In article <JZhDf.230841$V7.146995@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill
Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> writes:

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1138578917.410546.35060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ivunt1dv1lkhgdbq65l3bveafosgk6oaba@4ax.com...

The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics:
wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons,
spacetime warps, etc... It's all driven by a desire to impress a lay
public

Nope- it is driven by a desire to understand nature and evidenced by
the
papers that are produced detailing it - ....

[snip apologies]

Yup, let's go ahead understand the world:

AXIOMS of SR:

Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- falis
verification

The claim of SR is not that inertial frames exist - it is they exist
conceptually like points having position and no size exist - which also do
not exist in your sense either. Fully covered in grade 8 geometry -
repeat
it until understood then repost. But of course you will not since this
has
been explained to you time and time again yet you can not grasp it. I
suppose you will always simply be fodder for Dirks list;
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Those that give us mirth and merriment have their uses; but I am
humanitarian enough to wish you at least had an inkling of a clue.

I'll add here something, not for the benefit of the OP (who deserves
no attention) but for some educable folks who may be following this
thread.

Physics postulates (and yes, they're called "postulates", not
"axioms", and there is a reason for this distinction) require ***no***
verification. In fact, they don't even require justification (one
may be provided but it is not necessary). What they require, in order
to be considered (provisionally) valid is:

1) Consistency, i.e.that the postulates do not contradict one another.
2) Independence, i.e. that none of the postulates may be derived from
the other ones. Of course, if something like this occures, the one
derived is no longer a postulate and it may just be dropped from the
list.
3) That the results derived using the postulates are not in
disagreement with observations.

To these one may add a fourth one

4) Relevance. That's a matter of Occam's Razor. It is always
possible to complement any set of postulates with additional
postulates that have no bearing on *any* result obtainable from the
theory. To use a recent example, ID, one can take the set of
postulates of any physical theory and add to it the extra postulate of
"things are this way because God ordained it so". This extra
postulate doesn't violate the consistency or independence of the set
and, obviously, doesn't violate rule (3) since the results derived are
not changed by its inclusion. For this very reason, though, it is not
relevant, thus it doesn't belong in the set.

So, these are the requirements. And if anybody complains that "these
postulates aren't proven" the answer is "of course, if it would have
been possible to prove them, they wouldn't have been postulates". And
if somebody complains that "there is no guarantee that these
postulates are true", the answer is, again, "of course". Science
doesn't give you guarantees of Truth, and never will. It gives you
models consistent with available information. That's all.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

I'll add here something, not for the benefit of the OP (who deserves
no attention) but for some educable folks who may be following this
thread.

Physics postulates (and yes, they're called "postulates", not
"axioms", and there is a reason for this distinction) require ***no***
verification. In fact, they don't even require justification (one
may be provided but it is not necessary). What they require, in order
to be considered (provisionally) valid is:

1) Consistency, i.e.that the postulates do not contradict one another.
2) Independence, i.e. that none of the postulates may be derived from
the other ones. Of course, if something like this occures, the one
derived is no longer a postulate and it may just be dropped from the
list.
3) That the results derived using the postulates are not in
disagreement with observations.

To these one may add a fourth one

4) Relevance. That's a matter of Occam's Razor. It is always
possible to complement any set of postulates with additional
postulates that have no bearing on *any* result obtainable from the
theory. To use a recent example, ID, one can take the set of
postulates of any physical theory and add to it the extra postulate of
"things are this way because God ordained it so". This extra
postulate doesn't violate the consistency or independence of the set
and, obviously, doesn't violate rule (3) since the results derived are
not changed by its inclusion. For this very reason, though, it is not
relevant, thus it doesn't belong in the set.

So, these are the requirements. And if anybody complains that "these
postulates aren't proven" the answer is "of course, if it would have
been possible to prove them, they wouldn't have been postulates". And
if somebody complains that "there is no guarantee that these
postulates are true", the answer is, again, "of course". Science
doesn't give you guarantees of Truth, and never will. It gives you
models consistent with available information. That's all.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <JZhDf.230841$V7.146995@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> writes:

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1138578917.410546.35060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ivunt1dv1lkhgdbq65l3bveafosgk6oaba@4ax.com...

