home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.conspiracy      How big is your tinfoil hat?      97,877 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 97,164 of 97,877   
   JTEM to Dawn Flood   
   Re: Backwards Time Travel? Delayed Choic   
   10 Nov 25 01:02:25   
   
   XPost: alt.paranormal, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism   
   XPost: soc.history.ancient   
   From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/9/25 11:52 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:   
      
   > No, Honey, time travel is IMPOSSIBLE   
      
   No. It's not. Possibly for humans but there's nothing that excludes   
   it. You're just retarded, that's all.   
      
   >> The numbers are staggering. The numbers are so massive that   
   >> virtually ANYTHING possible is, over the life of our universe   
   >> anywhere from probably to ALREADY HAPPENED.   
   >>   
   >   
   > None, some things are impossible   
      
   Time travel isn't one of them. It's not excluded under Einstein's   
   work. You're just far too stupid to do anything but read   
   headlines.   
      
   > Yes, as Ken has already pointed out to you, there are peer-reviewed   
   > papers that state that time travel is a physical impossibility.   
      
   For humans, it certainly seems that way. But I wasn't speaking of   
   humans. The rules as we see & live by do not apply to sub   
   atomic particles.   
      
   > Tachyons don't exist   
      
   You're retarded AND stubborn. There is support for their existence.   
   They can not be ruled out.   
      
   > which is why they have not been discovered.   
      
   There have been observation which fit the model for tachyons.   
      
   > Has nothing to do with that.  Ask yourself this, "Why have no quarks,   
   > which are part of the Standard Model, never been observed in   
   > isolation??"   
      
   They've never been observed. Period.   
      
   Quarks are "detected" indirectly. Which would likely be the case with   
   tachyons where direct detection would be impossible.   
      
   Oh. If you can only detect something indirectly, that means you can   
   only detect it when it's with something else. What you're doing is   
   detecting the predicted response/reaction to the presence of the   
   quark.   
      
   You, being retarded, have already misunderstood and misrepresented   
   far too much. Why don't you talk within your knowledge sphere, like   
   how much you enjoy farting in the tub & biting the bubbles...   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca