Flow of Time Dont Exist

The Flow of Time Does Not Exist - Forum Debate On MySpace.
com
Sat, 03/15/2008 - 17:06 — Arthur Cristian
The Flow of Time Does Not Exist - Forum Debate On MySpace.com
The Flow of Time Does Not Exist
Tuesday, 11 December 2007 10:04 AM
Because of the twin paradox people believe that time somehow changes. This is not true.
People say that because particles get through the atmosphere or that atomic clocks change or
that decay rates change then this proves time changes. These are homework problems not
proof.
Lorentz found that if he took at tuned circuit and separated the capacitor and coil thereby
increasing the distance around the circuit, The Wavelength Got Longer, The Frequency Dropped,
but the Time it took for the current to make its journey round the circuit stayed the same. How
Does This Prove Time Changes?
Michelson and Morley experiment. From Relativity Chapter 16 Paragraph 7, "Michelson and
Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been
clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result" How does two mirrors prove that
time flows?
Fizeau Experiment. Light enters two tubes. One tube has the fluid is moving and the other the
fluid isn't. Light enters and exits both tubes at exactly the same time. No matter how the fluid
moves - forward, backward and such - the light always enters and exits at the same time. How
does this prove time flows?
And from these experiments everyone says this proves particles make it to the earth because the
particle's time has slowed???
Or because a satillite transmits at one frequency and we on earth receive at a different frequency
that means the satillite is aging slower???
What does it mean in physics if an atom is 10 seconds younger than another atom?
There is no such thing as changing time. There is no experiment that even indicates time slows.
You all have been fooled by the twin paradox. You were fooled because they told you the
meaning to the experiments and put formulas in front of you to work on.
Bill
--------------------
Tuesday, 11 December 2007 10:30 AM
Reply
* steve
* M/54
* UTICA, Michigan, US
In your book, all proof is mere homework problems. How, then, is it posible to give you proof.
The decay rate of the muon is pretty straight forward and it makes perfect sense. What don't you
get about it?
Report abuse
Tuesday, 11 December 2007 12:38 PM
Reply
* William
* M/55
* CORTLAND, Ohio, US
steve: In your book, all proof is mere homework problems. How, then, is it posible to give you
proof. The decay rate of the muon is pretty straight forward and it makes perfect sense. What
don't you get about it?

