wrote:
I would ask Louis to contemplate Alfred North Whitehead's description
of the nineteenth century paradigm:

"The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries accepted as their natural
philosophy a certain circle of concepts which were as rigid and
definite as those of the philosophy of the middle ages, and were
accepted with as little critical research. I will call this natural
philosophy 'materialism.' Not only were men of science materialists,
but also adherents of all schools of philosophy. The idealists only
differed from the philosophic materialists on question of the alignment
of nature in reference to mind. But no one had any doubt that the
philosophy of nature considered in itself was of the type which I have
called materialism. It is the philosophy which I have already examined
in my two lectures of this course preceding the present one. It can be
summarised as the belief that nature is an aggregate of material and
that this material exists in some sense at each successive member of a
one-dimensional series of extensionless instants of time. Furthermore
the mutual relations of the material entities at each instant formed
these entities into a spatial configuration in an unbounded space. It
would seem that space---on this theory-would be as instantaneous as the
instants, and that some explanation is required of the relations
between the successive instantaneous spaces. The materialistic theory
is however silent on this point; and the succession of instantaneous
spaces is tacitly combined into one persistent space. This theory is a
purely intellectual rendering of experience which has had the luck to
get itself formulated at the dawn of scientific thought. It has
dominated the language and the imagination of science since science
flourished in Alexandria, with the result that it is now hardly
possible to speak without appearing to assume its immediate
obviousness. " The Concept of Nature 1920.

There are still plenty of materialists but they do not include your
list of 'cranks'.

Best Wishes

Alex Green


One could do worse than to read the philosopher Samual Alexander (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_alexander for a start).

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
In article PFUde.14499$Ab.6710@trndny04, "Tom Capizzi"
wrote in defense of crackpot science:

Time has been an evolution parameter ever since Newton used a
non-variable temporal interval (dt) to describe motion. Nobody has
ever observed time changing. A changing clock is not evidence for a
variable time. It is evidence for, well, a changing clock.

A temporal variable is an oxymoron. It is stupid to a ****ing extreme.
Why? Because time is used as a parameter to describe change.
dr
But could not Time/duration/interval time be different for two or more
spatially displaced events and this differential itself be the effect that
produces and is observed as space-time and energy?
--
Dr *** My role is essentially a pedagogical one or biker unless I take a
chunk out of your leg and in that case I was just hungry {:-)
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Still full of manure but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{:-)

In article ,
says...
In article PFUde.14499$Ab.6710@trndny04, "Tom Capizzi"
wrote in defense of crackpot science:


"Traveler" wrote in message
.. .
New Crackpot Suggestions for crank.net

The following illustrious crackpots all claim that GR does not forbid
time travel. They claim that one can travel through time not only
toward the future but toward the past via closed time-like loops.


Just because GR does not forbid it does not mean that anyone can
build a time machine.

Look, Mr. Jackass. GR forbids time travel, period. Seeing that you set
yourself as the advocate of crackpot science, the fact that you did
not know that GR forbids time travel not only shows your ignorance in
matters that you and your crackpot idols should have already known, it
shows you are a ****-for-brains crackpot as well.


Before you start to blast me too. let me state that I tend to agree with
you that time travel is impossible for philosophical reasons very
similar to the one that you quote by Dr. Joe Rosen on your website.

However allow me to make some observations.

1) Einstein did not rule out time travel from GR. He agreed that Goedel
solution shows that under relativity time travel in some situations are
possible. As if there is one solution then its possible that other
solutions can be found.

2) Your proof, please explain here

http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...us.htm#Nothing

You state.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
The above explanation can be rephrased using simple 4-D spacetime
manifold math. If the world-line (a path in spacetime) of a moving
particle is parameterized thus:

(t,x(t),y(t),z(t))

we can obtain the "4-velocity" of the particle:

(1,dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt)

The t-axis or time-axis velocity component is 1, a dimensionless number.
Now there are relativists who will insist that it is perfectly
acceptable to express velocity in time with a dimensionless number but
the rest of us with our head on our shoulders, know that it is not true.
We know that a dimensionless number such as 1 has absolutely no meaning
in as far as expressing velocity or any sort of change. Velocity must be
given in units of velocity such as meters per second or whatever
standard units are being used. For this reason, there is no motion in
spacetime.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++=

Say I reduce it to a 2-D spacetime

(t,x)

I divide by dx (space) instead of dt (time) as you did

I obtain

(dt/dx,1)

Now what meaning does the 1 have here as the x-axis component.

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
oups.com...

Traveler wrote:
New Crackpot Suggestions for crank.net

The following illustrious crackpots all claim that GR does not forbid
time travel. They claim that one can travel through time not only
toward the future but toward the past via closed time-like loops.

1. Kip "Wormhole" Thorne
2. Kurt "Lunatic" Godel
3. David "Quantum Computing" Deutsch
4. Carl "Billions of Stars" Sagan
5. Stephen "Black Hole" Hawking
6. Michio Kaku
7. Paul Davies
8. Jack "Paranormal" Sarfatti
9. and many others.

