Science > Physics > The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Traveler" |
| Date: |
06 Jun 2005 12:15:21 PM |
| Object: |
The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
Peter Lynds and Julian Barbour have been making waves with their
claims that time is an illusion. Of course, it's nothing that
countless others have not said already.
----------------------------------
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
The End of Time
Frankly I see no reason for anybody to write long papers and books
just to demonstrate that time is not a physical dimension. Time cannot
change simply because time is a parameter (an interval) used in
physics to describe change. To describe change in time would require a
meta-time, and a meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum. Since
time cannot change, it is not a physical dimension. That is all.
----------------------------------
More Nasty Little Truth About Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
The End of Space
We've already seen that a time dimension is illogical and that
spacetime cannot possibly be a model of reality. But what of space? Is
there such a thing as a space in which we exist and move? Is space a
collection of positions or points? Does matter occupy space? Ever
since Newton legitimized the idea of space most physicists have
believed in some sort of physical space existing separately from
matter. To Newton, space was absolute. Einstein's revolution did not
do away with the idea of an independent physical space but transformed
it into the concept of spacetime.
The Nasty Little Truth
Physical space is given as a collection of positions. The idea is
that, in order for any physical entity or property to exist, it must
exist at a specific position in space. But if a position is a physical
entity that exists, it too, must exist at a specific position. In
other words, if space exists, where is it? As with time, one can posit
a meta-space but this quickly turns into an infinite regress. The
nasty little truth is that there is no such thing as space.
Abstract Space
The concept of a space existing separately from matter has not been
without its detractors. Sir Isaac's nemesis, none other than the great
German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, rejected the
concept of space, absolute or otherwise. Leibniz wrote that "space is
nothing else but an order of the existence of things, observed as
existing together; and therefore the fiction of a material universe,
moving forward in an empty space cannot be admitted." Leibniz believed
that the position of an object is not the property of an extrinsic
space but an intrinsic property of the object. These properties, taken
together, form an abstract order that he called space. I fully agree
with Leibniz on this issue.
Everything Is Absolute
The most immediate consequence of nonspatiality is that all physical
properties in the universe are absolute. The relative is abstract (in
our minds) and is dependent on the absolute. The reason is that, since
there is no space, all properties are intrinsic to (belong to)
individual particles. They are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic.
We've been told that the absolute does not exist and that only the
relative exists. The truth is that the relative is abstract and only
the absolute exists.
Paradoxes That Never Were
All of the nasty problems and paradoxes associated with the existence
of space disappear in one fell swoop. We no longer have to ponder the
notion of an impossibly infinite space or whether or not it has an
edge. Of course if space was finite, the impossible question would be,
what's on the other side? None of these things are of any importance
any longer because space is a mere illusion that arises from the
properties and interactions of particles. It does not exist. Particles
do not move from one location in space to another. Motion is just a
type of change, a change in the intrinsic positional property of a
particle.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
| User: "*** rD" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 07:17:05 AM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ms09a1lu1q24ba3jh4uk7d5r16j1aft965@4ax.com...
| Peter Lynds and Julian Barbour have been making waves with their
| claims that time is an illusion. Of course, it's nothing that
| countless others have not said already.
|
| ----------------------------------
| Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
| http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
|
| The End of Time
| Frankly I see no reason for anybody to write long papers and books
| just to demonstrate that time is not a physical dimension. Time cannot
| change simply because time is a parameter (an interval) used in
| physics
And by the rest of the people in the world.
|to describe change. To describe change in time would require a
| meta-time,
No just time defined as a variable and relative.
| and a meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum. Since
| time cannot change, it is not a physical dimension. That is all.
|
Just an assertion to gain attention.{:-)
| ----------------------------------
| More Nasty Little Truth About Physics:
| http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
|
| The End of Space
| We've already seen that a time dimension is illogical
No thats just another of your assumptions.
| and that
| spacetime cannot possibly be a model of reality.
Maybe a poor model but this does not mean its not a model.
| But what of space?
