Enough - is the short answer - to know that whats more productive is to critique his work rather than attack the man Erie Engineer.
In short I took it that an engineer had a formal degree qualification at least all the civil engineers I worked with and the one in our family have degrees - yet thus far from yourself I see little of any sort of technical nature in regardss to anything posted here yet at all - either for or against.
You agree that its an interesting concept that I appear to have yet haven't been able to offer anything constructive yet about one thing I've posted.
Now you would appear to want to attack the credentials of Tom Bearden?
I do know the guy worked for the US military as a nuclear war planner in the pentagon until his retirement.
In his communications with me over M = Δ T - he has been nothing but forthright frank and very helpful.
As I've posted here - the first tactic in the past at any website of govt agent provocateurs, shills and dis-info touts has been to attack either me the poster or anyone referenced - rather than try to disprove my work or Tom Bearden's for example.
Supposedly your an engineer which suggests a degree qualification and a brain capable of analysing and interpreting for itself. One would suspect you should have the mathematical and technical ability to discern for yourself - where exactly the truth lies.
The threads titled "What exactly is time"... how wuold your question about Tom bearden be in any way related to the thread title?
Please don't make the mistake of stooping to the same levels as other disinfo shills - by attacking myself or Bearden - because you don't understand whats been posted. I think you have the intellectual capacity to be brighter than that!
The works already posted for you its quantified and referenced.
Would it be helpfull too you if i were to show where Einstein and Mitchellson Morely erred in their experimental design for light speed and special relativity?
Its a very interesting topic - it is Germain to understand the import of whats been posted here.
The reason that it wasn't posted earlier is because.... some one here who is obviously having difficulty following whats been posted, started complaining about walls of "copy pasta".
Usually to me at least that signifies someone of relative young age who hasn't the attention span any longer than a coke commercial and reads nothing longer than a sms message on his mobile phone..
Most often the impatient youth, ask for "the cliff notes version" - they want the instant gratification without doing the work which is so typical of today's me me me generation.
The works there for anyone with the intelligence to understand.
If you have the ability to understand I will walk you thru Mitchellson Morleys (And later Sagnacs) linear and later rotational analogue light speed experiements and Eisteins 21 equation special relativity proof, and point out the errors - that have led to the problems we now have in classical Maxwell / Heaviside physics model & electrical theory thats held us back these last 50 or so years!
I've already shown for example that E=MC^2 is flawed mathematically due to the negative root solution in that it gives a paradoxical outcome indicating a false premise at the outset.
If you are interested in the physics then stand bye for some lengthy posts about light and special relativity and solar tea cup analogy's.
Lets not descend into attacking posters or references credibility, its not likely to teach us anything new about physics or in the case of this thread TIME.
I believe we are better than that!
Of course I am prepared to be proven wrong (in my assumption about our worth as people).