In response to:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=25091

Lymerick wrote:
“Dutch is asking for comments, so it would be educational for you to address his equations with him. In any event, either here at RMN, or preferably at Dutch's site, I would love to see what you have to say about his findings.”

OK, if you and Dutch are asking for comments, I will make some here. One can comment on his blog only if he/she is a member, which I don’t want to be right now. I am sure he would also not like my critique on his blog, so my comments will be posted here only. But I still can not believe that he wrote that article; if he did, then I can’t believe that he was not forced to write it. He did some good journalism in the past, and this just doesn’t fit the picture.

If you ever see that stupid articles start appearing on my website that make no sense and use warped logic, then you should know that I have been compromised too, and the cabal works on discrediting me. It is easy for the rascals to highjack a website and by posting fake articles impersonating the owner discredit him/her.

I don’t want to spend much time on debunking this article because it is so much way out, that people with a decent high school math and physics knowledge supposed to recognize how much it is wrong. The other reason for making this very brief is that I will have to write about time a long article later and that will clear up some new age nonsense in connection with time, and also the Dutch article.

After posting my last exercise in spiritual discernment article, a reader suggested Revelatorium to be the next subject of discussion. While searching for articles of Revelatorium that were advertised at RMN, came across their chapter about timelines, which is also discussing the concept of time. That article also goes down the deep end, so most probably it will be the subject of the next exercise, in which the time will be the main focus.

So what is wrong in the Dutchsinse article?

"Time as a force, not as you imagine it on a wall clock.

The actual physical force of “time” is what I am calling “True Universal Time” being the “time” in which Mass and Space operate."

Time is not a force!
To mix up the two is a grave error, only those would mix this up who have got no idea about physics. A force is an action on a mass that would accelerate or decelerate the mass if unopposed. Mathematically this is expressed as F=m*a (force equals mass times acceleration). Acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity, thus for its definition time is needed. Velocity is also defined by using time as its base; velocity is the rate at which the position of the object is changing v=ds/dt (speed equals distance travelled over time of travel). Velocity is a vector quantity, and speed is the absolute value of that vector.

If you express the claim of Dutchsinse that time is identical with force in mathematical form you will get this F=dt=m*d^2*s/dt^2 which reduces to dt^3=m*d^2*s which is s physical nonsense because time can not be defined by mass and length. It is like someone claiming that he has spent 5 kg*square meters or 5 lb*square feet time for cleaning your window, instead of saying he has spent 5 minutes for that job. Time can not be expressed or measured or even conceived as kg*square meters or 5 lb*square feet. If someone tries to charge you for 5 lb*square feet of their work time, you would have a good reason to call the guys with straitjacket.

"“True Universal Time” consists of other physical elements and is fully based upon the laws of physics."

Time, whether universal or not is not a composite quantity, and it can not consists of several physical elements, because it is not a physical object, it does not have a mass and form. Therefore it can not be based upon the laws of physics.

"Time is a physical byproduct of energy and distance through space"

This is nonsense. Time can not be the by-product of anything; it is a most basic physical quantity. Many other physical quantities are defined by time, but to define time one does not need other quantities. It is like one can use axioms to prove something in mathematics, but one does not need any proof for the acceptance of an axiom.

"What is this “time”, and what is it made of? How is it formed from Energy + Space?"

Time is not a physical object that could be made of some substance. It is not formed by adding up Energy and space.

"In an equation, it would appear simply at T = ED squared or T=ed2

If Dutchsinse would know basic math he would write this as T=ED^2 or more precisely t=E*s^2, but this is still nonsense.

"If we want to know the “real” time of the Universe, we can apply T=ED in reverse to determine (T)

DE=T … Distance X Energy = “Time” …

ET=D ….. Energy X “Time” = Distance

TD = E … Time X Distance = Energy"

Here Dutchsinse is contradicting his previous statement. First he claimed that T=ED^2 and now he claims T=ED. There is a huge difference between the two formulas. But both are plain wrong. The whole speculation reminds me of scenes when kids are playing scientist, and babbling all kinds of nonsense while having no idea what was the meaning of their talk.

Morpheus