A particular state of energy.
| Is
| there such a thing as a space in which we exist and move?
Yes experience should teach you that.
| Is space a
| collection of positions or points?
Only abstractly so that mathematics can be applied to it.
|Does matter occupy space?
No its a condition of space.
| Ever
| since Newton legitimized the idea of space most physicists have
| believed in some sort of physical space existing separately from
| matter. To Newton, space was absolute. Einstein's revolution did not
| do away with the idea of an independent physical space but transformed
| it into the concept of spacetime.
Yes and that would be fine if a bunch with the imagination of a snail had
not perverted his free dielectric view into brain damaged abortion.
|
| The Nasty Little Truth
| Physical space is given as a collection of positions. The idea is
| that, in order for any physical entity or property to exist, it must
| exist at a specific position in space. But if a position is a physical
| entity that exists, it too, must exist at a specific position. In
| other words, if space exists, where is it?
Everywhere existence does.
|As with time, one can posit
| a meta-space but this quickly turns into an infinite regress. The
| nasty little truth is that there is no such thing as space.
There is once it has been created by a state of difference.
|
| Abstract Space
| The concept of a space existing separately from matter has not been
| without its detractors. Sir Isaac's nemesis, none other than the great
| German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, rejected the
| concept of space, absolute or otherwise. Leibniz wrote that "space is
| nothing else but an order of the existence of things, observed as
| existing together; and therefore the fiction of a material universe,
| moving forward in an empty space cannot be admitted." Leibniz believed
| that the position of an object is not the property of an extrinsic
| space but an intrinsic property of the object. These properties, taken
| together, form an abstract order that he called space. I fully agree
| with Leibniz on this issue.
Well you and he are wrong as space exits as a relationship between different
conditions.
|
| Everything Is Absolute
| The most immediate consequence of nonspatiality is that all physical
| properties in the universe are absolute. The relative is abstract (in
| our minds) and is dependent on the absolute.
Speak for your own mind I need no absolutes and can find the relative as
real as I need.
|The reason is that, since
| there is no space, all properties are intrinsic to (belong to)
| individual particles. They are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic.
| We've been told that the absolute does not exist and that only the
| relative exists. The truth is that the relative is abstract and only
| the absolute exists.
The only thing you can sensible claim is absolute is existence.
|
| Paradoxes That Never Were
| All of the nasty problems and paradoxes associated with the existence
| of space disappear in one fell swoop. We no longer have to ponder the
| notion of an impossibly infinite space or whether or not it has an
| edge. Of course if space was finite, the impossible question would be,
| what's on the other side?
A state of relative non-existence.
| None of these things are of any importance
| any longer because space is a mere illusion that arises from the
| properties and interactions of particles. It does not exist. Particles
| do not move from one location in space to another. Motion is just a
| type of change, a change in the intrinsic positional property of a
| particle.
Sad, sad,sad that establishment physics has brought you to this. Cheer up
much of its mentally deranged rubbish {:-)
--
D & R *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 07:27:57 AM |
|
|
In article <1118146358.819.2@lotis.uk.clara.net>, "*** rD"
<paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote:
[crap]
Paul, you're a fucking moron. ahahaha... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "*** rD" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
08 Jun 2005 05:28:02 AM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0l4ba1hdedkiqe73769r0po76i1r52lvh2@4ax.com...
| In article <1118146358.819.2@lotis.uk.clara.net>, "*** rD"
| <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote:
|
| [crap]
|
| Paul, you're a fucking moron. ahahaha... ahahaha...
Thanks Traveller as coming from you it seems a compliment {:-). I have just
read a qualifier that you wrote on another thread that your view only
strictly applies on the micro level and smaller and that you can accept
macro time so if you can accept macro time perhaps you could accept sub
micro time ? i.e c+ as you seem to be able to accept c-
c is just a characteristic of the dielectric and only defines the
propagation rate of some energy states its no more a limiting factor than
the speed of your dog as is also the speed zero that is the rail that c runs
on. Wake up and think as you clearly think that cruising at c is your rest
state, try a bit of cottaging. {:-) LOL
--
D & R *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 01:19:55 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ms09a1lu1q24ba3jh4uk7d5r16j1aft965@4ax.com...