Hi Steve:
That was a good question. I hope I can answer this fully for you.
Physics is the most restrictive science in the world. We are not allowed to "assume" in physics.
Do we have theories? Of course we do. But in physics theories are based on observed
descriptions called "natural laws" and theories ALWAYS lead to "Predictions" not proof.
There is a reason for this restriction to physics. All other sciences "assume". This is because all
other sciences "assume" what physics finds. And the structure in physics always assures other
sciences that the truth as best as man can describe is being passed to them.
The very first principle to physics says that the natural law must be described. It's assumed
physics means something physical. If it's physical then you can see it. If you can see it then you
can describe it. The first principle to physics assures other sciences we are seeing and not
imagining things.
The twin paradox alters the whole concept of physics. With this "flow of time" the very principles
of physics are violated. This is because you cannot see this "flow of time" so you must trust or
assume what people tell you is true. The organized science of physics suffered for hundreds of
years because religion took command and said you don't need to see. Instead God did it so
seeing is not necessary. As you know more than one person died by trying to shout out what he
was seeing.
Now you want to bring that back and this really makes me jump to my seat. I don't want to look
like or be an "asshole" but I know I am being one. I believe it's extremely important we talk
about violating phyiscs just for a belief someone told you is true.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
* SALLISAW, OKLAHOMA, US
And not once have you addressed the muon question. The thing you must realize is that the
burden of proof is on you, no one else. You want to believe that you have a better understanding
of physics than Einstein had because you can't get your brain wrapped around an abstract
subject, in this case time dilation. The only person that thinks you are right is you. You seem like
a teenager with an overinflated ego that knows more than everyone else. The problem is that
you have never taken the time to formally learn the material and try to understand it. I'm sure
everytime you read something that you do not understand or cannot visualize, you presume the
person/people who composed it must have been misguided because surely a "genious" such as
yourself must be able to understand everything, even better than the people who have dedicated
their entire lives to the study of whatever subject it may be.
This is how I interpreted your original post:
These people say this. They performed experiments which I am not sure how to interpret or even
understand conceptually. Therefore, since I am more intelligent than all of these doctors that
performed the research, they must be wrong because I say so. Furthermore, I will never accept
any explanation other than my own unsubstantiated beliefs.
I have finals to study for. So, I don't have time to mess with this further.
Address the muon question mathematically without using relativity, since you suggest it is so
flawed. Or, just continuously avoid it and prove you are talking out of your ass.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
#
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html
http://themaclellans.com/timetravel.html
I hope this helps you understand time flow even though it sounds like you are trying to not
accept it.
Both of these sights are very simple but effective if you just want to under stand.
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Hi DJ:
You seem to be focused on your Muon question. I hope you can see that there is something
more important than your question. Does "time change" or "flow" is the issue. You say that Time
Flows. The burden of proof is on you not me. There is NO Change in Time because Time is a
Definition not a Natural Law. You want to make a definition into a natural law.
OK, Proof you have the right to take a definition and make it a natural law.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Paul: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html
accept it.
Hi Paul:
You proof is that because you have a link that means time flows??? No time does not flow. What
proof do you have? Nothing. Not a damn thing.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
*
* M/26
William:Hi DJ:
Bill
No, that's not how it works in science, William. A person with an opposing view to the
mainstream belief must positively show evidence to the contrary. In this case, you are the one
with the opposing view. So, the burden of proof is on you. Get over your ego. Your not nearly as
intelligent as you would like to think. Live with it.
Nothing can be proven absolutely. They can only be disproven. You have disproved nothing.
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
Then i must be comfused on what you are talking about because i thought it explained time
change well.
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
Paul:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html
accept it.
Good link, Paul.
However, since William is smarter than Einstein could have ever hoped to be, he will disregard
any explanation and substitute his own reality to suit his ego.
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
Thank you DJ.
Your explanation of William is pretty accurate from what I can see. What are studying in school
DJ
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
Chemistry
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
*
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
Cool. William have you studied anything in college that could give you knoledge to come to the
conclution you are at like physics or some other science.
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
DJ:
William:Hi DJ:
Bill
No, that's not how it works in science, William. A person with an opposing view to the
mainstream belief must positively show evidence to the contrary. In this case, you are the one
with the opposing view. So, the burden of proof is on you. Get over your ego. Your not nearly as
intelligent as you would like to think. Live with it.
Nothing can be proven absolutely. They can only be disproven. You have disproved nothing.
Hi DJ:
I'm not sure why you don't understand? You say that "time flows". There is no proof to this.
Nothing to show this but you insist that it exists. Show me that this exists? If you can't then why
are you using it in physics? Why do you think I must prove that "time flow" doesn't exist?
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Paul: Cool. William have you studied anything in college that could give you knoledge to come to
the conclution you are at like physics or some other science.
Hi Paul:
I took Phyiscs at the University of Michigan from 1970-1972. Professor Peterson, my professor
was a student under Einstein and he worked on the Manhattan Project. We were NEVER Taught
the Twin Paradox. The Twin Paradox was a forbidden subject in school because we all knew this
was a misinformation program started back in the 1950's.
The "Twin Paradox Misinformation Program" was a counter intelligence program used against the
Russians. The program officially started in May of 1956 when 14 scientists when to Moscow to
meet with 450 other scientists most of which were from the Red Bock. The focus of the Twin
Paradox is to make the person believe that "time flows". If a person believes this then it is
impossible for that person to understand physics.

