Chicken Shit Physics
Traveler
physicists believe in and preach the following:
1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
motion, period.
2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
existence.
4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
time is invariant by definition.
It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment. Here is
a relevant link:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
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
Peteris Krumins
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
Mr. Smarty Pants.
P.Krumins
Uncle Al
>
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
Idiots spew for no reason at all, as if by insanity. Yeah, that's the
ticket.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
>> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>>
>> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
>[snip crap]
>
>Idiots spew for no reason at all, as if by insanity. Yeah, that's the
>ticket.
Fuck you, Uncle Al, you racist sack of shit.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com...
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
Idiot.
Your butt moves because we kick it.
Come a bit closer and we'll show you the reason why
your nose suddenly starts bleeding.
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
Idiot.
Position and velocity can only be measured relative to
the rod and the clock in the hands of the one who
does the measuring. That's the definition of "relative".
You might be holding the Absolute Louis Savain
Bellybutton Frame Rod And Clock, but we don't.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
Idiot.
Gravity is *modeled* as curvature of spacetime.
Spacetime is defined as the set of all possible events
that have ever taken place and that will take place
according to everyone who cares to look at and live
in our part of the Non-Savain Bellybutton Universe.
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
Idiot.
Clocks don't slow down *due* to time dilation.
Clocks slowing down is *called* "time dilation",
and we only call it that way to make idiots like you
break their little minds over it.
Measurement of time is defined in a way that the laws
of physics have the same form for as many possible
people who practice physics - with two notable
exceptions: Ken Vertical Seto and Louis Ding Savain.
>
> Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
Ding, Savain, Ding!
Idiot medication time - Line up now.
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
[crap]
Fuck you, Van de merde. Physicists do believe that objects remain in
motion for no reason. Go pack the rest of your opinions up your ass,
you fudge-packing jackass.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:r3ka61dbf1ojv746b...@4ax.com...
> "Dick Van de merde" wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> Fuck you, Van de merde. Physicists do believe that objects remain in
> motion for no reason.
Just a bit closer, and I'll make your fat nose actually *feel*
what physicists believe.
Dirk Vdm
T Wake
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
Sadly most of your post indicates a lack of understanding of physics. The
theories you try to dis-prove, mostly exist in your mind and stem from this
lack of understanding.
<snip for brevity>
> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
> motion, period.
Well every cause has an effect. Motion is due to interactions of fundamental
forces. What has the mystical (and unproven) aether got to do with it?
> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
Applying your own definition to the terms is not the way to disprove the
theory. If every position in the universe was absolute you would be able to
create a "map" of the universe showing every object in relation (in all
dimensions) to every other object. Have you done this yet?
Remember, when you are talking science make a testable prediction.
If motion isnt relative then explain the experimental proof for it in a
different way? Explain why sound changes pitch from an approaching siren
differently if you are stationary compared to moving towards or away from
it. This is down to relative motion. If all motion was absolute then the
soundwaves would hit your ears the same no matter what. There has been more
experimental proof as to the relativity of motion/position than pretty much
anything I can think of. Good luck at creating a new theory to accomodate
the evidence. When you have finished writing it up I will be happy to carry
your bags to Sweden.
> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> existence.
What? Everything moves in space-time.
> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
> time is invariant by definition.
A clock is not time, its a relative measuring tool. I can slow a clock down
by taking the batteries out. Everything we have to measure time is affected
by relativistic effects. This ties in with point 1.
What definition of time makes it invariant?
Dirk Van de moortel
"T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:x4idnUfQk4x...@pipex.net...
[snip]
> > 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
> > can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> > existence.
>
> What? Everything moves in space-time.
That is Savain's hobbyhorse.
Since movement of a particle in *space* is modeled with a
*spacetime* worldline that contains the entire past and
future of the particle, you can safely say that the particle does
not "move in Spacetime". I think he first found that in Robert
Geroch's excellent "General Relativity from A to B":
| "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing
| ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes."
This is Savain's favourite. He likes to argue with people
like you who prefer to say that "Everything moves in
space-time".
