Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.skeptic    |    Skeptics discussing pseudo-science    |    95,770 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 94,765 of 95,770    |
|    JTEM to Dawn Flood    |
|    Re: Backwards Time Travel? Delayed Choic    |
|    10 Nov 25 01:02:25    |
      XPost: alt.paranormal, alt.atheism, soc.history.ancient       XPost: alt.conspiracy       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