Russia was ahead of US in Physics back in 1956. We launched this program and by 1964 we
were ahead of Russia. Funding for the Twin Paradox program was finally cut around 1964 but the
damage was done. Students in the United States started falling for it. National Security stopped
the original team who started this from talking about it. Now all these scientists are dead and
everyone believes this misinformation.
Bill
Reply
* William
* M/55
Paul:
Then i must be comfused on what you are talking about because i thought it explained time
change well.
Paul if "time flows" then describe this "Natural Law" responsible for this flow. (give in formula
form co-variant with Lorentz Transformations).
If you can't do that then "time flow" is just your imagination and nothing to do with physics.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
I find most of that information hard to believe. I just looked that up and it looks like all the
information on this "misinformation program" comes from you from myspace. Explaine why light
is always the same speed to an observer on a moving train and an observer on the side of the
road. Don't you think that this program would have been called of at the fall of the soviat union
in 1991.
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Paul: I find most of that information hard to believe. I just looked that up and it looks like all the
information on this "misinformation program" comes from you from myspace. Explaine why light
is always the same speed to an observer on a moving train and an observer on the side of the
road. Don't you think that this program would have been called of at the fall of the soviat union
in 1991.
Hi Paul:
Understand that if you believe in the "flow of time" you are violating the principles of physics.
Why do you believe this is justified?
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
well what do you think the principles of physics are. Every physicist believes and most have done
experemints that have prove time change. I know that i am not a physicist so i could not answer
most of your questions. Why has the goverment not called off the misinformation program after
the fall of the soviet union in 1991. Or even after the cold war slowed down. And could you
answer my previous question about the speed of light not changing to either observer. The
person who introduced general relativity to the world has given equations to help back up
experemints that have been done. Since the physics is now relative why cant time change.
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Paul:
well what do you think the principles of physics are. Every physicist believes and most have done
experemints that have prove time change. I know that i am not a physicist so i could not answer
most of your questions. Why has the goverment not called off the misinformation program after
the fall of the soviet union in 1991. Or even after the cold war slowed down. And could you
answer my previous question about the speed of light not changing to either observer. The
person who introduced general relativity to the world has given equations to help back up
experemints that have been done. Since the physics is now relative why cant time change.
Hi Paul:
There's tons of information about this national security program. But you won't find this
information on the internet. You must go to the newpapers and such - Tons of time to research.
Paul you are violating the first principle of Physics. You cannot go to step two until you cover
step one. You must describe the natural law.
The Twin Paradox Doesn't Have this natural law - that's how it works. You see in your head this
natural law but it don't exist. So you chase after your own Imagination.
Read Relativity, Chapter 14 paragraphs 3 and 4. In order to meet the requirements of Relativity
the Natural Law must be constitued in a form that is co-variant with Lorentz Transformations.
You don't have this so you violate the principles of Relativity. You violate Physics and you violate
Relativity.
Violating Principles is not OK I don't care how many people say it is. And to say well there is
proof when you violate the principles is Illogical.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
OK. explain why light slows down so it is always going the same speed
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
i would like you to send me you whole theory on how this time change is just a bunch of crap.If
you could some sources off the internet or books
same with this misinformation thing that has not been called off even though the cold war has
ended.
were could i find einstines papers on relativity.
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Paul: i would like you to send me you whole theory on how this time change is just a bunch of
crap.If you could some sources off the internet or books

same with this misinformation thing that has not been called off even though the cold war has
ended.
were could i find einstines papers on relativity.
Here is a link to Einstein's 1920 Relativity: http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Don't use the internet - go to the library and look up the experiments yourself. All the other stuff
about the twin paradox program has been turned over to other people who are much better at
investagations than you and I are.
Once again "time flowing" doesn't exist. Your question about "Light" slowing is not physics. Light
has a constant speed in all frames. That means if you are going .99999c and shine a flashlight
that light is going C. It's going C in all directions. The speed of light is CONSTANT.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* Graeme
* M/19
* Perth, Western Australia, AU
His question is physics, its a physics question. wether its answer is physically plausable or not
doesnt mean it isnt physics. Also you say dont use the internet after giving a link nice, as
hypocritical as ever.
Whilst i do agree that the generally accepted notion of time as some cosmic force is probably not
true, this stupid crap about some communist plot is just ... well stupid. You have no right to talk
to anyone about "what is physics" and whats not after that sort of idiocy. I know you will no
doubt get your knickers in a twist about my 'personal attack' but ive had a gut full and am tired
of it. You've derailed about 3 threads and now created a second of youre own where you
repeatedly say the same incorrect stuff and illustrate your lack of scientific method and
understanding. The bloke before was right, you haven't proved or disproved anything, which is
fine, but you go on like you have.
Once again, for the cheapseats. Relativity works, accept it, its been theorised and proved. How it
works, why it works well you can debate that philosophy till the cows come home. A DIRECT
consequence of this testable and, so far, very sound theory, is time dilation. You can't have one
without the other. If you accept that c is constant in all reference frames then you accept its
consequences which is special relativity which includes time dilation. If you still don't
accept/beleive whatever well thats just too bad you can take your natural law stuff and go back
to university to learn physics again.
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Graeme: His question is physics, its a physics question. wether its answer is physically plausable
or not doesnt mean it isnt physics. Also you say dont use the internet after giving a link nice, as
hypocritical as ever.
Whilst i do agree that the generally accepted notion of time as some cosmic force is probably not
true, this stupid crap about some communist plot is just ... well stupid. You have no right to talk
to anyone about "what is physics" and whats not after that sort of idiocy. I know you will no
doubt get your knickers in a twist about my 'personal attack' but ive had a gut full and am tired
of it. You've derailed about 3 threads and now created a second of youre own where you
repeatedly say the same incorrect stuff and illustrate your lack of scientific method and
understanding. The bloke before was right, you haven't proved or disproved anything, which is
fine, but you go on like you have.
Once again, for the cheapseats. Relativity works, accept it, its been theorised and proved. How it
works, why it works well you can debate that philosophy till the cows come home. A DIRECT
consequence of this testable and, so far, very sound theory, is time dilation. You can't have one
without the other. If you accept that c is constant in all reference frames then you accept its
consequences which is special relativity which includes time dilation. If you still don't
accept/beleive whatever well thats just too bad you can take your natural law stuff and go back
to university to learn physics again.
Hi Graeme:
So you believe that violating the principles of physics is ok because you said so.
You can't describe this natrual law you claim is real. Why can't you? Do you understand what I'm
even asking you?
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-halpinhealy.html
Report abuse
#
Reply
* William
* M/55
Paul: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-halpinhealy.html
Hi Paul:
I spent over 10 hours going over word by word the 1920 Einstein Relativity posted on the net. I
have my own personal 1916 copy of Relativity by Einstein and used this to compare to the one
on the net.
I'm not going to go over word by word everybodies reference to links. This is impossible. Instead
do something real like go to the library. If you don't want to seek out good information then you
get garbage.
Maybe you can understand these words:
Go to Border books and buy yourself a handbook of Physics. Go to the section where they list the
Principles of Phyiscs. Read the Principles. You will see that principle ONE states you must
describe the natural law.
You don't want to do this. Instead you don't describe the law you say I must believe that this law
exists. In the handbook it tells you that NO WORK can be performed until the natural law is
describe.
You don't care. You just don't care. You don't care you broke principle one instead you perform
work.
If you jump over principle one it's not physics. But you claim that it's physics. This is a lie but
you say it's truth. And you won't even check out the truth. You hide your head in the sand and
think that just because a bunch of people side with you then everything is ok.
How do you expect to see or understand truth when you violate the very principles you count on
to see truth?
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
You shouldn't use well documented occurrences such as the Manhattan Project when trying to
lie. Secondly, you expect people to believe that you are the only living sole that knows of this
conspiracy against the Russians. Also, when Einstein proposed special relativity, he was working
in a patent office in Germany in 1905. He had no connection with at that point in time, and he
had already realized the implications of the theory long before he came to the US, including the
implications of the constancy of the speed of light.
You are a fool. Just another nut. After that post, everything you say must be taken with a grain
of salt, if even that.
Now you show your true feathers, just another conspiracy theorist.
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
DJ:You shouldn't use well documented occurrences such as the Manhattan Project when trying to
in a patent office in Germany in 1905. He had no connection with the US at that point in time,
and he had already realized the implications of the theory long before he came to the US,
including the implications of the constancy of the speed of light.
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* William
*
* M/55
DJ:
DJ:You shouldn't use well documented occurrences such as the Manhattan Project when trying to
in a patent office in Germany in 1905. He had no connection with the US at that point in time,
and he had already realized the implications of the theory long before he came to the US,
including the implications of the constancy of the speed of light.
Why are you so mad? You are the one violating the principles of physics, not me? The proof is
clear you just choose to ignore it.
You say conspiracy. Again you are very ignorant on this subject. Are you saying our government
always tells you the truth? Are you saying the Russians back in the 1950's were our friends? You
must believe that our government would never lie to the Russians. Of course our government
never would have misinformation. We always tell the truth in this country. And technology is
open to all. We don't execute people for telling techology secrets. You believe this right?
I hope you learn a little before you grow up.
Bill
Reply
* William
*
* M/55
DJ: You shouldn't use well documented occurrences such as the Manhattan Project when trying
to lie. Secondly, you expect people to believe that you are the only living sole that knows of this
Let me ask you. How many things are discovered by accident? I left physics back in 1972. I
came back to physics in 2005. I noticed something was wrong. I just fell into it.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
 Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause
 No time reversal
 No true action at a distance

