Not a problem.
but you hsve to admit if the kabal is the freemason first religion that they embrace and they manage to turn it bad , for me its unsettling
Understood. But what you hear and read about Qabalah, and what you learn about it when you proceed through deep courses of study and initiation are two different things. For instance, Freemasons do not publicize that some of their teachings are based on Qabalah. But they are. If you interpret them as "evil" then all I can say is you are under-informed or mis-informed. Any and all "tools" available to mankind can be used for "good" or "evil", right? For example, I can kill with a steak knife, or a baseball bat. It is NOT the tool itself, but rather the intention behind its use. Just like there are people with good and evil intentions in everyday societies, so there are also people in secret societies who use their tools for good and evil intentions. And this is the main point of these teachings that I CAN share with you: It is all about human intention. That is the heart of spirituality... "Do what thou WILT shall be the whole of the law." Our free will is tempered by our intentions for what we wish to manifest in this world.
anyhow seeing your deep into this and quite the opposite i expected to find out today , i wish to add my sincere apology , i sir am a polite individual and not wish to pursue an aggrovative relation with you on the forum
so like i said im sorry for being invasive on your turf
Again, not a problem, but thanks for the thoughts.
all wish is to really make time travel a possiblity so please can you help do it unlike other ive known before if the kowledge is here we can do it and im willing to build it as im capable of building anything i want
please accept my sincerity into this
I do accept your sincerity, and thanks for changing your tone. You will see that I can and will change mine in response. All I can say is that I am a man of science. I teach it and I live by it. So that is why my questions will always seek to boil down any claims that people make into the basics of science.
I think we might have a problem, because from what I have read from you before, you think our current physics are flawed. They MAY be incomplete, but they are certainly not flawed. One must always "stand on the shoulders" of those who came before. If you try to throw-out all past work (esp. that work that has been experimentally verified) you are going down a path where people will always give you a hard time, and you will always have trouble convincing people that you have something that works. This is what truly invites people calling you a "crackpot".
And with this, I have now explained why I am here on this forum. As a teacher, I enjoy helping people follow the precepts of the Scientific Method. It can really help "amateurs and dabblers" quite a bit, especially once they understand how valuable the scientific method is. So, while I am not sure I can help you "make time travel a possibility", I can certainly help guide you in doing so by ensuring you are following solid scientific precepts.
Ruthless clearly understands this. And even though Reactor still has his fits of rebellion and he throws rocks at me, I think even he has come to the realization that if you want to get the attention of people in the world of science, then you have to play by the scientific method and abide by the rules we all abide by. Reactor still wants to "do it his way", but both Darby and I have warned him that he will still have to vet the mathematics and physics, even if he is "succesful" in doing what he claims he wishes to do. The reason for this is that there can ALWAYS be alternate, more mundane explanations for things you observe in an experiment. This is an issue our friend Einstein (I am afraid) will never accept. The example is the gyroscope. Observations of how a gyroscope behaves are well-documented and proven by existing physics. But he so wants to be the guy who "discovers some new science" that he refuses to accept these explanations, mostly because he does not understand the advanced mathematics that fully describe them.
Thanks,
RMT