Peter Lynds and Julian Barbour have been making waves with their
claims that time is an illusion. Of course, it's nothing that
countless others have not said already.
----------------------------------
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
The End of Time
Frankly I see no reason for anybody to write long papers and books
just to demonstrate that time is not a physical dimension. Time cannot
change simply because time is a parameter (an interval) used in
physics to describe change. To describe change in time would require a
meta-time, and a meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum. Since
time cannot change, it is not a physical dimension. That is all.
see: http://martinelli.org/rexpansion/aclock.htm
Time is an alias for change & clocks are dynamic rulers. I.e., in general,
clocks are reference dynamics that we use to measure other dynamics.
Without reference objects we don't know what we're talking about.
see: http://www.martinelli.org/rexpansion/realvsab.htm
Time is not a parameter.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 01:22:46 PM |
|
|
"Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message
news:fzlpe.586$NX4.395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ms09a1lu1q24ba3jh4uk7d5r16j1aft965@4ax.com...
Peter Lynds and Julian Barbour have been making waves with their
claims that time is an illusion. Of course, it's nothing that
countless others have not said already.
----------------------------------
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
The End of Time
Frankly I see no reason for anybody to write long papers and books
just to demonstrate that time is not a physical dimension. Time cannot
change simply because time is a parameter (an interval) used in
physics to describe change. To describe change in time would require a
meta-time, and a meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum. Since
time cannot change, it is not a physical dimension. That is all.
see: http://martinelli.org/rexpansion/aclock.htm
Time is an alias for change & clocks are dynamic rulers. I.e., in
general, clocks are reference dynamics that we use to measure other
dynamics. Without reference objects we don't know what we're talking
about.
see: http://www.martinelli.org/rexpansion/realvsab.htm
and: http://www.martinelli.org/flash/animation1.html (I forgot I had that
one!)
Time is not a parameter.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 01:46:57 PM |
|
|
In article <fzlpe.586$NX4.395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
Time is not a parameter.
dt is certainly an evolution parameter (an interval) used to compare
one change (evolution) to a reference change (e.g., a clock). That is
all. Every other interpretation of time is either voodoo or a con
game.
Usually, the crackpot who uses time in any other fashion (e.g.,
Columbia University's superstring moron Brian Greene or the conniving
little con artist in the wheelchair) is trying to preach some *****
about time travel, wormholes, black holes or some other equally stupid
Star-Trek science crap.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 05:10:18 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eiqba15ladllfj8ilnad4lhm8ir2kd5ri6@4ax.com...
In article <fzlpe.586$NX4.395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
Time is not a parameter.
dt is certainly an evolution parameter (an interval) used to compare
one change (evolution) to a reference change (e.g., a clock). That is
all. Every other interpretation of time is either voodoo or a con
game.
It sounds like you're saying that dt represents something physical but in
the context of a formula, for example, it is a parameter.
If so then we agree that time is physical, but its representation is
abstract. If others don't agree with you & I... oh well.
Usually, the crackpot who uses time in any other fashion (e.g.,
Columbia University's superstring moron Brian Greene or the conniving
little con artist in the wheelchair) is trying to preach some *****
about time travel, wormholes, black holes or some other equally stupid
Guys who use a background space-time container will chase their tails
forever, why worry about them? When background free theories make new &
testable predictions, string theory will go away. But for that to happen we
have to work on BFT's !
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 05:54:08 PM |
|
|
In article <eXope.806$jX6.704@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eiqba15ladllfj8ilnad4lhm8ir2kd5ri6@4ax.com...
In article <fzlpe.586$NX4.395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
Time is not a parameter.
dt is certainly an evolution parameter (an interval) used to compare
one change (evolution) to a reference change (e.g., a clock). That is
all. Every other interpretation of time is either voodoo or a con
game.
