Clark Campaigns at Light Speed
By Brian McWilliams
02:00 AM Sep. 30, 2003 PT
NEW CASTLE, New Hampshire -- Wesley Clark: Rhodes scholar, four-star
general, NATO commander, futurist?
"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human
history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to
reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that
mankind can do it."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60629,00.html


Bob Clark (no relation.)

Robert Clark wrote:

Clark Campaigns at Light Speed
By Brian McWilliams
02:00 AM Sep. 30, 2003 PT
NEW CASTLE, New Hampshire -- Wesley Clark: Rhodes scholar, four-star
general, NATO commander, futurist?
"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human
history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to
reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that
mankind can do it."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60629,00.html

General Relativity must be incomplete because it cannot be quantized.
OK, who bells the cat? Superluminal transportation violates causality
- something the universe apparently does not tolerate. There is no
test, prediction vs. observation, in which General Relativity is not
perfect within experimental error,

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

The Third Law of Thermodynamics is also propped up by the barrier of
division by zero. Negative temps kelvin are trivially achieved in
lasing media, MRI, NMR, EPR, adiabatic demagnetization of paramagnetic
salts... One merely goes the long way around, past +infinity to
-infinity and back to the other side. Finessing relativity with the
same ploy is left as an exercise for the alert reader.

Metric theories of gravitation postulate the Equivalence Principle
(all bodies fall identically in vacuum) and spacetime curvature
immediately follows. Affine theories of gravitation start with
spacetime torsion and can violate the EP with impunity. All one need
do is find two lumnps that fall differently in vacuum, and General
Relativity is dog meat. Folks have been looking for 400+ years, now
sensitive to one part in two trillion relative deviation
difference/average. Everything falls identically within experimental
error.

There is only one physical property that has never been examined for
EP violation,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

Wesley Clark has adopted the same position as a Catholic priest
bleating about Christ's return: Pay now and wait. It is a bull****
position to adopt.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

General Relativity must be incomplete because it cannot be quantized.
OK, who bells the cat? Superluminal transportation violates causality
- something the universe apparently does not tolerate. There is no
test, prediction vs. observation, in which General Relativity is not
perfect within experimental error,

What proof is there that causality must not be violated?

Ray Drouillard wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

General Relativity must be incomplete because it cannot be quantized.
OK, who bells the cat? Superluminal transportation violates causality
- something the universe apparently does not tolerate. There is no
test, prediction vs. observation, in which General Relativity is not
perfect within experimental error,

What proof is there that causality must not be violated?

A postulate cannot be proven. A postulate can only be falsified.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Uncle Al wrote:
Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

Well, I can get as far as radioactive decay. It's a bit tricky after
that...

--
Pyriform

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 09:21:00 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Ray Drouillard wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

General Relativity must be incomplete because it cannot be quantized.
OK, who bells the cat? Superluminal transportation violates causality
- something the universe apparently does not tolerate. There is no
test, prediction vs. observation, in which General Relativity is not
perfect within experimental error,

What proof is there that causality must not be violated?

A postulate cannot be proven. A postulate can only be falsified.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?


Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

David Johnston wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 09:21:00 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Ray Drouillard wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

General Relativity must be incomplete because it cannot be quantized.
OK, who bells the cat? Superluminal transportation violates causality
- something the universe apparently does not tolerate. There is no
test, prediction vs. observation, in which General Relativity is not
perfect within experimental error,

What proof is there that causality must not be violated?

A postulate cannot be proven. A postulate can only be falsified.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?


Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:14:28 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:
Metric theories of gravitation postulate the Equivalence Principle
(all bodies fall identically in vacuum)

Well, "identical falling" presupposes a reference frame in which to
measure the identical-ness. If you use the (say) planet that the
bodies are falling toward, in separate tests, then the larger bodies
will actually fall faster because the planet falls toward them with an
acceleration proportional to the bodies' masses. Not that we're about
to be able to measure that. In fact, this might be where quantization
comes in -- if the quantum of required force is not reached, perhaps
the planet will not move.

Eric

Uncle Al wrote:
Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

Doesn't causality follow from relativity?

In other words, you don't have to postulate it,
it's a result of the standard model laws of physics.

If another law or method was discovered which was
different, then causality regarding that law or method's
effects might or might not be preserved. That it is
preserved for all known physical interactions says
that known standard model physics is 'right' for
what we're seeing, but that doesn't mean that it's
all there ever could be in terms of phenomena.


-george william herbert

Cut the strings off the pupet and all that is let is one dumbass
,,a,,clark.
Is this the same asshole that got fired for trying to start a war with
russia ??
When the GEN gets canned due to conduct matters it means the idiot is
off his rocker.
But thanks for the suport.
Clark should make a fine doorstop at the va some day . Just give em a
kick when you walk by.