Bottom line:
"Never argue with an idiot. They dag you down to their
level and beat you with experience"
Mark my words ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
<eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[cut]
Addendum:
Here is what physicist Brian Greene said recently. The stupid morons
actually believe in the actual existence of a spacetime:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050419/ap_on_sc/einstein_future_1
"Maybe there is an Einstein out there today," said Columbia
University physicist Brian Greene, "but it would be a lot harder
for him to be heard."
Especially considering what Einstein was proposing.
"The actual fabric of space and time curving? My God, what an
idea!" Greene said at a recent gathering at the Aspen Institute.
"It takes a certain type of person who will bang his head against
the wall because you believe you'll find the solution."
How can spacetime curve since it is invariant (unchanging) by
definition? Nothing can move in it, from the infinite past to the
infinite future. Physicists have been preaching this crap for years.
They have always maintained that objects follow their geodesics in
curved spacetime and that is the reason that we have gravity. They can
deny this. It's in text books. It is only recently, after a bunch of
people began realizing that it's all a bunch of crap, that the
assholes are begriming to change their tune.
But don't tell that to Kip Thorne, the Caltech resident crackpot. The
moron has been saying for years that one can bend spacetime in such a
way as to form a wormhole that one can use to visit one's forbears in
the past. They can't deny this crap. It's all over he internet. Kip
Thorne is world reknown GR physicists. But that is not all, Stephen
Hawking (the crackpot in the wheelchair) believes in the same crap.
And so did that nutcase Kurt Godel. In fact, Godel started the whole
thing when he announced in 1949 (?) that GR does not forbid time
travel. Einstein never denied it.
T Wake
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:cIc9e.68955$Qq3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> Bottom line:
> "Never argue with an idiot. They dag you down to their
> level and beat you with experience"
> Mark my words ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
:-) Nice advice :-)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cIc9e.68955$Qq3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
And here's a pointer to his hobbyhorse:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/physicists.htm
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l56dncgn39f...@pipex.net...
Indeed.
Forgot to mention the source. Dilbert.
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
<tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com...
>> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
>> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>Sadly most of your post indicates a lack of understanding of physics. The
>theories you try to dis-prove, mostly exist in your mind and stem from this
>lack of understanding.
Sadly, you are a fucking idiot.
><snip for brevity>
>> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
>> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
>> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
>> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
>> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
>> motion, period.
>
>Well every cause has an effect. Motion is due to interactions of fundamental
>forces. What has the mystical (and unproven) aether got to do with it?
You either have a reading comprehension problem or you are just a
fucking asshole. Physicists believe that no force or interaction is
needed to keep a moving body in motion. They are wrong for the simple
reason that every change in position must have a cause. If you deny
this, fuck you.
>> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
>> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
>> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
>> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
>> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
>> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
>> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
>
>Applying your own definition to the terms is not the way to disprove the
>theory.
Fuck you.
> If every position in the universe was absolute you would be able to
>create a "map" of the universe showing every object in relation (in all
>dimensions) to every other object. Have you done this yet?
If every position is absolute, which it is, there is no relation to
speak of. Relation has to with the relative. OTOH, if every position
is relative, as you obviously and stupidly believe, then we would have
a self-referential where every position is relative to itself. Fuck
you again.
>Remember, when you are talking science make a testable prediction.
Yeah, I got your testable prediction hanging.
>If motion isnt relative then explain the experimental proof for it in a
>different way? Explain why sound changes pitch from an approaching siren
>differently if you are stationary compared to moving towards or away from
>it. This is down to relative motion. If all motion was absolute then the
>soundwaves would hit your ears the same no matter what. There has been more
>experimental proof as to the relativity of motion/position than pretty much
>anything I can think of. Good luck at creating a new theory to accomodate
>the evidence. When you have finished writing it up I will be happy to carry
>your bags to Sweden.
Eat shit, jackass. Relative motion is relative and abstract
(non-existent) for the reasons that I explained above and on my site.
It is dependent on the absolute motion that is the only motion that
actually physically exists. he absolute is independent. If you don't
get it, fuck you.
>> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
>> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
>> existence.
>
>What? Everything moves in space-time.
Get a fucking clue.
[cut]
>
>What definition of time makes it invariant?
Fuck you again. If you don't understand that time is invariant, you
should put a bullet through your brain, because it's not working. I
got no patience for morons like you.
Josef Matz
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com...
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
>
> Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
> motion, period.