It sounds like you're saying that dt represents something physical but in
the context of a formula, for example, it is a parameter.
No, that is not what I am saying.
If so then we agree that time is physical, but its representation is
abstract. If others don't agree with you & I... oh well.
No. That's not it. Time is not physical at all. There is no such thing
as a time property. *Change/motion* is physical. From that, we derive
an abstract time, i.e., a temporal interval. If time was physical,
i.e., if time was a physical dimension on a par with the other three,
then nothing would move. That is the problem with GR. The spacetime of
GR is unchanging. It is called Einstein's block universe for this
reason. To get time travel from GR is the ultimate in crackpottery.
Yet that has not stopped the likes of Brian Greene, Kip Thorne,
Stephen Hawking from doing just that. Go figure.
Usually, the crackpot who uses time in any other fashion (e.g.,
Columbia University's superstring moron Brian Greene or the conniving
little con artist in the wheelchair) is trying to preach some *****
about time travel, wormholes, black holes or some other equally stupid
Guys who use a background space-time container will chase their tails
forever, why worry about them?
They must be put in their places and unmasked for the charlatans that
they are. If it had not been for those assholes, we would have figured
out gravity a hundred years ago. Problem is, the assholes continue to
teach the same nonsense to young people. This sort of crap can get us
stuck in a rut for generations. And it has.
When background free theories make new &
testable predictions, string theory will go away. But for that to happen we
have to work on BFT's !
Yes. We need to come to our senses and realize that, in nature, there
exist only particles, their properties and their interactions. Nothing
else. But we need a lot more than that. We also need to understand the
causality of motion. It's been 400 years since Newton and we (science)
still have no idea what causes motion.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 07:51:43 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:in8ca1dcpaqsl5spidpittrdjmg3nr118a@4ax.com...
In article <eXope.806$jX6.704@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eiqba15ladllfj8ilnad4lhm8ir2kd5ri6@4ax.com...
In article <fzlpe.586$NX4.395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
Time is not a parameter.
dt is certainly an evolution parameter (an interval) used to compare
one change (evolution) to a reference change (e.g., a clock). That is
all. Every other interpretation of time is either voodoo or a con
game.
It sounds like you're saying that dt represents something physical but in
the context of a formula, for example, it is a parameter.
No, that is not what I am saying.
If so then we agree that time is physical, but its representation is
abstract. If others don't agree with you & I... oh well.
No. That's not it. Time is not physical at all.
The word "time" is just a label. When it refers to nothing its a dangling
pointer. For it to work it has to refer to something real. So why not say:
time = "reference dynamic"
where "reference dynamic" is an abstraction for any line that is bound by
two distinguishable endpoints and where the line is dynamic with respect to
some chosen reference static?
There is no such thing
as a time property. *Change/motion* is physical. From that, we derive
an abstract time, i.e., a temporal interval.
I agree.
If time was physical,
i.e., if time was a physical dimension on a par with the other three,
then nothing would move.
You can treat it as if it were on par (almost) with the other three
dimensions, in that it is linearly independant of any distance and that it
can only increase. I'm ok with this. I wouldn't say that it is orthogonal
or perpendicular to 3space.
That is the problem with GR. The spacetime of
GR is unchanging. It is called Einstein's block universe for this
reason.
Yes it is, but I think that is only because it is not mapped back as a
change with respect to a static reference the way we think of time or
change. I think that in GR time is treated like #2 (D wrt C) in:
http://www.martinelli.org/flash/animation1.html -- it makes the math easier.
It needs to be mapped as C wrt A.
To get time travel from GR is the ultimate in crackpottery.
I agree.
Yet that has not stopped the likes of Brian Greene, Kip Thorne,
Stephen Hawking from doing just that. Go figure.
Its popular & helps get grants. And although I doubt it, they could be
right.
Usually, the crackpot who uses time in any other fashion (e.g.,
Columbia University's superstring moron Brian Greene or the conniving
little con artist in the wheelchair) is trying to preach some *****
about time travel, wormholes, black holes or some other equally stupid
Guys who use a background space-time container will chase their tails
forever, why worry about them?
