In article ,
says...
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?

Based on your logic yes.


[cut]

Sorry. The rest of your stuff bores me.

Well I think you are obligated to defend your argument if you put it up.



Louis Savain

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


--
My advice to a traveller is to make sure that his suitcase is locked.

Observations of Bernard - No 75

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dr ***"
wrote:

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?
tls

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

dr
No I haven't, what does it look and taste like???{;-) Your posting is one of
the most convincing argument for any theory that I have had the privilege to
read. Thank you.

--
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 , "Dr ***"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Dr ***"
wrote:

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?
tls

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

dr
No I haven't, what does it look and taste like???{;-) Your posting is one of
the most convincing argument for any theory that I have had the privilege to
read. Thank you.

My pleasure....



..... 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

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
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

Truth hurts, don't it.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

though
the experiment looks sufficiently straightforward (though
Kenseto's predictions are rather vague; if tA 0 one
doesn't know if tA will be 1*10^-20 or 1 or 1*10^20).

delta tA1 0. The value of delta tA1 need to be determine experimentally.
But the experiment will defermine if there is absolute motion and it will
also determine the magnetude and direction of absolute motion.

Claims to be an extension of SR or GR, but the
experiment as performed in SR or GR will never
show anything but 0.

NO....you got it wrong. SR and GR are subsets of Model Mechanics. The
experiments will refute the SR and GR predictions that the activation time
(delta tA1) is zero. This, in turn, will refute the bogus SR/GR claim that
the need for the ether (the E-Matrix) is superfluous.

Ken Seto

The usual answer to the impossibility of motion in space-time is to add
a further timelike dimension with the same signature as space so that
space-time is 5D. There are numerous philosophers and physicists who
have made this proposal over the last century. Some are dualists (the
second time dimension is in a non-material mind), some are indirect
realists (the second time dimension is in a material mind) and some
propose time-like extensive dimensions in the world itself to make a
sort of de Sitter space-time (students of GR will know that this
actually gives a good description of cosmology).

Best Wishes

Alex Green

In article .com,
wrote:

The usual answer to the impossibility of motion in space-time is to add
a further timelike dimension with the same signature as space so that
space-time is 5D. There are numerous philosophers and physicists who
have made this proposal over the last century.

Yes. Stephen "Black Hole" Hawking also proposed the same crap, if I
recall correctly. Problem is, adding a second physical time dimension
does not solve anything. It compounds it. *Any* physical time
dimension automatically makes motion impossible.

Some are dualists (the
second time dimension is in a non-material mind),

The problem with this is that the spacetime material universe is still
motionless. Which means it does not change and has never changed.
Hence we are replaying a movie that was never made because it cannot
be made.

some are indirect
realists (the second time dimension is in a material mind)

Equally invalid.

and some
propose time-like extensive dimensions in the world itself to make a
sort of de Sitter space-time (students of GR will know that this
actually gives a good description of cosmology).

Time-like extensions? What in hell does that mean?

It's all raw unprocessed bull**** Alex. It was bull**** a hundred
years ago and it is bull**** now. The physics community is filled to
the rim with unmitigated bull****. There is no time dimension, period.

And don't even mention the crap about multiple parallel universes
branching out at each and every moment, because I am liable to go
ballistic and tell that Oxford lunatic, David Deutsch, to go ****
himself with a quantum computer.

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 sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:17:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

If you say so. :-P


though
the experiment looks sufficiently straightforward (though
Kenseto's predictions are rather vague; if tA 0 one
doesn't know if tA will be 1*10^-20 or 1 or 1*10^20).

delta tA1 0. The value of delta tA1 need to be determine
experimentally. But the experiment will defermine if there
is absolute motion and it will also determine the magnetude
and direction of absolute motion.

Can you at least estimate it for a proper motion of
about 10^-4 c? That is, after all the speed of the
Earth revolving around the Sun. If you really want
you can estimate it for 10^-3 c, though I'm not as
sure for that value -- however, that's the suggested
value of the Sun's velocity around the center of
the Milky Way.

The nice thing about the Earth is that 6 months later,
one is going 2 * 10^-4 in a different direction; one
is almost *guaranteed* a magnitude-change of the absolute
velocity of at least this much.

You can of course also incorporate the speed of rotation
and the curvature of space in the Earth's vicinity,
if you like. :-)


Claims to be an extension of SR or GR, but the
experiment as performed in SR or GR will never
show anything but 0.

NO....you got it wrong. SR and GR are subsets of
Model Mechanics. The experiments will refute the
SR and GR predictions that the activation time
(delta tA1) is zero. This, in turn, will refute
the bogus SR/GR claim that the need for the ether
(the E-Matrix) is superfluous.

In order to perform the experiment properly you must have
a prediction of delta tA1 first, given the expected
conditions above. Otherwise the system can't be built
properly as we won't know whether to measure something
that's off by a millisecond, microsecond, nanosecond,
picosecond, or femtosecond.

A millisecond delta is easy to measure. A femtosecond
delta would take quite a bit of work.

Which is it, assuming a proper motion of 10^-4 c?

Here's an illustrative computation for absolute luminiferous
aether-space theory with the MMX apparatus.