The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics:
wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons,
spacetime warps, etc... It's all driven by a desire to impress a lay
public

Nope- it is driven by a desire to understand nature and evidenced by the
papers that are produced detailing it - ....

[snip apologies]

Yup, let's go ahead understand the world:

AXIOMS of SR:

Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- falis
verification

The claim of SR is not that inertial frames exist - it is they exist
conceptually like points having position and no size exist - which also do
not exist in your sense either. Fully covered in grade 8 geometry - repeat
it until understood then repost. But of course you will not since this has
been explained to you time and time again yet you can not grasp it. I
suppose you will always simply be fodder for Dirks list;
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Those that give us mirth and merriment have their uses; but I am
humanitarian enough to wish you at least had an inkling of a clue.

I'll add here something, not for the benefit of the OP (who deserves
no attention) but for some educable folks who may be following this
thread.

Physics postulates (and yes, they're called "postulates", not
"axioms", and there is a reason for this distinction) require ***no***
verification. In fact, they don't even require justification (one
may be provided but it is not necessary). What they require, in order
to be considered (provisionally) valid is:

1) Consistency, i.e.that the postulates do not contradict one another.
2) Independence, i.e. that none of the postulates may be derived from
the other ones. Of course, if something like this occures, the one
derived is no longer a postulate and it may just be dropped from the
list.
3) That the results derived using the postulates are not in
disagreement with observations.

To these one may add a fourth one

4) Relevance. That's a matter of Occam's Razor. It is always
possible to complement any set of postulates with additional
postulates that have no bearing on *any* result obtainable from the
theory. To use a recent example, ID, one can take the set of
postulates of any physical theory and add to it the extra postulate of
"things are this way because God ordained it so". This extra
postulate doesn't violate the consistency or independence of the set
and, obviously, doesn't violate rule (3) since the results derived are
not changed by its inclusion. For this very reason, though, it is not
relevant, thus it doesn't belong in the set.

So, these are the requirements. And if anybody complains that "these
postulates aren't proven" the answer is "of course, if it would have
been possible to prove them, they wouldn't have been postulates". And
if somebody complains that "there is no guarantee that these
postulates are true", the answer is, again, "of course". Science
doesn't give you guarantees of Truth, and never will. It gives you
models consistent with available information. That's all.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 06:30:49 GMT, Bubba wrote:

"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fkaot1t6126fkl5tckq2kou57u7gr3em9k@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:49:25 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com>
wrote:

[crap]

In 1949, Kurt Godel announce to the world that Einstein's spacetime
allows time travel to the past via time-like loops.

That is not what he did.

But fruitcake Godel did exactly that, Bubba.

Here's an article that
explains it all:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?050228crat_atlarge

A quick search on Google will reveal many more references. You're in
denial, Bubba. Why? Obviously because your idols look stupid and you
can't stand it. That's the problem with being an ***** kisser, Bubba.
ahahahaha... Sometimes, the ***** that you kiss does not look so good.
ahahahaha...

So, why did Einstein act as if he was unaware of the fact that nothing
can move in spacetime?

It was mentioned (see Karl Popper's
"Conjectures") by several prominent thinkers during Einstein's
lifetime. In fact, Gödel himself concluded that, if time travel were
possible, then the past is not past and one could no longer talk of a
passing time. In other words, if the past exists, time stands still
and spacetime is unchanging. Of course, this is a roundabout and
contradictory way of showing something that can be proven in a single
sentence, but this is to be expected of someone like Gödel. Why is
Gödel method contradictory? Because if time is unchanging (which it
is), any talk of time travel to the past via time-like loops puts one
squarely into crackpot territory. Gödel apparently failed to grasp the
obvious inconsistency. ahahaha... Once a fruicake, always a fruitcake,
eh Bubba?

Making phun of "physicists" 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

***** van de merde wrote:

[crap]