They must be put in their places and unmasked for the charlatans that
they are. If it had not been for those assholes, we would have figured
out gravity a hundred years ago. Problem is, the assholes continue to
teach the same nonsense to young people. This sort of crap can get us
stuck in a rut for generations. And it has.
Well, if they're wong, we can't prove it without more advances in BFT's.
When background free theories make new &
testable predictions, string theory will go away. But for that to happen
we
have to work on BFT's !
Yes. We need to come to our senses and realize that, in nature, there
exist only particles, their properties and their interactions. Nothing
else. But we need a lot more than that. We also need to understand the
causality of motion.
But what is motion? How do you characterize and quantify it?
It's been 400 years since Newton and we (science)
still have no idea what causes motion.
You don't want to go there. The idea of causality is better left to the
philosophers. Physics first needs to stick to what the universe is & what
it does. Until that picture is clear I don't think we'll really be able to
discuss causality sensibly. (What causes cause... Its turtles all the way
down!)
Regards
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 07:59:00 PM |
|
|
In article <zirpe.712$NX4.312@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
You don't want to go there. The idea of causality is better left to the
philosophers.
At this point, we have nothing else to say to each other. ahaha...
Nice talking to you.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnM" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
09 Jun 2005 02:41:39 AM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
In article <fzlpe.586$NX4.395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jack
Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote:
Time is not a parameter.
dt is certainly an evolution parameter (an interval) used to compare
one change (evolution) to a reference change (e.g., a clock). That is
all. Every other interpretation of time is either voodoo or a con
game.
Usually, the crackpot who uses time in any other fashion (e.g.,
Columbia University's superstring moron Brian Greene or the conniving
little con artist in the wheelchair) is trying to preach some *****
about time travel, wormholes, black holes or some other equally stupid
Star-Trek science crap.
Louis Savain
Like I said before, the "conniving little con artist in the wheelchair"
doesn't have to masturbate on usenet to get attention..
And he gets more ***** than you too..
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
09 Jun 2005 06:29:53 AM |
|
|
In article <42a7ef9f$0$14936$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, JohnM
<eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote:
Like I said before, the "conniving little con artist in the wheelchair"
doesn't have to masturbate on usenet to get attention..
And he gets more ***** than you too..
I doubt it. But I am beginning to suspect that you are his little
***** since you take offence every time I mention the little coniving
***** in the wheelchair. 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/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnM" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
09 Jun 2005 05:25:10 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
In article <42a7ef9f$0$14936$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, JohnM
<eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote:
Like I said before, the "conniving little con artist in the wheelchair"
doesn't have to masturbate on usenet to get attention..
And he gets more ***** than you too..
I doubt it. But I am beginning to suspect that you are his little
***** since you take offence every time I mention the little coniving
***** in the wheelchair. ahahaha.... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA...
I got it figured out now.. that "ahahahahahah" thing breaks down to
ah-ah-ah-ah, you're making a little noise every time your husband rams
it in your *****.. looks like you got it pretty good with this last post.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
09 Jun 2005 05:22:53 PM |
|
|
In article <42a8beb2$0$14927$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, JohnM
<eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote:
[crap]
You're Hawking's little ***** alright. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnM" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
10 Jun 2005 12:51:19 AM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha...
At it again? Damn, your ***** must be *sore*..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
10 Jun 2005 01:18:28 AM |
|
|
In article <42a92741$0$15006$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, JohnM
<eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote:
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha...
At it again? Damn, your ***** must be *sore*..
Hawking... wheelchair... *****...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnM" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
10 Jun 2005 01:34:42 AM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
In article <42a92741$0$15006$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, JohnM
<eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote:
Traveler wrote:
ahahaha...
At it again? Damn, your ***** must be *sore*..
Hawking... wheelchair... *****...