Ref: Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/.../notorious.htm

Anybody with two neurons between their ears can figure out that time
does not change by definition and that nothing can move in spacetime.
IOW, there is only the present and nothing moves in time toward the
future or the past. So why aren't the obvious crackpots on the list
above not listed at crank.net?

Answer: Every organized religion must protect its own, the way the
Catholic Church protects its pederasts/priests. As Hanson would say,
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm


Figured out yet why you can't move through space without also moving
through time?

Motion is defined as a change in spatial position.

In article , "Dr ***"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message
.. .
In article PFUde.14499$Ab.6710@trndny04, "Tom Capizzi"
wrote in defense of crackpot science:

Time has been an evolution parameter ever since Newton used a
non-variable temporal interval (dt) to describe motion. Nobody has
ever observed time changing. A changing clock is not evidence for a
variable time. It is evidence for, well, a changing clock.

A temporal variable is an oxymoron. It is stupid to a ****ing extreme.
Why? Because time is used as a parameter to describe change.
dr
But could not Time/duration/interval time be different for two or more
spatially displaced events and this differential itself be the effect that
produces and is observed as space-time and energy?
--
Dr *** My role is essentially a pedagogical one or biker unless I take a
chunk out of your leg and in that case I was just hungry {:-)
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Still full of manure but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{:-)

Dr ***, did you examine Uncle Dickhead's anus recently?

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

In article MPG.1ce35489f9154a50989d18@news, Bernardz
wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article PFUde.14499$Ab.6710@trndny04, "Tom Capizzi"
wrote in defense of crackpot science:


"Traveler" wrote in message
.. .
New Crackpot Suggestions for crank.net

The following illustrious crackpots all claim that GR does not forbid
time travel. They claim that one can travel through time not only
toward the future but toward the past via closed time-like loops.


Just because GR does not forbid it does not mean that anyone can
build a time machine.

Look, Mr. Jackass. GR forbids time travel, period. Seeing that you set
yourself as the advocate of crackpot science, the fact that you did
not know that GR forbids time travel not only shows your ignorance in
matters that you and your crackpot idols should have already known, it
shows you are a ****-for-brains crackpot as well.


Before you start to blast me too. let me state that I tend to agree with
you that time travel is impossible for philosophical reasons very
similar to the one that you quote by Dr. Joe Rosen on your website.

However allow me to make some observations.

1) Einstein did not rule out time travel from GR. He agreed that Goedel
solution shows that under relativity time travel in some situations are
possible. As if there is one solution then its possible that other
solutions can be found.

You are correct. The fact is, even Einstein did not realize that time
cannot change. That's the problem when you think that physics is all
about equations. Maybe I should include Mr. Spacetime on the crackpot
list, what do you think?

[cut]

Sorry. The rest of your stuff bores me.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

In article .com,
wrote:


Traveler wrote:
New Crackpot Suggestions for crank.net


yaaaaAAAaaaawn

Who cares.

Eh, Freak. Did Uncle Dickhead pump you in the ass recently?

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

In article .com,
wrote:

I would ask Louis to contemplate Alfred North Whitehead's description
of the nineteenth century paradigm:

"The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries accepted as their natural
philosophy a certain circle of concepts which were as rigid and
definite as those of the philosophy of the middle ages, and were
accepted with as little critical research. I will call this natural
philosophy 'materialism.' Not only were men of science materialists,
but also adherents of all schools of philosophy. The idealists only
differed from the philosophic materialists on question of the alignment
of nature in reference to mind. But no one had any doubt that the
philosophy of nature considered in itself was of the type which I have
called materialism. It is the philosophy which I have already examined
in my two lectures of this course preceding the present one. It can be
summarised as the belief that nature is an aggregate of material and
that this material exists in some sense at each successive member of a
one-dimensional series of extensionless instants of time. Furthermore
the mutual relations of the material entities at each instant formed
these entities into a spatial configuration in an unbounded space. It
would seem that space---on this theory-would be as instantaneous as the
instants, and that some explanation is required of the relations
between the successive instantaneous spaces. The materialistic theory
is however silent on this point; and the succession of instantaneous
spaces is tacitly combined into one persistent space. This theory is a
purely intellectual rendering of experience which has had the luck to
get itself formulated at the dawn of scientific thought. It has
dominated the language and the imagination of science since science
flourished in Alexandria, with the result that it is now hardly
possible to speak without appearing to assume its immediate
obviousness. " The Concept of Nature 1920.

It's obvious that Whitehead's materialists were all a bunch of
crackpots and dishonest jackasses. Dishonesty of thought is the mother
of stupidity. Would you believe that John Baez (that boastful,
self-admiring, grown-up nerd who thinks that science is about showing
how smart you are at solving little puzzles) subscribes to the same
crap? Baez claims that reality consists of an infinite number
of"nows".

