"odin" wrote in message
news
In 1949, Einstein's friend, Kurt "lunatic" Godel, announced to the
world that the spacetime of general relativity allows time travel via
closed timelike loops.

****ing idiot..... I hope you kill yourself today.
How upset you are! LOL!!
FOaD.

Androcles.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:55:22 GMT, "Dastardly Fiend"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message
.. .
Here is the reason that Einstein had a poor understanding of his own
theories:
[snip, I did read]


Albert Einstein was better than Harry Houdini,
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/3487/
better than David Copperfield, Louis.
http://www.davidcopperfield.com/#

All three knew about smoke and mirrors, but Einstein's smoke and
mirrors is on paper. David Copperfield can make an elephant disappear.
Einstein could make time disappear. And he's more famous. At the age of 13
he got his first inspiration from http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
That's not dumb, that's pretty smart.

Androcles.


I think you're right. He was smarter at playing the con game than I
give him credit for. Heck, come to think of it, he was a genius.

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:02:02 GMT, "Dastardly Fiend"
wrote:


"Mike" wrote in message
roups.com...

Traveler wrote:

[snip]


Certainly, but this does not prevent a bunch of crackpots, con artists
and lunatics (e.g., Kurt Godel, Albert Einstein, Kip Thorne, Michio
Kaku, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Carl Sagan, David Deutsche,
etc...) from believing in time travel, even though the "model" does
not support motion in time at all. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...


You forgot to add, Baez, Roberts, Dirty van der Psychous von Pandora,
Samy the Wormhead, Eric Goose and plenty of others. they all believe,
whether they know it or not, in a block universe.


Mike

Those people are dumb sheep. Einstein was a smart butcher.
Leg of Goose, anyone?
Fishbait? Wormy will do.
Sperm? Dork Van de merde doesn't have any.

LOL. This IS funny. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

"Traveler" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:55:22 GMT, "Dastardly Fiend"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message
. ..
Here is the reason that Einstein had a poor understanding of his own
theories:
[snip, I did read]


Albert Einstein was better than Harry Houdini,
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/3487/
better than David Copperfield, Louis.
http://www.davidcopperfield.com/#


All three knew about smoke and mirrors, but Einstein's smoke and
mirrors is on paper. David Copperfield can make an elephant disappear.
Einstein could make time disappear. And he's more famous. At the age of 13
he got his first inspiration from http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
That's not dumb, that's pretty smart.

Androcles.


I think you're right. He was smarter at playing the con game than I
give him credit for. Heck, come to think of it, he was a genius.

He WAS a genius, Louis. I'd never play dice with him. Even God lost,
which is why God doesn't play dice anymore.
And like all of us, Einstein got better at it as he gained experience.
To catch him out you have to understand a little psychology,
look at his background and examine his writings.
The math is the con. To see through that takes a little knowledge,
but look at the psychology instead.
He got ****ed off at school because his teachers were poor and told
him he would never make it. That put his back up more than anything.
He was stuck in a job he didn't like, checking out patents for cuckoo
clocks,
which was the prime industry of Switzerland.
He's read H G Wells' "Time Machine", Lorentz on MMX, Rouse Ball on
triangles. So he gets a hard-on for time, sees a way to get ahead in life,
writes
some papers. Lo and behold, he gets published.
Now he has a tiger by the tail, he can't let go or it will eat him alive.
He even tries to be honest, but that tiger tail stays firmly in his grip.
So he tells us:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein
Which means it was all a con.

Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing. -- Albert
Einstein
He has a conscience. He contributed nothing, got the good life.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
He made it all up. It worked.


"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would
make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven
symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein
He loves art, but art cannot be described. Art is subjective.

"If A equals success, then the formula is _ A = _ X + _ Y + _ Z. _ X is
work. _ Y is play. _ Z is keep your mouth shut." -- Albert Einstein
He's got a tiger by the tail.

"If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith." -- Albert Einstein

He's got a tiger by the tail.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Albert
Einstein
The Magic Circle doesn't let on how the trick is done.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
Tongue in cheek.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
You are all suckers.