Yup, he was sore.. now he's spent, stretched out (on his belly),
apparently fantasing about being Hawking's *****. Some sort of
wheelchair fetish, sounds like..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
11 Jun 2005 03:26:24 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ms09a1lu1q24ba3jh4uk7d5r16j1aft965@4ax.com...
Peter Lynds and Julian Barbour have been making waves with their
claims that time is an illusion. Of course, it's nothing that
countless others have not said already.
So lets leave it at that child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
11 Jun 2005 03:29:36 PM |
|
|
In article <QNHqe.53777$6g3.12877@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote:
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ms09a1lu1q24ba3jh4uk7d5r16j1aft965@4ax.com...
Peter Lynds and Julian Barbour have been making waves with their
claims that time is an illusion. Of course, it's nothing that
countless others have not said already.
So lets leave it at that child.
You're a queer or something? ahaha... Or do you get paid to kiss *****?
ahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
11 Jun 2005 06:00:04 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Morituri-|-Max
<newage@sendarico.net>
wrote
on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:26:24 GMT
<QNHqe.53777$6g3.12877@tornado.texas.rr.com>:
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ms09a1lu1q24ba3jh4uk7d5r16j1aft965@4ax.com...
Peter Lynds and Julian Barbour have been making waves with their
claims that time is an illusion. Of course, it's nothing that
countless others have not said already.
So lets leave it at that child.
I'll admit Traveler's theory is vaguely interesting,
but woefully short on specifics.
AIUI, Traveler's basic theory is a simple one: particles
jump to neighboring nodes in some sort of grid, lattice,
space, or area (the exact geometrics or dimensions of
this grid, lattice, space, or area are far from clear).
These jumps always occur at lightspeed, if they occur
at all. (The concept is similar in some respects to
human musculature, and some aspects of quantum mechanics.)
Fine so far, except that there's no constants, formulas,
or algorithms. A simple question, for example, might be
how the theory deals with Compton scattering, or the
possibly simpler notion of an exothermic chemical reaction
inducing a state change in a chamber, causing steam to
issue forth and make a primitive rocket (or, if one
prefers, a turbine subassembly connected to a gearing
mechanism). Other questions include radioactivity,
gravity, and simple physical cohesiveness -- what keeps
that lump of coal/iron/plastic/ice together?
The Standard Model is lacking in a *lot* of specifics (how
do those quarks get their exact masses, anyway? Are they
parametric? What do they depend on? Can we merge the
electroweak with gravity and/or strong force, and under
what conditions?) but seems to work well enough for the
particle physicists that man the big particle accelerators,
and a lot of other places such as computers and such as well
(electron manipulation is the whole point of electronics,
when it comes to transistors).
I can't say much regarding QM except that I got to the point
where they modeled the eigenvectors of a hydrogen atom with it,
and maybe a little bit of perturbation theory -- but the math
got *very* hairy and I dropped it after two quarters.
That was 20 years ago. :-)
As it is, time *is* an illusion, as is space -- but both are
fairly convincing illusions, at least during normal waking
hours. (Dreams are something else again.) Unless one
subscribes to the physics of Tlön (I forget the title but
the author is Jorge Louis Borges), I expect the dimensions
of my home, car, etc. to be the same tomorrow as today,
absent something extraordinary happening, e.g., a tree
falls onto the roof.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
12 Jun 2005 06:01:12 AM |
|
|
In article <m34sn2-pam.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In
The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
I'll admit Traveler's theory is vaguely interesting,
but woefully short on specifics.
Ghost, I don't care about your interest in my theory. ahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oğin" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
06 Jun 2005 01:56:01 PM |
|
|
Frankly I see no reason for anybody to write long papers and books
just to demonstrate that time is not a physical dimension. Time cannot
change simply because time is a parameter (an interval) used in
physics to describe change. To describe change in time would require a
meta-time, and a meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum. Since
time cannot change, it is not a physical dimension. That is all.
