| Author |
Message |
   
Eric_drouin
Member
Post Number: 173
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 29, 2007 - 08:14 pm: | 
|
Hi:
This one is for Michael Horn
You should perhaps update the predictions for planets beyond Pluto by this:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=KBOs&Display=OverviewLong
I think update from Billy and FIGU is
required, with the new info available.
Peace |
Scott
Moderator
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 12-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 - 07:58 pm: |
|
Hello,
Here is a link to a car which is close to the design of cars which were viewed by Billy during his visit to SF in the future.
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/chery-s16-2005-concept/557692/
In addition Wendelle Stevens recently stated it needs to be more egg shaped with more glass on the roof and no side mirrors.
Regards
Scott |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 07:39 am: |
|
Hi Scott....
Check this one out!
Was just announced today! And for only: US 2,500!
See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_bi_ge/india_ultracheap_car_12
Click on the image of the company chairman at left...to get a better view.
Edward. |
Scott
Moderator
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 12-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 - 08:15 pm: |
|
Hello,
Does anyone know who posted these pictures on this website? http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/meier/index.php/Gallery?
The image of the Mars Viking Orbiters were supposedly photographed by Billy during his great mission (1975), with the explanation provide by Mr. Randolph Winters that this and other objects were in orbit in 1976. This to me throws some doubt as to the validity of this photo, as the Orbiter didn't begin its mission until June 1976, which does not correspond with the time the photo was taken. Possibly there is another explanation for this?, (possibly a small time jump into the future) If this photo is not what it is proported to be, then this would cast doubt on some of the other photos which were depicted in the video.
Any comments
Scott |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 418
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 12:10 am: |
|
Hi Scott, I have a small comment or two. I seem to remember that this object was indeed a US space probe but that it was a publicly undisclosed one. This is only from memory and so might not be exactly correct. You might consider that the US has done many things without telling the public and this might be one of those cases. Just a thought... |
Anday727
Member
Post Number: 78
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 12:59 am: |
|
Hi Scott,
If you go to recent changes on the same site www.futureofmankind.co.uk, as I did just now because of your post, you will see who are the posters of all photos there...
Regarding the image "American Oribiter around Mars.jpg", it is posted by Aditya [as many others]
Salome,
Dejan |
The_original_dave
Member
Post Number: 179
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 03:12 am: |
|
Scott, Randolph could be mal informed about those pictures or he again decided he would distort the info to his liking. There's also the possibility that NASA actually sent the craft up months before the announcement to the public. Remember the moon landing hoax? even though the moon landing actually took place months after the hoax it's still a good example of NASA and the US lying to the public about the space programs.
Salome
Dave |
Scott
Moderator
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 12-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 03:37 am: |
|
Thank you for your ideas I will consider them. |
Peter_brodowski
Member
Post Number: 388
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 11, 2008 - 08:22 pm: |
|
(sorry moderators i dont know where to put this, but i know there are some smart people on this forum and i am looking for a little help/clarification on the following.)
i have searched and tried to find the info i am looking for but i could not find everything so here it is...
if anyone can please tell me which of the following words are actual words with definitions, and which are just not a real word at all...
dedactic
dedactorial
expodentialy
i have found similair words...
didactic
exponentialy
i am not sure but i think an expodent, or expodential relates to some mathematical term?
also i am looking for a clear definition of what Protogenesis means.
thank you. |
Cpl
Member
Post Number: 346
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 07:52 am: |
|
Hi Peter,
The exponential is "e" in mathematics. An e curve or graph increases in height greater than its increase in width/length. Hence the curve goes up in parabolic fashion -- increasing exponentially.
"Protogenic" has two entries in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary -- the condensed two large volume version of the 12 volume Oxford English Dictionary, the most comprehensive and authoritative English dictionary in existence (there isn't an entry for protogenesis in the Shorter OD):
"Protogenic"
1. (From the Greek "protogenes" meaning "first-born, primeval.") "Formed first or earliest, original, primary, primeval."
Sounds similar to "ur" in the Meier material to me, but don't take that here as an "accurate" translation. It would need confirming with FIGU.
2. "Chemistry: Of a substance, molecular species, etc. : able to to provide a hydrogen atom for protonation; protic, proton-donating."
"Protogynous" means, in botany and zoology, "of a hermaphrodite flower or animal: in which the female organs come to maturity before the male."
Perhaps from these you can work out the meaning of your word in context.
"Didactic" means "Having the character or manner of a teacher; intended to instruct; having instruction as an ulterior purpose." (Shorter OD. Vol 1.)
Best,
cpl |
Peter_brodowski
Member
Post Number: 389
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 04:49 pm: |
|
hey ther cpl, thanksbut is protogynous the same as protogenesis?
im confused as to why you gave the the definition of protogynous.
thanks again. |
J_rod7
Member
Post Number: 118
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 05:27 pm: |
|
Hello Peter,
The first three words <dedactic,dedactorial,expodentialy> are mis-spelled. Someone in too much of a hurry, someone who did not check their spelling. (Which there is too much seen, as people write in these Forums). Words without actual meaning except in the context where they are found. So look to the context for meaning, and correct the spelling in your mind as you read them.
Exponent has meanings in both language (speech, writing, etc.), and in mathematics.
In the meaning of language, an Exponent is one who expounds, advocates, elucidates or explains on a topic.
In mathematics, an exponent expresses the power of a function. Exponent in an equation is written as e.
As in: T=KeN, e means the power N to be applied to K, the result of this function is T.
Simply stated, K multiplies itself N times to give the value T.
For all values of K, then T will plot a Hyperbola when graphed.
For increasing values of N, the rate-of-change of the Hyperbola will increase.
Interestingly, for all values of K, when N=0 then T always equals 1 (unity).
For the meaning of Protogenesis, you only need to break the word into it's root components, proto and genesis.
Proto is first, primary, or original. Genesis is origin or generation. Therefore, ProtoGenesis is Primary Generation.
Salome
Let Our LOVE show in all actions,
J_rod7
|
Peter_brodowski
Member
Post Number: 390
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 08:50 pm: |
|
hello jrod,
thank you aswell,
unfortunately you lost me a bit at the end but i do get what you are saying in regards to an "exponent".
those words (dedactic,dedactorial,expodentialy)
were not the result of one being in a hurry.
the method that was used to obtain those words
is a method that i have not mastered and occasionally there is one letter missing, or in more uncommon cases, the word is similair to an actual word etc.
i had tried like you siggest, to break down the word, but i like to have other peoples views too, why look with 2 eyes when you can look with ten?
in anycase,in the original content from where i obtained those words, those words were used in the context of light (like light from a sun)
and the nature of light.
thanks again, i will print out those definitions as it will help me make sense of some things that have yet to be understood by me in their proper form and most full and complete meaning. |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 07:12 am: |
|
Hi Thomas....
Will post here, OK.
What you mentioned in your post 458, is Common Known Knowledge, to me.
Naturally, the layer which I speak of is that of human life forms...etc, on
Earth. Thus, the Earth DOES have a (sort) of Consciousness, as I explained, in
my posting. We both agree to that, OK. That is a plus.
Thus, Earth would -Indirectly - indeed, have/obtain a Consciousness, acquired
from the Consciousness', as mentioned above. Which is very relevant and
logical...I would think.
I never mentioned a 'Conscious-Consciousness,' Thomas...in my posting!
Edward. |
Sirashwin
Member
Post Number: 215
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 05:05 am: |
|
Regional Nuclear Conflict Would Create Near-global Ozone Hole, Says Study
ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2008) — A limited nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade, according to a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407172710.htm |
|