"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death." --Einstein, Albert
He doesn't give a rat's arse.

No question of it, he was a genius and a class act.
I DO admire him.
His physics are ****ing hopeless, he knew it, but it floated his boat and
made him as
wealthy as he needed. Pure Genius.

Androcles

On 5 Dec 2005 12:01:13 -0800, "Mike" wrote:


Traveler wrote:

[snip]

The problem with Godel's claim is that nothing can move in spacetime,
i.e., no time travel, no particles moving along their geodesics in
curved spacetime.

[snip]

In GR, space-time has an independent existence apart from material
objects,

I know. We've all been taught the same crap.

it is the arena when events happen, in a way analogous to
Newton's space and time.

It was never lost on me that it was Newton who started this "changing
time" ball rolling. Sir Isaac is the true father of time travel, which
is a shame, come to think of it. Leibniz tried to explain it to him
but he would not listen. The truth is that time does not change, by
definition and simple logic. There is only the ever changing present.

Thus, the "lunatic" was correct and you are
just ignorant of the details.

He was dead wrong on top of being a paranoid fruitcake. Nothing moves
in spacetime, period (deny if you're a ****ing idiot). Godel is the
most inconsequential mathematician that ever walked the surface of the
earth and yet he is placed on a pedestal by the clueless drones of the
scientific hive. ahahaha... His incompleteness theorem is the biggest
chicken-feather voodoo nonsense ever penned by a member of the human
species. But that's another story.

Furthermore, Godel said that the
space-time account allows time travel NOT that it facilitates time
travel.

Makes no difference. ahahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
On 5 Dec 2005 12:01:13 -0800, "Mike" wrote:


Traveler wrote:

[snip]

The problem with Godel's claim is that nothing can move in spacetime,
i.e., no time travel, no particles moving along their geodesics in
curved spacetime.

[snip]

In GR, space-time has an independent existence apart from material
objects,

I know. We've all been taught the same crap.

it is the arena when events happen, in a way analogous to
Newton's space and time.

It was never lost on me that it was Newton who started this "changing
time" ball rolling. Sir Isaac is the true father of time travel, which
is a shame, come to think of it. Leibniz tried to explain it to him
but he would not listen. The truth is that time does not change, by
definition and simple logic. There is only the ever changing present.

You've misunderstood Newton, son. He was talking about longer days in summer
than in winter, something you can't fail to notice in Britain. It's dark
here at 4:00 pm this time of year, and still light at 10.00 pm in summer. He
was not addressing the colonies or daylight saving time.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton, Principia 1687

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably
without regard to anything external" -- that agrees with your "The truth is
that time does
not change, by definition and simple logic."
Common or vulgar time (in the 1600's) was sunrise to sunset (day), and
sunset to sunrise (night).
They are not of equal duration, and that is what he's saying. Keep in mind
that people were using sundials, village church tower clocks were a new
invention that can AFTER Newton's work on pendula.
http://www.staple-online.co.uk/page32.html
"The Tower clock:
The clock is one-handed, showing the hours only. It was given to the church
in 1789 by Lady Lynch of Groves. The clock was second-hand, having been
used elsewhere, and was made long before 1789. "
That is 102 years AFTER Principia, and "long before" might have been 25 to
50 years.

http://www.stoneystanton.btinternet.co.uk/bells.htm
"The eighteenth century Churchwardens' accounts tell us that from as early
as 1715, a turret clock existed within the tower, which daily, within living
memory, struck the hour upon the tenor bell." --That's 28 years after
Principia.

"The motive quantity of a centripetal force, is the measure of the same,
proportional to the motion which it generates in a given time.
Britain is short on sunshine too, so sundials are not reliable. You can
thank Newton for modern clocks, it saved the clergy from turning
hourglasses, watching water clocks drip and ringing the church bell.