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-07/msg0016990.html

Baez, of course, declines to explain how one is able to move from one
now to the next, given that motion is impossible in spacetime. Heck,
there is not even a mechanism in GR's spacetime to determine which now
is the actual now.

There are still plenty of materialists but they do not include your
list of 'cranks'.

Do you mean that they did not make it on my list? Of course, they
didn't. They're like ****ing bugs in a ****ing swamp. I am not an
exterminator.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
In article PFUde.14499$Ab.6710@trndny04, "Tom Capizzi"
wrote in defense of crackpot science:


"Traveler" wrote in message
. ..
New Crackpot Suggestions for crank.net

The following illustrious crackpots all claim that GR does not forbid
time travel. They claim that one can travel through time not only
toward the future but toward the past via closed time-like loops.


Just because GR does not forbid it does not mean that anyone can
build a time machine.

Look, Mr. Jackass. GR forbids time travel, period. Seeing that you set
yourself as the advocate of crackpot science, the fact that you did
not know that GR forbids time travel not only shows your ignorance in
matters that you and your crackpot idols should have already known, it
shows you are a ****-for-brains crackpot as well.


If you are so sure that GR forbids time travel, prove it to me. Otherwise it
is just
another of your unsupported assertions. You have made it clear that your
opinion
trumps all others. That isn't good enough for me. If you refuse my request,
it is
you that is the chicken ****. Your vehemence is no substitute for proof.

1. Kip "Wormhole" Thorne
2. Kurt "Lunatic" Godel
3. David "Quantum Computing" Deutsch
4. Carl "Billions of Stars" Sagan
5. Stephen "Black Hole" Hawking
6. Michio Kaku

Correction:
6. Michio "Cuckoo" Kaku

It sounds better. :-D

7. Paul Davies

Correction:
7. Paul "Down Under" Davies

8. Jack "Paranormal" Sarfatti
9. and many others.

Ref: Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:

The only thing nasty about this is your language, and there is very
little truth in it.

I love the fact that my total lack of respect drives you nuts. Yeah,
eat ****! .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...


Dream on. You call it lack of respect. I call it lack of intelligence. I
made
a simple observation. You admit you use such language intentionally.
What's the big deal if I notice it?

http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/.../notorious.htm

Anybody with two neurons between their ears can figure out that time
does not change by definition and that nothing can move in spacetime.
IOW, there is only the present and nothing moves in time toward the
future or the past. So why aren't the obvious crackpots on the list
above not listed at crank.net?

And anybody with a whole brain between their ears can figure out that
just because you call it a definition does not make it so. And semantic
trickery does not make everything immobile.

Time has been an evolution parameter ever since Newton used a
non-variable temporal interval (dt) to describe motion. Nobody has
ever observed time changing. A changing clock is not evidence for a
variable time. It is evidence for, well, a changing clock.


Newton wasn't 100% correct. Your argument is unconvincing. Lots of
things are unobservable directly, but their consequences are. Clocks
measure time, so changing clocks measure changing time.

A temporal variable is an oxymoron. It is stupid to a ****ing extreme.
Why? Because time is used as a parameter to describe change. To
describe time as a variable would require a meta-time and a
meta-meta-time for the meta-time, and so on. The fact that you cannot
grasp something as simple as this tells me that you are ill-prepared
to come to the defense of your crackpot idols. Your chicken-****
religion is under attack, you fanatical asshole. Unconditional
surrender is the only option. The attacks will not let up. They will
only intensify. Get ready for your daddy.

The fact that you cannot grasp infinity makes you ill-equipped to argue
anything. There is no point to arguing with you and your elephant
mountain theories. Your theory is based on faith, not mine. You are the
zealot. Go on. Heap more dung on the pile. You write like some adolescent
who just discovered swearing and has to make himself noticed among the
adults. In addition, you are a sniveling liar. You post elsewhere that you
only abuse others who have a "dishonest hidden agenda". Dishonest is
whatever you don't like, and I have no idea what you consider hidden.
Some people believe that a 100 of years of experimental data supports
mainstream physics. That's neither dishonest nor hidden, but it sends
you into a frenzy. If new experimental evidence disproves some part of
the existing worldview, then a new one will be developed. Rest assured
that your ranting will not change anything.


Answer: Every organized religion must protect its own, the way the
Catholic Church protects its pederasts/priests. As Hanson would say,
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...

If you had anything useful to say you would be just as protected. Now
go ahead and vomit up some more obscenity. You don't even qualify as
a crackpot since all you spew is insults.

Yeah, yeah. Eat ****. .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... not Hanson.

Louis Savain

In article np4ee.15241$yd1.8078@trndny01, "Tom Capizzi"
wrote:

[crap]

..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Ok. You think you're a wise guy,
eh Capizzi? **** off. You bore me.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/...eliability.htm