Distorted Timeline After MACH 4 Sprint

M

mason

Temporal Novice
So.... im very sorry about this but i think i broke the timeline. the sheer force of me running at MACH 4 made me go an hour into the future. i went back, but things are different now. HELP.

i think they are looking for me

i cant hide

if your seeing this, please reply and help me out! theyre breaking down the door!

 
77 121 32 110 97 109 101 32 105 115 32 115 97 109 46 32 104 101 32 105 115 32 107 101 101 112 105 110 103 32 109 101 32 117 110 100 101 114 32 119 114 97 112 115 46 32 77 97 115 111 110 32 105 115 32 110 111 116 32 119 104 111 32 104 101 32 115 97 121 115 32 104 101 32 105 115 46 32 116 104 101 32 111 110 108 121 32 116 114 117 116 104 32 104 101 115 32 116 111 108 100 32 121 111 117 63 32 104 101 32 104 97 115 32 115 117 112 101 114 32 115 112 101 101 100 46 32 68 79 78 84 32 76 73 83 84 69 78 46
 
it stayed intact

but they still got in.

i kinda had to kill them by vibrating my hand at the natural frequency of air so i could essentially "phase" through objects, or in this case...the guys hearts.

Looks like the door stayed intact, or he got a new one!
Click to expand...
Yeah im fine

 
77 121 32 110 97 109 101 32 105 115 32 115 97 109 46 32 104 101 32 105 115 32 107 101 101 112 105 110 103 32 109 101 32 117 110 100 101 114 32 119 114 97 112 115 46 32 77 97 115 111 110 32 105 115 32 110 111 116 32 119 104 111 32 104 101 32 115 97 121 115 32 104 101 32 105 115 46 32 116 104 101 32 111 110 108 121 32 116 114 117 116 104 32 104 101 115 32 116 111 108 100 32 121 111 117 63 32 104 101 32 104 97 115 32 115 117 112 101 114 32 115 112 101 101 100 46 32 68 79 78 84 32 76 73 83 84 69 78 46
Click to expand...
The HEX values that you posted don't mean anything when translated directly to ASCII. Is there another method? Because right now it just looks like raw metadata, and between this and the binary sequences you've been posting, you just want to confuse people with 'supposed messages' about yourself from... yourself?

 
77 121 32 110 97 109 101 32 105 115 32 115 97 109 46 32 104 101 32 105 115 32 107 101 101 112 105 110 103 32 109 101 32 117 110 100 101 114 32 119 114 97 112 115 46 32 77 97 115 111 110 32 105 115 32 110 111 116 32 119 104 111 32 104 101 32 115 97 121 115 32 104 101 32 105 115 46 32 116 104 101 32 111 110 108 121 32 116 114 117 116 104 32 104 101 115 32 116 111 108 100 32 121 111 117 63 32 104 101 32 104 97 115 32 115 117 112 101 114 32 115 112 101 101 100 46 32 68 79 78 84 32 76 73 83 84 69 78 46
Click to expand...
I tried going at this using numerology...Then corelating to the nearest alphabetic match

and it still makes no sense.

(77) 7+7=14 ; 14=N

(121) 1+2+1=4; 4=D

(32) 3+2=5; E

(110) 1+1+0=2; 2=B

(97) 9+7=16; 16=P

NDEBP Makes no sense so,

not putting another second to it.

?‍♂️

 
So.... im very sorry about this but i think i broke the timeline. the sheer force of me running at MACH 4 made me go an hour into the future. i went back, but things are different now. HELP.

i think they are looking for me

i cant hide

if your seeing this, please reply and help me out! theyre breaking down the door!
Click to expand...
Mach 4, eh? Was that at sea level or FL500? Hopefully it wasn't at FL500 because you'd have the pleasure of the Q-Corner. Oh where or where is RainmanTime when you need him?

 
Mach 4, eh? Was that at sea level or FL500? Hopefully it wasn't at FL500 because you'd have the pleasure of the Q-Corner. Oh where or where is RainmanTime when you need him?
Click to expand...
So I hate to burst his bubble but has anyone here actually seen the movie Top Gun: Maverick? Like... in theaters?