"Thus in a ship under sail, the relative place of a body is that part of the
ship which the body possesses; or that part of its cavity which the body
fills, and which therefore moves together with the ship: and relative rest
is the continuance of the body in the same part of the ship, or of its
cavity. But real, absolute rest, is the continuance of the body in the same
part of that immovable space, in which the ship itself, its cavity, and all
that it contains, is moved. " -- Sir Isaac Newton, Principia 1687

"Absolute rest is the continuance of the body". Today we call that inertia.
He's not using the word "absolute" in the same sense you would.

Androcles.




Thus, the "lunatic" was correct and you are
just ignorant of the details.

He was dead wrong on top of being a paranoid fruitcake. Nothing moves
in spacetime, period (deny if you're a ****ing idiot). Godel is the
most inconsequential mathematician that ever walked the surface of the
earth and yet he is placed on a pedestal by the clueless drones of the
scientific hive. ahahaha... His incompleteness theorem is the biggest
chicken-feather voodoo nonsense ever penned by a member of the human
species. But that's another story.

Furthermore, Godel said that the
space-time account allows time travel NOT that it facilitates time
travel.

Makes no difference. ahahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

Traveler wrote:
Here is the reason that Einstein had a poor understanding of his own
theories:

In 1949, Einstein's friend, Kurt "lunatic" Godel, announced to the
world that the spacetime of general relativity allows time travel via
closed timelike loops. Einstein agreed with Godel's finding but he was
not happy. He could not fathom how his grand theory would allow
something as ridiculous as time travel.

The problem with Godel's claim is that nothing can move in spacetime,
i.e., no time travel, no particles moving along their geodesics in
curved spacetime. Heck, no motion at all! IOW, spacetime is a
fictitious construct that does not model anything in reality. The fact
that nothing can move in spacetime was mentioned by several prominent
thinkers during Einstein's life. None other than Sir Karl Popper
(another friend of Einstein) wrote the following in 'Conjectures and
Refutations':

At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and
become testable; that historically speaking all - or very nearly
all - scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth
may contain important anticipations of scientific theories.
Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error,
or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which
nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension,
becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever
happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking,
determined and laid down from the beginning).

Thus Einstein's "unchanging block universe" makes him twentieth
century's Parmenides, which did not prevent him from believing in time
travel. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. ahahaha...

Now a whole new generation of notorious crackpots in high places have
jumped in lunatic Godel's time travel banwagon. Examples are Kip
"wormhole" Thorne, Stephen "black hole" Hawking, Brian "superstring"
Greene, Michio Kaku (Mucho Kuckoo), etc... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...

Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

Mr. Savain,

Obviously, you do not understand the issues involved in time travel. I
warn you, even if you manage to travel back and time and attempt to
kill your grandfather, you will not succeed, given of clourse the fact
that you were born and avle to make the travel back in time.

But do you have an alternative to the "block universe" or "parmenidean
Universe", as it is called in philosophical circles? it is known that
any alternative proposed leads to impossibilities. That is known as far
as in the times of Zeno (student of Parmenides).

Cheers,

Joe Avery

Traveler wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 11:21:57 -0800, wrote:


Traveler wrote:
....

The problem with Godel's claim is that nothing can move in spacetime,
i.e., no time travel, no particles moving along their geodesics in
curved spacetime. Heck, no motion at all! IOW, spacetime is a
fictitious construct that does not model anything in reality.

Of course it's a fictitious construct. All models in physical theories
are.

Not true. A model is supposed to represent (model) something in
nature.

Models are not restricted to representing things, and even then they
are not isomorphisms. A model of a spitfire airplane is not an
isomorphism to the real thing. A stylized map of a state, madeup by the
state's chamber of commerce, is likely to be a highly stylized
representation of the state. It may be highly distored metrically. It
may show the cities to be stylized pseudo-3D. It may not get the roads
precisely according to the metrics. Yet, the map will represent some
facts in a certain way. It is still a model of the state. In fact, even
on an ordinary map, the thickness of the roads are not drawn to actual
scale.

Phase space models relationships between position and momentum
variables. But phase space is not a thing in "reality." So what? It's
still useful.

