was leaked would ruin security further. Added later- I just found out that 150 kelvin = -189.67 degree Fahrenheit. Now I'm thinking that may be a typo. Or perhaps not.. it's a mercury based plasma. I don't know which type of plasma that would be but the temperatures for plasma are as follows. ~0 K (crystalline non-neutral plasma) to 108 K (magnetic fusion plasma) 108 kelvin = -265.27 degree Fahrenheit Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29#cite_note-9 I used a simple web based Kelvin to Fahrenheit conversion calculator for the conversions. I admit I do not understand these conversions. Wouldn't both -189.67 and -265.27 be really cold? This is not a hot plasma we are talking about? npts2020 - Interestingly enough, they do have nuclear powered aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft They had a problem with radiation shielding. But it's possible this TR-3b craft is big enough they could have the shielding. It would be really heavy but once they kick the MFD generator on they wouldn't have to worry about that. swansont - I agree. That's why I was hoping I could find an physics engineer on this forum to really look hard into the theories. (that's why I posted this in the engineering forum) They may be able to explain the stuff that most people - even you, don't understand. If not confirm it then they could at least put forth some really hard core reasons why it cannot work. I wanted to know how possible this could be or a list of reasons why the science claims fail. So far no one has been able to prove that this is 100% BS, so I don't understand the reason for moving it to the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum. (It may not fall under either category - how can we know until it is thoroughly examined?) I would think that it staying in the Engineering forum would give it a better chance to have hard core physics minded engineers examine it. The reason I say physics minded engineers and not just physicist is because it seems to me this would be their area of expertise. Perhaps this isn't the right forum. Perhaps I need to post this over at JPL. I may stand a better chance of finding people familiar with this type of thing.

Can the suction of a household vacuum create static electricity? I have heard this and I would like to know, not only is this true, but how and why? You see many people clean their PC fans with a can of compressed air. I think this is the worst way to clean a PC fan. My idea is this will only scatter the dust and much of it will fall back into your PC and get in all the nooks and crannies of the motherboard. Many times if you attempt to spray a CPU fan with a heat sink behind it, all you will do if force dust between the grooves of the heat sink making matters much worse. ( unless you actually take the fan and heat sink out so you can get to the underneath) People have a false impression I believe that all of the dust ends up outside of the PC. This is silly. A lot of that dust must settle back inside the PC. When that dust gets into hard to reach places moisture can cause it to harden and it will be much harder to remove. Dust on the motherboard can even build up with enough moisture to cause electrical shorts. I have been cleaning my computers for over 20 years with a vacuum and a q-tip or toothbrush (used very lightly) to loosen stuck on dust. I have never had a problem in all that time. The people who advertise not using a vacuum claim that this can cause static electricity and fry the motherboard. I believe this is nonsense made up by the people who want to sell you a can of compressed air. A google search turned up this: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:r9K7zjsLt2cJ:www.sgalink.org/forum/attachments/Static_Electricity-Tullis.doc+can+vacuums+cause+static+eletricity&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a But this is not the same as a household vacuum. They are talking about vacuuming out pipes for natural gas using professional equipment. I think this may be where the compressed air people got the idea from. OyVey.. I have no idea how the title got messed up.. sorry.

Of course someone would want to make tons of money from it. But, if it's Black Ops program they won't even be able to try. Remember.. The Government compartmentalizes everything. Half the people who work on the project don't have a clue what the other half is doing. There are probably only a small handful of people who actually know this crafts secrets and have the ability to make a this work and or produce another one. Your second point: No.. I disagree. The Government would be more concerned with their multi billion dollar weapon staying outside the public eye rather than any government knowing about it and wasting their funds trying to counter it. If that government were allowed to do that, they may actually succeeded .. and then the money would have been spent in vain, as well as the purpose for which the weapon was created.. it's a lose-lose situation. As far as it being a hoax.. I admit it may be.. I still want to know what scientist think of the science behind the MFD generator. Let me tell you what I find really strange. A few months ago I posted a lot on here and a lot of "hard core scientist" were quick to shoot down anything I made a thread about. Its been days.. this thread has had about 100 views and none of them have showed up to debunk this. Could it be that they cannot, because they either do not understand the science involved or they can find no fault in the theory? I also find it strange (No offense meant) that you are the ONLY person to post in this thread other than me (and Timo once).. as if they are staying away for some unknown reason. - Could it be that this forum has dried up that much since I have been around? As we hear in other science circles.. Could it be that the government has gotten to people here and instructed them to keep quiet? Hey, I don't know.. just guessing.. but if you were me, it would look strange to you too.