OK... I think we all got the gist of what you are saying some time ago. It
was so very slightly interesting the first time around. Could you let it go
now? Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
06 Jun 2005 02:20:23 PM |
|
|
In article <TcqdnSrphPOiATnfRVn-gA@whidbeytel.com>, "oğin"
<oğin@ragnarok.com> wrote:
Frankly I see no reason for anybody to write long papers and books
just to demonstrate that time is not a physical dimension. Time cannot
change simply because time is a parameter (an interval) used in
physics to describe change. To describe change in time would require a
meta-time, and a meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum. Since
time cannot change, it is not a physical dimension. That is all.
OK... I think we all got the gist of what you are saying some time ago. It
was so very slightly interesting the first time around. Could you let it go
now? Thanks in advance.
Whos is this "we" you are referring to? Are they the usual ***** kissers
on usenet? Or are they the ones whose asses you kiss everyday?
AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 12:17:45 AM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rb89a1pu3ekic4of3el8jhmhp8se5ggp2i@4ax.com...
Whos is this "we" you are referring to? Are they the usual ***** kissers
on usenet? Or are they the ones whose asses you kiss everyday?
AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha...
We're the non-trolls like you aren't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oğin" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
06 Jun 2005 04:31:44 PM |
|
|
AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha...
What the ***** is "AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha... " supposed to mean?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
06 Jun 2005 05:37:20 PM |
|
|
"oğin" <oğin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:-qydnSs6nLAgXTnfRVn-og@whidbeytel.com...
AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha...
What the ***** is "AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha... " supposed to mean?
He's an Abba fan
sr
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
06 Jun 2005 04:59:46 PM |
|
|
In article <-qydnSs6nLAgXTnfRVn-og@whidbeytel.com>, "oğin"
<oğin@ragnarok.com> wrote:
AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha...
What the ***** is "AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha... " supposed to mean?
You stupid ineducable *****. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
06 Jun 2005 10:56:24 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8ph9a11g0fe7o419clkr9vtqrq63b9r9re@4ax.com...
In article <-qydnSs6nLAgXTnfRVn-og@whidbeytel.com>, "oğin"
<oğin@ragnarok.com> cited Traveler's expression of:
AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha...
[oğin asks "ehrfürchtig"]
What the ***** is "AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha... "
supposed to mean?
[Louis]
You stupid ineducable *****. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
[hanson]
You must educate the disciples of your flock, Louis. They all
mean well but they are too afraid to tell you so. They yearn
for your wisdom and become unhinged in/by your cyber
presence. Be "a kind man, a wise man"... etc., Louis......
(I plagiarized this from Dennis Hopper in "Apocalypse now")
Here are a couple of suggestions that should be in use
by every licensee of my "AHAHA... ahaha.." (for free).
1) Truly, it is an extremely effective cranking tool that has
neg-entropic properties, i.e. it gathers energy, for free.
It sucks the intellectual juices right out of the self-anointed
intelligencia and drives their diastolic up into the dangerzone.
2) For the geriatric set it simply explains to them in concatenated
form, by repetition, as most of them don't hear well longer, that
2.1) AH is the simply the multiplication of electric current
(in Amps) times the Hubble constant ( in 1/sec) which yields
a product that describes and symbolizes the interaction of
charge displacement in a 2D field with its resulting acceleration
effect onto ponderable matter in all 3 axis of 3D space, IOW it
explains the gravitational interplay between mass and charge.
2.2) ah, similarly, is the multiplication of [a] (Sommerfeld) times
[h] (Planck) and yields in Bohr/cgs the e^2=h*a*c/2pi. Hence
ah = 2pi*e^2/c is stating that because of the discrete nature of
el-charges it produces gravitational effects as seen is (2.1)
3) The inductive effects of/in "AHAHA... ahaha.." are what/which
produces the magnetism, mostly the animal kind that attracts
creatures, mostly 2 legged, to you the holder, for them to
behold, them becoming quite polarized... ahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
Thanks for all the laughs, Louis. Keep it coming!
You are the life of this grand and august 24/7 cyber party.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahanson
PS: So, oğin, my good friend, did I satisfy your curiosity?