 No creation ex nihilo
 No demise ad nihil
 The finite cannot become infinite
these are the only pricipals of physics i could find. change in time does not efect any of those
that i can see.
Report abuse
Reply
* Alex [RP'08]
* M/17
* -, California, US
William:
Bill
Aye! Well that explains a lot, amirite or amirite?
William, you said you collected hundreds of articles that related to your theory. As of now, your
posts have consisted of two things: 1. A philosophical rebuttal to modern physics, 2. An
unwarranted claim of not being able to inverse a Lorentz transformation.
Instead of bluffing text, why not give us something worth reading.
1. Show evidence. Dont you remember from grammar school essay writing? Claim, WARRANT,
impact.
1a. Show the numerous articles of newspapers/magazines you've collected. Scan them.
1b. Where is your warrant for stating it is unrealistic to propose the inverse of a Lorentz
transformation
2. Submit a researched, well-written thesis paper. Do you actually think you're going to achieve
anything over MySpace?
As of now, until these burdens are met, your posts will continue to be half philosophy, half
physics. If you want to be taken seriously here, try getting another fifty percent in the physics
bin mkay? thnx.
Report abuse
Wednesday, 12 December 2007 1:57 AM
Reply
* William
* M/55
Alex [RP'08]:
William:
Bill
Aye! Well that explains a lot, amirite or amirite?
William, you said you collected hundreds of articles that related to your theory. As of now, your
posts have consisted of two things: 1. A philosophical rebuttal to modern physics, 2. An
unwarranted claim of not being able to inverse a Lorentz transformation.
Instead of bluffing text, why not give us something worth reading.
1. Show evidence. Dont you remember from grammar school essay writing? Claim, WARRANT,
impact.
1a. Show the numerous articles of newspapers/magazines you've collected. Scan them.
1b. Where is your warrant for stating it is unrealistic to propose the inverse of a Lorentz
transformation
2. Submit a researched, well-written thesis paper. Do you actually think you're going to achieve
anything over MySpace?