Spacetime models (represents) relationships between events (occurrences
in space and time). So, unless your ontology of physics disallows for
events (primitives in relativity), then your physics has to contain
them somewhere in it.

We have models of the atom that are refined over the years as
knowledge increases. They representr actual entities (electrons,
neutrons, positrons, protrons, etc...).

But no one claims that the models of atoms are isomorphisms per se.
They are useful fictions invented primarily to aid in the formulation
of experimental tests and to unify whatever is known about them.

Spacetime is not a model
because it represents nothing physical.

Spacetime is not a thing.

It's not a model either.

To the degree that spacetime represents events and their relationships,
it is a model -- a representation of events. Both 1905 SR and LET have
the notion of event, but 1905 SR raised its importance, especially for
operational reasons and perspicuity.


It is a mental construct for aiding in
the analysis of events and the relationships presumed to exist among
them. Ditto for phase space, contact space, configuration space, etc.

I have no problem with that. But how does one get from a fictitious
construct like spacetime to time travel.

Not my issue. My interest here is "What is a model in physics?"

Obviously Einstein and a
whole bunch of other people believed and continue to believe that
spacetime represents something in nature. The histroical record cannot
be erased. This crap is in countless school textbooks. Brian Greene
himself claims that matter affects spacetime which in turns affects
the motion of matter.

In the THEORY, yes, theoretical matter affects theoretical spacetime.
But theories exist in theoryland. The question then is not how real
matter affects some real entity called spacetime, but how the theory
claims that modeled matter affects this abstract model called spacetime
to predict measurable events. This requires a two-way mapping between
the abstract model of spacetime and measurement space. The same can be
said for phase space or configuration space, which are also not claimed
to be isomorphisms to things in the real world.


ahahaha... This is pure unmitigated crackpottery
of the worst kind. Why? Because it does not come from Archimeded
Plutonium, but from renown and respected scientists. What gives?

It is the points on the tangent space of spacetime that can "move,"
like a bug crawling on a map of a city.

Certainly, but this does not prevent a bunch of crackpots, con artists
and lunatics (e.g., Kurt Godel, Albert Einstein, Kip Thorne, Michio
Kaku, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Carl Sagan, David Deutsche,
etc...) from believing in time travel, even though the "model" does
not support motion in time at all. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

On 6 Dec 2005 08:16:32 -0800, wrote:

Obviously Einstein and a
whole bunch of other people believed and continue to believe that
spacetime represents something in nature. The histroical record cannot
be erased. This crap is in countless school textbooks. Brian Greene
himself claims that matter affects spacetime which in turns affects
the motion of matter.

In the THEORY, yes, theoretical matter affects theoretical spacetime.
But theories exist in theoryland. The question then is not how real
matter affects some real entity called spacetime, but how the theory
claims that modeled matter affects this abstract model called spacetime
to predict measurable events. This requires a two-way mapping between
the abstract model of spacetime and measurement space. The same can be
said for phase space or configuration space, which are also not claimed
to be isomorphisms to things in the real world.

You are a perfect example of an apolegetic asshole covering up for the
crackpottery of his conniving masters. It's not unlike the way
Parmenides' homosexual lover/slave, Zeno, cleverly and deviously
defended the crackpottery of his master. The Eleatic school was a very
intimate fraternity in more ways than one. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Here
is some voodoo physics humor that might interest you:

Crackpot Humor:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/humor.htm

ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

Mark Martin wrote:
Traveler wrote:

Not true. A model is supposed to represent (model) something in
nature. We have models of the atom that are refined over the years as
knowledge increases. They representr actual entities (electrons,
neutrons, positrons, protrons, etc...). Spacetime is not a model
because it represents nothing physical.

On the contrary, the revelation of relativity theory is that
spacetime *is* a thing; that space and time aren't just a disinterested
stage on which other things go about their business.

Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church, not because he was in
heresy of anything in the Bible, but because he refuted Ptolemy. Here
you are persecuting someone, not for a heresy against Einstein's
relativity, but for your personal metaphysical conjecturings about an
abstract model (freely created by the human mind) used in relativity.
Argue metaphysics somewhere else, please.