I have no fucking idea what your fucking reason was that
you had to include that fucking word "*****" into your fucking
question.... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs to you too, oğin,
ahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
07 Jun 2005 06:17:23 AM |
|
|
In article <IV8pe.410$hK3.244@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8ph9a11g0fe7o419clkr9vtqrq63b9r9re@4ax.com...
In article <-qydnSs6nLAgXTnfRVn-og@whidbeytel.com>, "oğin"
<oğin@ragnarok.com> cited Traveler's expression of:
AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha...
[oğin asks "ehrfürchtig"]
What the ***** is "AHAHA... ahaha.. ahahaha... ahaha... "
supposed to mean?
[Louis]
You stupid ineducable *****. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
[hanson]
You must educate the disciples of your flock, Louis. They all
mean well but they are too afraid to tell you so. They yearn
for your wisdom and become unhinged in/by your cyber
presence. Be "a kind man, a wise man"... etc., Louis......
(I plagiarized this from Dennis Hopper in "Apocalypse now")
Here are a couple of suggestions that should be in use
by every licensee of my "AHAHA... ahaha.." (for free).
1) Truly, it is an extremely effective cranking tool that has
neg-entropic properties, i.e. it gathers energy, for free.
It sucks the intellectual juices right out of the self-anointed
intelligencia and drives their diastolic up into the dangerzone.
2) For the geriatric set it simply explains to them in concatenated
form, by repetition, as most of them don't hear well longer, that
2.1) AH is the simply the multiplication of electric current
(in Amps) times the Hubble constant ( in 1/sec) which yields
a product that describes and symbolizes the interaction of
charge displacement in a 2D field with its resulting acceleration
effect onto ponderable matter in all 3 axis of 3D space, IOW it
explains the gravitational interplay between mass and charge.
2.2) ah, similarly, is the multiplication of [a] (Sommerfeld) times
[h] (Planck) and yields in Bohr/cgs the e^2=h*a*c/2pi. Hence
ah = 2pi*e^2/c is stating that because of the discrete nature of
el-charges it produces gravitational effects as seen is (2.1)
3) The inductive effects of/in "AHAHA... ahaha.." are what/which
produces the magnetism, mostly the animal kind that attracts
creatures, mostly 2 legged, to you the holder, for them to
behold, them becoming quite polarized... ahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
Thanks for all the laughs, Louis. Keep it coming!
You are the life of this grand and august 24/7 cyber party.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahanson
PS: So, oğin, my good friend, did I satisfy your curiosity?
I have no fucking idea what your fucking reason was that
you had to include that fucking word "*****" into your fucking
question.... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs to you too, oğin,
ahahaha... ahahahanson
ROTFLMAO. Hanson, this is a beaut! ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much Phucking Phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: The End of Time and Space and the Absolute Universe |
06 Jun 2005 04:29:11 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
In article <TcqdnSrphPOiATnfRVn-gA@whidbeytel.com>, "o<eth>in"
<o<eth>in@ragnarok.com> wrote:
Frankly I see no reason for anybody to write long papers and books
just to demonstrate that time is not a physical dimension. Time cannot
change simply because time is a parameter (an interval) used in
physics to describe change. To describe change in time would require a
meta-time, and a meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/c2f9e1608821dd8a/aa2743e77f1791a5?q=pullet&rnum=1&hl=en#aa2743e77f1791a5
"Where did the aether come from, you ask?
Answer: it was engineered by intelligent forces beyond your puny mind
to comprehend." - Traveler
Who engineered these intelligent forces? Who engineered the
intelligent forces that engineered these intelligent forces? And so on,
ad infinitum, you self-contradicting pullet. ~:?)
OK... I think we all got the gist of what you are saying some time ago. It
was so very slightly interesting the first time around. Could you let it go
now? Thanks in advance.
Whos is this "we" you are referring to?
[snip]
One assumes he means everybody who reads/posts here. Cite a reply
from *anyone* who agreed with you, *ever*, as an easy refutation. I
know I'd like to read it. ~:?)
Mitch P.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