Yes but theres a difference between something is in the nothing or
nothing is something or ?
> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
Yes i agree fully. Thats the main fault in Relativity physics, that
nothing can be absolute. But good physicits always have the
absolute in brain when dealing with relativity, isnt it ?
> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> existence.
No, spacetime is real. Room and time exist, together with limited
signal speed c thats spacetime why not ?
> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
> time is invariant by definition.
>
Oh yes it does if you compare eigentime with the absolute time. But
the main error lies in the misinterpretation of c. Distant things act just
in time
(absolute) not as we see them (relative). Gravity and electric fields
act instantan. Therefore we need an imagination of that what is and we find
that we must wait until we see what is now until the light reaches
us. I think thats the main mistake of all trouble since nowhere this is
clearly spoken
out in our physics books. But intuitively we combine things that
way - and then many understanding problems vanish from alone.
And there are also clocks which run slower when they do not have
absolute velocity zero !
> It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
Now i think that you are partly right. But maybe some new theories
are elephant shit or ? And theories which make no measurable effect can not
be viewed as theories - maybe preliminary model or imagination is a
better word for.
> many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment. Here is
> a relevant link:
Shure but it is sometimes not so easy to find the shit in the
chicken.
Traveler
>This is Savain's favourite. He likes to argue with people
>like you who prefer to say that "Everything moves in
>space-time".
Dick de merde, why don't you go fuck Uncle Al in the ass? I'm sure you
would both like it. The fact remains that one of the most famous GR
physicists in the world, Caltech's Kip Thorne of wormhole fame,
preaches that one can move through spacetime and travel backwards in
time to visit one's great-great grandparent. Stephen Hawking (the
little crackpot/con artist in the wheelchair), David Deutsch (the
quantum computing nutcase at Oxford), Carl Sagan and many others
believe in the same crap. If you deny this, you can go fuck yourself.
It's all over the internet and in text books.
Anybody else (the usual assholes like Van de merde, Uncle Al, Mike
Varney, etc... excluded) can find out on his/her own:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mmna6198ssf8p1q6c...@4ax.com...
> "Dick Van de merde" wrote:
>
> >This is Savain's favourite. He likes to argue with people
> >like you who prefer to say that "Everything moves in
> >space-time".
>
> Dick de merde, why don't you go fuck Uncle Al in the ass? I'm sure you
> would both like it. The fact remains that one of the most famous GR
> physicists in the world, Caltech's Kip Thorne of wormhole fame,
> preaches that one can move through spacetime and travel backwards in
> time to visit one's great-great grandparent. Stephen Hawking (the
> little crackpot/con artist in the wheelchair), David Deutsch (the
> quantum computing nutcase at Oxford), Carl Sagan and many others
> believe in the same crap. If you deny this, you can go fuck yourself.
> It's all over the internet and in text books.
You forgot Feynman.
Again.
Dirk Vdm
GR_GR
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics
DING Savian, DING!
GR_GR
> In article <42654948...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
>>>physicists believe in and preach the following:
>>>
>>> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
>>
>>[snip crap]
>>
>>Idiots spew for no reason at all, as if by insanity. Yeah, that's the
>>ticket.
>
>
> Fuck you, Uncle Al, you racist sack of shit.
>
> Louis Savain
DING Savian.... LOL...lol hahahaha.... I can see why Varney does
this.... Savian really does have a Pavlovian response!
GR_GR
> In article <pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com>, Traveler
> <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> Addendum:
>
> Here is what physicist Brian Greene said recently. The stupid morons
> actually believe in the actual existence of a spacetime:
DING Savian... ding.
Gregory L. Hansen
>physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
>
>Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
> motion, period.
What keeps the highly energetic particles of the aether moving? And how
do they know which direction to push?
Everyone else thinks that if things were moving through an aether,
everything would slow down until it comes to rest with respect to the
aether. A failure to find such an "aether drag" was a blow against
LeSage's theory of gravity.
> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
Indeed. Every particle is at rest with respect to itself, and the
distance from a particle to itself is zero. It's as simple as 2=2.
> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
It only acts like it's relative?
> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> existence.
EVERY theory is a mental invention. EVERY theory involves fictitious
concepts. That's the process of abstraction and modeling. Every good
theory relates its fictitious constructs to measurable things. Spacetime
is an abstract construct that models measurements made by clocks and
rulers.
> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
> time is invariant by definition.
By whose definition?
>
>It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
>many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment.
Or for a merry response.
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
Traveler
<tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:s8ma61lgrr5uvjccg...@4ax.com...
>> In article <x4idnUfQk4x...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
>> <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sadly, you are a fucking idiot.
>
>Gosh, what a well thought out, constructive answer. Obviously you are a
>person of education and learning.
Fuck you, asshole. I have no respect for physicists in general. So eat
shit.
>> You either have a reading comprehension problem or you are just a
>> fucking asshole. Physicists believe that no force or interaction is
>> needed to keep a moving body in motion. They are wrong for the simple
>> reason that every change in position must have a cause. If you deny
>> this, fuck you.
>
>I am a physicist and I think you have the comprehension problem.
You are not a physicist. You are a fucking jackass and a mule combined
into one stinking animal.
>Once you
>apply a force to something why would it stop without another force stopping
>it?
Why should the object keep changing its position for no reason, as if
by magic? Is it because you get to fuck Dick Van de merde in the ass?
It figures.
>You still fail to explain every experimental test.
No I don't, you fucking moron. You do. You're the one who fails to
explain what keeps the object in motion.
>I also notice your total inability to defend your position with anything
>other than personal attacks. Interesting way to advance human knowledge.
I would not give a rat's ass about advancing your knowledge, dickhead.
>>>Applying your own definition to the terms is not the way to disprove the
>>>theory.
>>
>> Fuck you.
>
>I am getting concerned by your apparent desire to sleep with me. While you
>may be a nice, good looking guy in person, I am sure my wife wouldnt be
>happy.
You're probably a closet pederast like Uncle Al and Van de merde.
>>> If every position in the universe was absolute you would be able to
>>>create a "map" of the universe showing every object in relation (in all
>>>dimensions) to every other object. Have you done this yet?
>>
>> If every position is absolute, which it is, there is no relation to
>> speak of. Relation has to with the relative. OTOH, if every position
>> is relative, as you obviously and stupidly believe, then we would have
>> a self-referential where every position is relative to itself. Fuck
>> you again.
>
>Your counter argument is circular and displays mis-understanding.
Eat shit.
> However, I
>get the feeling you have no interest in actually learning anything.
Not with a jackass like you, I don't. You can pack your opinion up
your fucking ass, for all I care.
>I look forward to seeing you on the news when you either finally snap and
>start sniping people or actually prove your "theories" and win the Nobel.
Fuck you and your Nobel. And the fucking mule you rode in on.
[cut]
>(news groups trimmed so sci.physics.relativity doesn't have to get more crap
>than normal)
And why not, since it's always been mostly a bunch of crap from morons
like you anyway?
Jonny
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
sure, every single physists has told me "things move by magic, or for no
reason at all!"
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
A measurement is between two points.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
No, the curvature of spacetime is caused by Gravity.
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
Wrong, they do not slow down to the observer that is holding the clock.
You have on your voodoo chicken feathers when you say this sort of stuff.
Traveler
"Jonny" <rol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
T Wake
> In article <42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the internet.
Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
am
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
I'm responding to this as a not science educated type.
> 1. Every effect must have a cause.
Who says so ?
> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
not quite sure what you are getting at here
> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> existence.
what does physical mean ?
> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
> time is invariant by definition.
>
I'll take my TIME to think about that.
> It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit.
Chicken shit has regenerative powers
oooops
am
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com>,
>Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
>>physicists believe in and preach the following:
>>
>>
>> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
>> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
>> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
>> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
>>
>>Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
>> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
>> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
>> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
>> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
>> motion, period.
>
>What keeps the highly energetic particles of the aether moving?
No particle can move unless it interacts with another. If one is
willing to follow this logic to its limit, one must conclude that the
aether is organized as a four-dimensional lattice and that the entire
visible universe (the 3-D slice that we experience) is moving in the
fourth dimension at c.
The aether is a highly energetic lattice of particle (photons) that is
initially at rest. Even photons need interactions to move.
> And how do they know which direction to push?
It's governed by their properties. All particles have properties that
determine which direction they're moving and how fast, i.e., how
energetic their interactions will be.
