|
Re: Playtime |
Hi Lowell. I was wondering when you were going to get to the change in time. When you first told me about this I thought it a little far fetched, but the more I thought about it the more I thought, Why Not? Just because there is something we can’t see or don’t understand doesn’t mean it can’t or doesn’t exist. I don’t have an answer as to why the earthquake in Florida before the nuclear explosion. Maybe it was nothing more then just a coincident. Lets suppose the physical breakdown in sub-space is true and can indeed move backward and forward in time. Why does it affect only some areas and not all? Why was Florida affected as opposed to another place? Maybe that explosion prevented a major quake the day before only to have it occur at a later date. Now I know why I get a headache when I start thinking. My mind is running in circles. I have the feeling its counter clockwise as there are many times I find myself looking for an answer for which the question hasn’t been asked. Take Care…Don the dizzy one in creepy town Follow Ups: ● 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - mark 14:50:23 - 7/8/2001 (8355) (1) ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell 16:53:59 - 7/8/2001 (8358) (4) ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Canie 08:24:27 - 7/9/2001 (8371) (1) ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell 12:50:12 - 7/9/2001 (8380) (0) ● Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Roger Hunter 05:21:50 - 7/9/2001 (8369) (0) ● Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - mark 20:03:28 - 7/8/2001 (8362) (1) ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell 13:06:39 - 7/9/2001 (8381) (1) ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Don in Hollister 14:17:50 - 7/9/2001 (8382) (1) ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Lowell 16:06:01 - 7/9/2001 (8384) (1) ● Re: Strangeness Re: 300 Times the Speed of Light - Acausal? - Don in Hollister 16:46:32 - 7/9/2001 (8386) (0) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Petra Challus 18:19:50 - 7/8/2001 (8360) (2) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie 08:29:47 - 7/9/2001 (8372) (1) ● Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark 18:53:07 - 7/9/2001 (8391) (1) ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie 16:10:44 - 7/10/2001 (8436) (1) ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie 16:57:20 - 7/10/2001 (8437) (1) ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark 21:46:06 - 7/10/2001 (8440) (1) ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - Canie 07:58:53 - 7/11/2001 (8445) (1) ● Re: Concept of Now - Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark 19:07:28 - 7/12/2001 (8476) (0) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark 20:12:18 - 7/8/2001 (8363) (2) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Petra Challus 00:57:05 - 7/9/2001 (8368) (0) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Don in Hollister 21:00:39 - 7/8/2001 (8364) (1) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark 23:29:44 - 7/8/2001 (8366) (1) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - Don in Hollister 00:01:26 - 7/9/2001 (8367) (1) ● Re: Stranger than Strange? - mark 18:27:53 - 7/9/2001 (8389) (0) |
|