As of now, until these burdens are met, your posts will continue to be half philosophy, half
physics. If you want to be taken seriously here, try getting another fifty percent in the physics
bin mkay? thnx.
Hi Little one!
Have you learned anything yet? Or are you still stupid? Why don't you read the basics to
physics? I don't need a paper just for you to read. You are violating the principles of phyiscs if
you believe that time flows.
You could never understand research papers because you don't understand physics. You believe
that violating the basic priciples of physics is science. How on earth could you ever understand
anything I wrote - it's physics something you don't know?
Not until you can read the basics to physics will you ever understand. You must have a natural
law - we don't trust people in physics. But you claim that we don't need to see anymore in
physics - just say it is proven. That's science to you. So because you think you are so smart you
end up not following any type of science. And you don't care to understand just remain stupid
like you have been for months. So what is a research paper going to do? You can't understand
things like that- not when you don't understand science.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Hi Paul:
Where did you get those??? From a Physics handbook?
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
Bingo: What are you saying Bill? Is anything beyond inclined planes and pullies just complete
bullcrap?
Hi Bingo:
I am hoping you can understand this perfect proof. Perfect proofs are things people give to each
other in order to expose truth.
Prove: The flow of time violates the principles of physics making it an invalid concept.
1. The principles of physics requires natural laws to be described.
2. The flow of time is not described.
3. The flow of time violates the principles of physics.
If you cannot understand this perfect proof then ask your mommy to read it to you. This proof
means you were fooled. You were tricked into believing lies. I know you want to cry so run to
your mommy and have her dry your tears, kiss you on the forehead, and brush your hair back.
Get all your crying out of your system. Then Bingo - GET UP. Big People always get up even
when we are tricked. Only little boys stay down. You don't want to stay a little boy all your life do
you? Get Up Bingo and learn to be a man. Men get up and keep moving. We shake our heads
and tell ourselves not to do that again. Then we move. I hope you are a man.
Bill
Report abuse
Reply
* Graeme
* M/19
* Perth, Western Australia, AU
Seriously dude, you are a moron. Stop talking. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Also anyone who thinks he has any idea is also pretty stupid. You spin a whole lot of shite and
then when we talk science or try to you just go off on tangents and talk about bullshit that isnt
relevent. Youre wrong, accept it, you have youre head in the sand or up youre arse or both it
doesnt seem to make a difference.
Seriously if you actually DID know what you were talking about, youd bring some sort of credible
evidence, i mean this is the science forum right. you havent proved or disproved anything,
simply going on about your natural law stuff that makes no sense and is not relevent or saying
"well hey you havent proved anything so i dont have to" thats not the way it works. you cant
just state something is true and then say it is true untill proven otherwise, you need evidence,
backup to show what youre saying is right. You have none, special relativity on the other hand
has lots. You lose.
Report abuse
Reply
* William
*
* M/55
Graeme: Seriously dude, you are a moron. Stop talking. You have no idea what you are talking
about. Also anyone who thinks he has any idea is also pretty stupid. You spin a whole lot of shite
and then when we talk science or try to you just go off on tangents and talk about bullshit that
isnt relevent. Youre wrong, accept it, you have youre head in the sand or up youre arse or both
it doesnt seem to make a difference.
Seriously if you actually DID know what you were talking about, youd bring some sort of credible
evidence, i mean this is the science forum right. you havent proved or disproved anything,
simply going on about your natural law stuff that makes no sense and is not relevent or saying
"well hey you havent proved anything so i dont have to" thats not the way it works. you cant
just state something is true and then say it is true untill proven otherwise, you need evidence,
backup to show what youre saying is right. You have none, special relativity on the other hand
has lots. You lose.
You are like a bunch of Monks, candles lit and chanting Time Flow, Time Flow praise be Time
Flow. Two hours of your time to check out truth is unthinkable. Time Flow is your god and that's
all you need. Your master tells you not to open books. Cancer or AIDS can be gotten if you open
books. Time Flow is real and books give you cancer. Don't check out truth we have Time Flow
Praise be Time Flow.
You are living a fools life. You have your head in the sand. But the sand tastes so good you don't
care about the vultures ripping at your flesh. Your chants of Time Flow Time Flow stop the pain
of your flesh being consumed. And you know the curch is full of other Monks with heads in the
sand singing time flow time flow I love you time flow.
Will you ever take your head out of the sand and look at truth? Or is the taste of sand just too
much to resist. Two hours of your time to check out truth and you can't do it. It's just
unthinkable to you. Why truth when you have time flow to pray too.
You are all a bunch of Monks thinking because your church is full that hides you from the truth.
Will you still be able to pray, to chant time flow time flow when the wave of truth washes your
church away? Or will you be able to cling together trying to keep your candles lit chanting time
flow will save us, time flow time flow praise be time flow.
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
William:
bullcrap?
Hi Bingo:
Bill
This post sounds like Dutch in disguise.
The only sniveling fool here is you. You are more than likely some piss-ant teenager that thinks
he/she is smart and cannot face the fact that you know little at all about physics.
Since you think you are well versed in physics, some first year physics should be easy. Work the
following problem:
A meterstick is found to balance at the 49.7 cm mark when placed on a fulcrum. When a 50.0
gram mass is attached at the 10.0 cm mark, the fulcrum must be moved to the 39.2 cm mark
for balance. What is the mass of the meter stick?
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
Let me add that it is a very simple problem. I would expect any first year physics student to be
able to work it.
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* William
* M/55
DJ:
William:
bullcrap?
Hi Bingo:
Bill
This post sounds like Dutch in disguise.
The only sniveling fool here is you. You are more than likely some piss-ant teenager that thinks
he/she is smart and cannot face the fact that you know little at all about physics.
Since you think you are well versed in physics, some first year physics should be easy. Work the
following problem:
A meterstick is found to balance at the 49.7 cm mark when placed on a fulcrum. When a 50.0
gram mass is attached at the 10.0 cm mark, the fulcrum must be moved to the 39.2 cm mark
for balance. What is the mass of the meter stick?
Gee DJ:
Let me see how your mind works:
This is really a simple logic problem. But you can't seem to grasp that in physics without a
description of time flow then time flow becomes imaginary - a trust me natural law.
You can't go and buy yourself a copy of the Physics Handbook. Instead you violate the first
principle of physics because of your ignorance.
You sling names at me because you won't buy a book and learn the principles of physics.
You feel completely justified for being ignorant and demand answers for questions when you are
violating physics.
You can't understand the simple order of problem solving occurring between us. You can't see
the need to solve important questions first like; "is time flow real", instead you want to skip
order and go right to accepting time flow as real into phyiscs. You want to do this because you
can't understand braking physic principles invalidates time flow.