C
_
|
| 100m
|
100m | 100m
O *--------/--------| B
A|
| 100m
| = v = 10^-4 c
|
v
D

We assume the entire apparatus is moving through some sort of
absolute-luminiferous-space at 10^-4 c, and that the light
source generates photons which are c relative to this
absolute-luminiferous-space. We model the photons here
as little bullets and ignore such issues as mirror-caused
light polarization and movement through the vertical plane
of the monitor screen/paper/Earth's surface.

The photons will be retarded from O to B by 10^-4 c. For
various reasons the photons will traverse the hypotenuse of
a rectangle when traveling from A to C, from C back to A,
and from A to D; this will slow them down though not nearly
as much. The photons will be sped up going from B to A.
An interferometer at D measures the difference.

It now behooves us to compute the time it takes for a
photon to get, from the two independent paths, from O to D.

O-A: velocity = (c - v)
A-B: velocity = (c - v)
B-A: velocity = (c + v)
A-C, C-A, A-D: sqrt(c^2 - v^2) -- the side of a right triangle
with hypotenuse c and other side v

so the times are as follows for the two lightpaths:

OABAD: 200/(c-v) + 100/(c+v) + 100/sqrt(c^2-v^2)
OACAD: 100/(c-v) + 300/sqrt(c^2-v^2)
delta: 100/(c-v) + 100/(c+v) - 20/sqrt(c^2-v^2)
= (100(c+v) + 100(c-v) - 200*sqrt(c^2-v^2))/(c^2-v^2)
= (200 * (c - sqrt(c^2-v^2)))/(c^2-v^2)
= 3.33 * 10^-15 sec

500 nm light will take approximately (since the apparatus
is moving) 1.667 * 10^-15 sec to traverse a wavelength.
Therefore, this should easily be detectable as the
apparatus is rotated, using the interferometer.

If one assumes v = 10^-3 c the shift is far greater: about 200
wavelengths in the interferometer.

In practice, the lightpaths use many mirrors, not just the two (plus
the half-silvered middle one) shown here. However, the results
are the same, from a theoretical standpoint.

AIUI, the measured results are far smaller than predicted
by this admittedly naive theory. (The results were AIUI
not zero, but that's because the system is sitting in
a rotating gravity-stressed reference frame -- namely,
planet Earth. However, the equipment was not sensitive
enough to detect *this* result. I don't know how to
estimate that delta using GTR, but it was far smaller than
2 wavelengths. For its part SR, which has no "absolute
point", predicts exactly 0, providing the apparatus is
stopped during the actual fringe measurement. [If not,
GR applies.])

What deltas might we expect from your apparatus, assuming
similar conditions?


Ken Seto


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:17:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

If you say so. :-P


though
the experiment looks sufficiently straightforward (though
Kenseto's predictions are rather vague; if tA 0 one
doesn't know if tA will be 1*10^-20 or 1 or 1*10^20).

delta tA1 0. The value of delta tA1 need to be determine
experimentally. But the experiment will defermine if there
is absolute motion and it will also determine the magnetude
and direction of absolute motion.

Can you at least estimate it for a proper motion of
about 10^-4 c? That is, after all the speed of the
Earth revolving around the Sun. If you really want
you can estimate it for 10^-3 c, though I'm not as
sure for that value -- however, that's the suggested
value of the Sun's velocity around the center of
the Milky Way.

Sigh....After all these discussions you still don't understand that absolute
motion is that motion of an object wrt the light. in the ether (the
E-Matrix). Observed relative motion between any two objects A and B is the
vector component difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion
and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and
B.

Louis, I feel as perplexed as you about the current treatment of time
but I do not think there is any historical golden age such as an
Augustinian knife-edge set in eternity or the Newtonian/Galilean
orderly catalogue of records with a 3D Euclidean present available to
us. The knowledge that Four Dimensionalism contains inherent problems
should not result in a retreat to even more unsustainable historical
theories or abandoning time altogether.

Your arguments about motionlessness have indeed not been answered by
four dimensionalism. In four dimensionalism the mystery of time is
pushed back into the observer which means there would have to be some
property within the observer to explain 'becoming' and hence motion.
The observer would be riding along its own time-line and such motion
requires another degree of freedom, another direction for arranging
things. As you say, things become complicated.

But what if we remove time? Suppose our conscious experience is an
arrangement of things where pasts can be inferred and futures predicted
but they do not happen. Where even the inferences and predictions are
just illusory patterns in 3D. Barbour has a version of this proposal
but it is an old idea. Can such a world be distinguished from a world
where time does exist? The big problem with this idea is the 'specious
present', awareness is time extended, and if we propose that this time
extension is records in 3D how could we ever be aware of the records?
There would need to be a little man or homunculus inside us that looks
at the records with a homunculus inside him to look at his records etc.
but such a recursion implies time.

It seems to me that the idea that motion is impossible is equivalent to
noticing that there seem to be insufficient degrees of freedom for
arranging things in our current theories. Consider points on a 1D line
in a 1D universe with no time. Are any other arrangements possible
given the line exists? Add another direction for arranging things and
we can have endless amended copies of the line.

Best Wishes

Alex Green