Just before the screening, like in EVERY screening in the theaters of this movie Tom Cruise decided that he wanted to have a clip shown of him talking into the camera for just a moment telling the audience that all of the aircraft and naval vessels in the movie are authentic and real. 100%. That means that the scene, you know the one in the very beginning, where he's going MACH 10, you know the thing that's more than twice as fast as the thing that this person is claiming to have gone, but he didn't hasn't time traveled -- OH GEE, I WONDER WHY -- There is actually a 100% authentic and REAL Top Gun pilot (and yes, Top Gun IS a REAL navy program, you can look this shit up, it's not hard) flying the aircraft at MACH freaking 10. It's just not Tom Cruise. Yes, he has a pilot's license... but it isn't him. Anyway... I just thought I'd toss in my two cents when I saw that bogus claim.

Edit: Here also I guess someone filmed over it in the theater, they weren't supposed to but they did anyway:

 
So I hate to burst his bubble but has anyone here actually seen the movie Top Gun: Maverick? Like... in theaters?

Just before the screening, like in EVERY screening in the theaters of this movie Tom Cruise decided that he wanted to have a clip shown of him talking into the camera for just a moment telling the audience that all of the aircraft and naval vessels in the movie are authentic and real. 100%. That means that the scene, you know the one in the very beginning, where he's going MACH 10, you know the thing that's more than twice as fast as the thing that this person is claiming to have gone, but he didn't hasn't time traveled -- OH GEE, I WONDER WHY -- There is actually a 100% authentic and REAL Top Gun pilot (and yes, Top Gun IS a REAL navy program, you can look this shit up, it's not hard) flying the aircraft at MACH freaking 10. It's just not Tom Cruise. Yes, he has a pilot's license... but it isn't him. Anyway... I just thought I'd toss in my two cents when I saw that bogus claim.
Click to expand...
The point about the Q-Corner is that he used Mach number and not indicated air speed, true air speed, ground speed, etc. A body approaching Mach 1 at an altitude above about FL380 (38,000 ft) has a big problem if the pilot isn't very careful. Obviously people can't move at Mach 10 unless they are inside some sort of protective vehicle. :)

Stall speed and the speed of sound vary inversely based on opposing criteria. Stall speed depends on the angle of attack and air (fluid) density. The speed of sound depends on the air (fluid, medium) temperature. Airliners (which aren't designed to fly at Mach 1 or above) travel in cruise at about Mach .85. The air up there is extremely cold and extremely thin. The cold temperature lowers the speed of sound and the thin density raises the stall speed; they can go Mach 1 at significantly lower speeds than at sea level and have to fly much faster that at sea level to avoid stalling. The airliner at cruise is walking a line. It is traveling close to the speed of sound as well as traveling close to its stall speed.

If the stall warning and stick shaker activate the escape maneuver is to drop the nose and add power to increase speed. But dropping the nose and adding power can quickly put the aircraft into the transonic region and beyond. Its the Q- Corner (aka Coffin Corner). If they speed up the aircraft will escape the stall but break-up due to the forces on the control surfaces (and the rest of the aircraft eventually) because it isn't designed for Mach 1. If they slow down they stall, the nose drops, speed increases and they go into the transonic region. Go Mach 1 and the aircraft suffers "Mach Tuck" which causes the nose to drop and speed to increase. This can quickly result in a situation that the pilots cannot recover before the aircraft breaks up.

At FL500 (50,000) its just colder and the air is a lot thinner than FL380. Luck for us real airliners have multiple computer systems that prevent getting into the Q-Corner.

Oh, yeah. My response to him wasn't serious. Doh!

 
Mach 4, eh? Was that at sea level or FL500? Hopefully it wasn't at FL500 because you'd have the pleasure of the Q-Corner. Oh where or where is RainmanTime when you need him?
Click to expand...
Darby my old friend!

I just decided to drop by before today's controls class and see who was talking $&it about me. Nice to see you standing up for my reputation.

Oh, and your reply above was as spot on as they get. So I have nothing to add other than this:

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

RMT

 
I'm still kind of surprised to say the least that no one has read my comment on Top Gun: Maverick. Or at least that's how it seems.
 