If the ship or the technology were real NASA would most certainly know about it. Who knows - perhaps they are using it.. but if it's true this thing is under black ops they are not going to come out and tell the public they have it or are using It. It's so far ahead of anything the public sector has they would be tipping their hand that they have a potential weapon an enemy would try to develop a defense for.

Er.. yeah I fixed my typo.. thanks.. Notice I say IF a lot in my above post.. Sure if this was something that's not experimental and the government 'could' actually talk about it freely then I suppose it would be front page news. Our government has been working on circumventing gravity since the 1920's. This is documented fact. There may be some spin on this craft granted. This first popped out in 98 I think after the Phoenix Lights thing happened and thousands of people saw a triangular shaped ship in the sky. This was the answer to it's Ours, not the ET's. Of course if this thing is just a hoax I am happy thinking the things all those folks saw was in fact a real alien space craft. Even in the past when the government had black ops aircraft and used it over enemy territory it was not reported to the public though it may have been leaked, until many years later. This is just how the government does things. So yes to me it is conceivable this thing can be real and still not be front page news. The point is the explanation of how the MFD works in both this post and the one at the bottom of the post seems quite plausible to non scientist. I wish to know what scientist do think about the MFD generator after they have had some time to digest the information.

Here you will find the story of the U.S. Air Force craft - a triangular shaped craft called the TR-3B. Questions to follow. I found this here: http://www.darkgovernment.com/tr3b.html But if you Google it, this same exact story is all over the internet: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+TR-3B+is+Code+named+Astra.+The+tactical+reconnaissance+TR-3B+ " The TR-3B is Code named Astra. The tactical reconnaissance TR-3B first operational flight was in the early 90s. The triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace platform was developed under the Top Secret, Aurora Program with SDI and black budget monies. At least 3 of the billion dollar plus TR-3Bs were flying by 1994. The Aurora is the most classified aerospace development program in existence. The TR-3B is the most exotic vehicle created by the Aurora Program. It is funded and operationally tasked by the National Reconnaissance Office, the NSA, and the CIA. The TR-3B flying triangle is not fiction and was built with technology available in the mid 80s. Not every UFO spotted is one of theirs. The TR-3B vehicles outer coating is reactive to electrical Radar stimulation and can change reflectiveness, radar absorptiveness, and color. This polymer skin, when used in conjunction with the TR-3Bs Electronic Counter Measures and, ECCM, can make the vehicle look like a small aircraft, or a flying cylinder--or even trick radar receivers into falsely detecting a variety of aircraft, no aircraft, or several aircraft at various locations. A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology. Sandia and Livermore laboratories developed the reverse engineered MFD technology. The government will go to any lengths to protect this technology. The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption. The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent. Do not misunderstand. This is not antigravity. Anti-gravity provides a repulsive force that can be used for propulsion. The MFD creates a disruption of the Earth's gravitational field upon the mass within the circular accelerator. The mass of the circular accelerator and all mass within the accelerator, such as the crew capsule, avionics, MFD systems, fuels, crew environmental systems, and the nuclear reactor, are reduced by 89%. This causes the effect of making the vehicle extremely light and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet constructed--except, of course, those UFOs we did not build. The TR-3B is a high altitude, stealth, reconnaissance platform with an indefinite loiter time. Once you get it up there at speed, it doesnt take much propulsion to maintain altitude. At Groom Lake their have been whispered rumours of a new element that acts as a catalyst to the plasma. With the vehicle mass reduced by 89%, the craft can travel at Mach 9, vertically or horizontally. My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%. The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet--then God knows how fast it can go! The 3 multimode rocket engines mounted under each corner of the craft use hydrogen or methane and oxygen as a propellent. In a liquid oxygen/hydrogen rocket system, 85% of the propellent mass is oxygen. The nuclear thermal rocket engine uses a hydrogen propellent, augmented with oxygen for additional thrust. The reactor heats the liquid hydrogen and injects liquid oxygen in the supersonic nozzle, so that the hydrogen burns concurrently in the liquid oxygen afterburner. The multimode propulsion system can; operate in the atmosphere, with thrust provided by the nuclear reactor, in the upper atmosphere, with hydrogen propulsion, and in orbit, with the combined hydrogen\ oxygen propulsion. What you have to remember is, that the 3 rocket engines only have to propel 11 percent of the mass of the Top Secret TR-3B. The engines are reportedly built by Rockwell. Many sightings of triangular UFOs are not alien vehicles but the top secret TR-3B. The NSA, NRO, CIA, and USAF have been playing a shell game with aircraft nomenclature - creating the TR-3, modified to the TR-3A, the TR-3B, and the Teir 2, 3, and 4, with suffixes like Plus or Minus added on to confuse further the fact that each of these designators is a different aircraft and not the same aerospace vehicle. A TR-3B is as different from a TR-3A as a banana is from a grape. Some of these vehicles are manned and others are unmanned. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would like hard core backed up opinions on this MFD generator from the most serious engineering experts on this forum.. This thing is supposed to reduce mass by as much as 89%. Is the science behind this sound? We know the TR-3B is a Real craft. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TR-3B This story is often accompanying details of the TR-3B. If this is true and they can reduce mass in this manner then you would have to rethink a lot of science problems that involves things you cannot do due to problems with mass. It could change the entire face of science and how we look at physics, engineering and the world around us. Also remember this technology is 11 years old now at least. If Moore's law holds true or at least if technology has doubled 7.33 times since 1998 then the experimental craft the Government is developing now could be light years ahead of even this craft! Another good story from a skeptic who researched this is found here: http://www.rense.com/general5/trb.htm This post attempts to explain why the above MFD generator is a sound scientific device. You may want to consider this before you do any heavy thinking on this subject.

