syntax252

OK, again, I understand that. But what is the evidence that it is true?

I understand that. What I was trying to elicit is the methodology employed to "prove" that time is relitive to gravity/speed.

And precisely what is that "price?"

I came to that conclusion because nobody in main stream America considers his theory to be worth arguing about. He is a nothing, a dud, a non entity. Nobody excepy conspiracy theroists even know his name. He is the Jim Jones of the off-the-wall gang. He is a potential presidential candidate for the grassy knoll society.

Which is part of a theory? Unproven?

He doesn't present evidence. He presents speculation and inuendo and asks his readership to accept it as fact. I just thought that you might take comfort in knowing that you are not the first one to be taken in by a con artist. If you don't appriciate it, I am not surprised. "No man is so blind, as he who will not see."

So this is just a theory of yours?

If what you discribe were possible, how would you know for sure that it was time that had been altered and not one's physiology?

No, I cannot. Doesn't that mean that time must always have existed? If, for example, it didn't exist before the big bang, then nothing could have happened to trigger the big bang.

There is a lot more to this article and it is worth the read...

I am asking if time is an absolute necessity for any action or movement to take place.

OK, now show us how one can stay in today while the rest of us journey to tomorrow.

Well how does that work?

Only if you accept his reasoning, which is based on his agenda. Scientific investigation which starts out with a predisposed idea of what the investigation will yield, is considered junk science--no? Who did he interview when he was gathering his material? I don't recall anything in the news about Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, George Tnent, etc granting interviews to this guy.

In the one case, time seems to stand still, and in the other case time actuall does stand still.

That is not evedence, that is someone's speculation. I was trying to point out that you put more faith in the opinions of people who have an idiology to justify than you do in a bipartisan panel of highly qualified people who already investigated this issue. If you found that insulting, so much the better.

I think that the cost of the war in Iraq is cheap compared with rebuilding one of our cities or trying to compensate the families of perhaps 1,000 000 deaths caused by a terrorist attack--don't you?

.07% of America's GDP is something on the order of 77 Billion dollars annually. 77 billion dollars represents something like 256 $ pr man, woman and child in America. For a family of 4, that is over a grand. Why would we want to do a thing like that?