Hmmmm - I think this twin paradox is affecting you more than I thought.
Bill
Report abuse
Wednesday, 12 December 2007 12:08 PM
Reply
* DJ
* M/26
You can't even answer a first year physics problem, and you think you're an authority on the
implications of SR. You are a joke.
former."
~Albert Einstein
Report abuse
Reply
* Marcus
* M/24
* North Phoenix, Arizona, US
Bill.
In order for your proof to be valid, you need to tell me how to desribe the "Natural law" E=MC2
Report abuse
Reply
* Paul
* M/15
* NAMPA, Idaho, US
Not from a physics hand book. What book did you get these principals of physics
To continue: http://forums.myspace.com/t/3630410.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread&Pa...

Flow of Time Dont Exist

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flow of Time Dont Exist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Flow of Time Does Not Exist - Forum Debate On MySpace.

The Flow of Time Does Not Exist - Forum Debate On MySpace.com

The Flow of Time Does Not Exist

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 10:04 AM

Does This Prove Time Changes?

does this prove time flows?

particle's time has slowed???

that means the satillite is aging slower???

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 10:30 AM

get about it?

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 12:38 PM

don't you get about it?

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 1:43 PM

their entire lives to the study of whatever subject it may be.

This is how I interpreted your original post:

any explanation other than my own unsubstantiated beliefs.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 3:26 PM

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 3:43 PM

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 3:45 PM

proof do you have? Nothing. Not a damn thing.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:05 PM

intelligent as you would like to think. Live with it.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:08 PM

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:10 PM

Good link, Paul.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:20 PM

Thank you DJ.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:21 PM

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:25 PM

conclution you are at like physics or some other science.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:29 PM

intelligent as you would like to think. Live with it.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:39 PM

the conclution you are at like physics or some other science.

was a misinformation program started back in the 1950's.

impossible for that person to understand physics.

everyone believes this misinformation.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:42 PM

form co-variant with Lorentz Transformations).

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:48 PM

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 4:50 PM

Why do you believe this is justified?

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:07 PM

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:21 PM

step one. You must describe the natural law.

proof when you violate the principles is Illogical.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:37 PM

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:41 PM

you could some sources off the internet or books

were could i find einstines papers on relativity.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:48 PM

crap.If you could some sources off the internet or books

were could i find einstines papers on relativity.

Here is a link to Einstein's 1920 Relativity: http://www.bartleby.com/173/

investagations than you and I are.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:56 PM

* Perth, Western Australia, AU

fine, but you go on like you have.

to university to learn physics again.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007 5:59 PM

fine, but you go on like you have.

to university to learn physics again.

even asking you?