Dowsing and divining have NOT been PROVEN to be hoaxes or fake. To be fair the most you can say is that Modern Science cannot explain this phenomena. There are MANY people who swear by it's working, where dowsers have found water when modern surveying equipment has failed. Your claim that " Even the most "accomplished" dowsers fail to achieve anything more than chance rates in a properly controlled experimental setup.' is simply made up off the top of your head and is Not a provable fact. All expert dowsers the world over have Not been tested. You have no way of knowing if the dowsers tested were really "accomplished" or not. This is just another tragic case of science bashing something it cannot explain or understand. True science would not presume to make the statements you have made about divining. To be fair you can say "It hasn't been proven yet or science can find no proof to explain it" but you cannot say it is always a hoax since science cannot prove this.

That's still saying it is a trick of memory. Someone posted on my reputation comment that I refuse to see evidence to the contrary. I can't see how the above is any sort of evidence. You may be right that this may happen to some humans, but I think you would be remiss in your findings to apply the above to all humans who have this experience. I do think it's more possible that we do not understand the nature of time. Everything we believe about time is from theories and none of them backed up by so hard evidence that new information can not change the way we view time. This happens to theories all the time when new information is presented so there is no reason to believe we already know all there is about time. INow, I did not know you were a scientist who studied that field professionally? Where did you work, what was your area of expertise and can you point me to peer reviewed papers you published on the subject? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And that's exactly why I am not asking you to answer this thread. I am asking scientist who studied this professionally to answer this thread. Insane_Alien, your still only telling me why it's more probable to be a memory problem. This does not account for the times when it is not a memory problem. I knew all you regulars would answer this thread in your own 'debunk' ways. As I don't have all the fancy extra info you wish me to provide, that is why I asked for scientist who have studied this professionally to answer. They will be in a position not to need any of that extra stuff you ask for. I will not post anymore on this until i read something from a credible scientist who has worked in this field. I can wait. I am patient.

I myself have done this this on two occasions. I have seen images of myself doing something or going someplace and see exactly what is going to happen in a few minutes. I will give you an example. When i was school age 6th grade I was walking home from the bus stop. I was about to walk from the sidewalk to my front door when I had this image pop into my head. In the image I saw myself walking into the house and my mother was right inside. The first thing she told me was that my uncle had passed away suddenly in his sleep the night before. I thought this was odd, and paused on the sidewalk for a second to reflect on this. I continued up to the house and as I opened the door the exact scene I described played out before me. I have heard one theory say that if you knew where all the atoms of everything was in the universe at one time you could not predict but form probabilities as to that will happen next. I am not claiming to be able to predict the future but there are millions of these types of experiences that happen to humans all the time.. they just happen without someone trying to do it. Do you think there is any way science can explain this? I don't want to hear any silly answers like this isn't possible because we don't have evidence for it. I would like to hear from people who have studied this professionally and tell me if you have found anything to explain this. There is also a related matter of people knowing the moment someone close to them far away dies, or when someone knows they will die and relates this to someone before the death happens. This happens all the time. We know this has to be a real phenomenon as it does happen. Any clues as to explain it? Again, no silly answers that say these people were just delusional or that these things are just memory playing tricks on people. That can happen, but to say this explains all of them is just not conceivable. and would be conjecture.