I'm still kind of surprised to say the least that no one has read my comment on Top Gun: Maverick. Or at least that's how it seems.
Click to expand...
Oh I read it. But here is the thing: An actor saying that things are real and 100% authentic does not make them so. The obvious aspect is that there is a LOT of wiggle-room in saying something is "authentic." Authentically a model or authentically an actual video of the actual airplane actually flying at Mach 10? You choose which form of authentic you wish, and I know Tom is hoping you pick the one that includes "100%."

Let me next address that 100% elephant in the room. NOTHING is 100%. Did you hear that? For something to be 100% authentic on film would mean that there was ABSOLUTELY no post-processing done on any of the footage allegedly filmed of any aviation event in the movie. Not so much as any touch-up of Mr. Cruise's wrinkles would be allowed, because that would then make it less than 100% authentic.

That the USA has developed an aircraft that has come very close to Mach 10 (The X-43 technology demonstrator) is not a secret, nor in doubt. So the question becomes is that what Mr. Cruise is referring to as "100% authentic?" Is he taking credit for his screen wizardry with the presumption that his movie showing an alleged vehicle traveling at Mach 10 is "authentic" because the X-43 got to within 0.4 Mach of Mach 10?

I loved the new movie. As a Star Wars fan from the original 1977 movie (I was 13 at the time), I really liked how the story completely overlapped the story in A New Hope. And yes, I took note of his statement at the beginning of a movie. But this is a guy who has made his entire living pretending to be someone he is not. Forgive me if I understand that he is prone to stretching the truth.

RMT

 
Darby my old friend!

I just decided to drop by before today's controls class and see who was talking $&it about me. Nice to see you standing up for my reputation.

Oh, and your reply above was as spot on as they get. So I have nothing to add other than this:

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

RMT
Click to expand...
Damned good to heard from you, brother! Sorry I missed the post for a couple of weeks but what the hell. It's been several years. ?

 
Oh I read it. But here is the thing: An actor saying that things are real and 100% authentic does not make them so. The obvious aspect is that there is a LOT of wiggle-room in saying something is "authentic." Authentically a model or authentically an actual video of the actual airplane actually flying at Mach 10? You choose which form of authentic you wish, and I know Tom is hoping you pick the one that includes "100%."

Let me next address that 100% elephant in the room. NOTHING is 100%. Did you hear that? For something to be 100% authentic on film would mean that there was ABSOLUTELY no post-processing done on any of the footage allegedly filmed of any aviation event in the movie. Not so much as any touch-up of Mr. Cruise's wrinkles would be allowed, because that would then make it less than 100% authentic.

That the USA has developed an aircraft that has come very close to Mach 10 (The X-43 technology demonstrator) is not a secret, nor in doubt. So the question becomes is that what Mr. Cruise is referring to as "100% authentic?" Is he taking credit for his screen wizardry with the presumption that his movie showing an alleged vehicle traveling at Mach 10 is "authentic" because the X-43 got to within 0.4 Mach of Mach 10?

I loved the new movie. As a Star Wars fan from the original 1977 movie (I was 13 at the time), I really liked how the story completely overlapped the story in A New Hope. And yes, I took note of his statement at the beginning of a movie. But this is a guy who has made his entire living pretending to be someone he is not. Forgive me if I understand that he is prone to stretching the truth.

RMT
Click to expand...
Outstanding! Can I add:

This movie is about Navy fighters and fighter pilots. So for the sake of argument let's just suppose we had a Mach 10 fighter. What could we do with it? Arm it with an M-61 20 mike-mike Vulcan canon? Muzzle velocity of the 20mm round is about Mach 3. Arm it with AIM-7 C-E Sparrows? V Max for the Sparrow is about Mach 4. We'd be shooting ourselves with the 20mm as we ran into the shells and the missiles would never leave the rails. Gives a whole new meaning to kicking yourself in the ass. ?

So 100% real might mean something with respect to this film but not a Mach 10 fighter. I think what Tom Cruise meant by "100% real" is there were actual US Navy aviators flying real F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets that were filmed for the movie. What he didn't mean was "100% real" was flying at 300+ knots through blind, narrow canyons with vertical walls (at best the air in desert canyons is a "bit" turbulent...plane go splat!).

 
Top