Thank yo JohnB for giving us this link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39420 I just read the thread and found it very interesting. I did not know such a thread existed but this is the type of discussion I hope this thread turns out to be. I would like Jill to notice, that thread is an interesting scientific discussion about ghost.. something Jill has told me is not possible and not worth talking about. (I would quote you but it seems that the post from Pseudoscience for the Responsible got deleted.) <grin> Also I would like INow to notice that the poster nor anyone else in that thread was slammed for failing to give a claim that then got picked apart or " (borrowed from Remote Viewing) " hosting a thread about something which has zero credible evidence among a group of scientifically-minded people, and expecting them to bring momentum to your thread and get the conversation rolling is not really your best approach." Yet that is exactly what happened in this thread. <Double Grin>

I understand your point of view. But hey, I can wait. Someones going to take me up on my challenge. I post about these things in the area of parapsychology because I think it's possible some of them do have roots in real science.. we just haven't found that yet.. but unless it is discussed from fresh perspectives, we never will. That's why I post these things in General Discussion.

About the definition of ghost. I honestly do not know, All I can do is guess. There are many different opinions of what ghost may be made of. I may find a few and others may find totally different ones. This is why I left this up for discussion. But if you guys must know, ( and I admit I don't know how valid this is ) but, I feel if they are real in any non imaginary way, they may be made up of some form of electromagnetic energy we cannot detect at this present time. Isn't it true over the years science has expanded its understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum- they keep adding to it? If so, then this could be plausible to me.

No I am not making any claim.. I am just throwing it out there. Hey yes, I can do the research myself and form opinions but you see I am not coming to you with a preconceived notion of right or wrong.. I am asking this to be debated on for or against.. and I expect good arguments from both sides to make the discussion interesting. Like I said, i'm throwing this topic out there. Thus simply because I brought up the subject, for you to demand that I be the one to present evidence is just silly. I want to hear what others think.. that's the whole point. But I would like for and against arguments.. try to make them is all I am asking. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You don't feel like debating a website. No Problem. If you don't want to do this you don't have to. In fact, no one says you have to read this thread or even answer this thread. Again, I am not making any claims therefore I do not have to any burden of proof on me. " On that: Asking us to examine a "hit" then try to disprove that hit by coming up with alternative explanations is placing the burden of proof on us. It doesn't work that way. " Yes it does work that way exactly. That's the whole point of this discussion as I brought it up. If you don't want to participate, no one is going to force you to. I refuse to "present something that can be examined" as i am just the host of this topic so to speak. if I were to do that, it would put me in a position for you to say " This is your evidence you presented bla bla bla". I had enough of that crap with the ghost thing, so now, I will not state a personal opinion or present evidence myself, I am just acting as the host, the person who threw this out for discussion.

Guys please do me a favor.. instead of just saying no, why don't you show me.. that's what i'm asking for.. pick apart their arguments.. don't just use that one link I gave you.. there are many websites on the web that are pro remote viewing and many people do think there are valid reasons for this remote viewing thing to be real. Find them, study them, and then expound on them. I ask you guys to do this because you are the scientist. Just saying No is too easy.. I expect better from you guys. How about someone doing this: Find a few good examples of the right on 'Hits' from a remote viewing session.. something really uncanny.. and then try to explain how it could have been done. Even if the explanation cannot be based in science but only what you think is possible, or could be possible.

I refused to give a definition of ghost because I left that up for discussion.. Thank You for the extra info on your hypothesis. Could someone come up with a different hypothesis.. How about someone do one for the argument of ghost ( as if they were real entities not just mental as Jill has provided us one of those already) and one against ghost. Could you try to make them in the form of IF THEN statements please.

The psychological explanation may be the most likely but that does not have anything to do with me finding holes in her hypothesis. Or the fact that she didn't give resources. I do not believe your statement " It's inappropriate of you to challenge Jill's suggestion until you provide some evidence of ghosts. " is valid. After all, if I had evidence of ghost I would not be having this discussion about ghost. Besides her hypothesis is bias and it reads this way. We already know Jill does not believe there is any way ghost could exist.. does this not in itself make her hypothesis invalid? I thought valid scientific hypothesis's needed to be completely objective until you have proven evidence for or against? Lastly, Jill asked for her post to be commented on. I quote Jill: " How's That? " I do not know any herme3.