>Everyone else thinks that if things were moving through an aether,
Don't you fucking dare lump me with the other aetherists. I am a
thinker, not a fucking crackpot.
>everything would slow down until it comes to rest with respect to the
>aether.
They are wrong. It is the exact opposite. It is interactions with
aether particles that facilitate motion. Otherwise, there is no
motion.
> A failure to find such an "aether drag" was a blow against
>LeSage's theory of gravity.
Fuck Lesage and the mule he rode in on.
>> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
>> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
>
>Indeed. Every particle is at rest with respect to itself, and the
>distance from a particle to itself is zero. It's as simple as 2=2.
Why do you insist on being so fucking dense, Hansen? You make my
fucking pet lizard look like a rocket scientist.
>> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
>> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
>> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
>> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
>> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
>
>It only acts like it's relative?
I think you need to get Uncle Al or Varney to fuck you in the ass.
That would hopefully energize the two neurons between your ears.
>> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
>> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
>> existence.
>
>EVERY theory is a mental invention. EVERY theory involves fictitious
>concepts.
So fucking what?
> That's the process of abstraction and modeling. Every good
>theory relates its fictitious constructs to measurable things. Spacetime
>is an abstract construct that models measurements made by clocks and
>rulers.
Is that why a bunch of famous (and clueless) relativists (Stephen
Hawking, Kip Thorne, Carl Sagan, David Deutsch, etc...) believe GR
does not forbid travel in spacetime?
>> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
>> time is invariant by definition.
>
>By whose definition?
Everybody with more than two neurons between their ears. This is
really pathetic. What do they teach you assholes in physics school? To
fuck each other in the ass?
>>It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
>>many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment.
>
>Or for a merry response.
Indeed. I enjoy throwing shit in your faces.
Traveler
<tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
> Bottom line:
> "Never argue with an idiot. They dag you down to their
^^^
I realize that's a typo, but I like it as a new word.
Paul Cardinale
Traveler
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Another one of Dick Van de merde's fudge-packing buddies heard from.
Paul Cardinale
Traveler wrote:
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
>
> Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions.
Stupid assumption by the idiot savain.
[spew snipped]
> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
Stupid invalid assertion by the idiot savain.
[spew snipped]
> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct.
Idiot. Spacetime is a real math construct.
[spew snipped]
> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
> time is invariant by definition.
>
Stupid assumption by the idiot savain.
It is for these reasons that louis savain is chicken shit. There are
many more but these will suffice.
Savain, the most value you could get from your brain is to scoop it out
of your skull and sell it for fertilizer.
Paul Cardinale
FrediFizzx
| Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
| physicists believe in and preach the following:
|
|
| 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
| 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
| 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
| 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
Hey Traveler Savain!
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
Pack that up your ass and take a good sniff. LOL
FrediFizzx
Traveler
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[cut crap]
>Paul Cardinale
I guess you already got your fudge packing session with Dutch boy Dick
Van de merde and Uncle Al (the racist asshole). You're in excellent
form, Cardinale. Keep on kissing ass, gutless jackass.
Traveler
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Funny. LOL. But seriously, there is not need to posit anything other
than photons to populate he aether. This is the reason that a moving
charged particle generates a magnetic field. Gravity too, comes
indirectly from the interactions of normal matter with aether
particles. It's an energy conservation phenomenon. But then again,
almost everything (including simple inertial motion) is due to energy
conservation principles.
Having said, I now know that there are exactly four types of photons,
one associated with each of the four dimensions. But that's another
story for another day. Right now, I'm having fun throwing shit in the
faces of a bunch of fudge-packing jackasses.
GR_GR
> In article <QeadnS0mjpn...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
> <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:38ta61d9qso9k5ku4...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>In article <42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>>>Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
>>
>>Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the internet.
>>
>>Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
>
>
> What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
Since you are the expert at eating shit, Savian, perhaps you would explain?
Oh....
DING Savian, DING!
Bill Hobba
> In article <d43nge$lsh$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
> >In article <pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com>,
> >Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> >>physicists believe in and preach the following:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
> >> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
> >> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
> >> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
> >>
> >>Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
> >>
> >> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
> >> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
> >> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
> >> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
> >> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
> >> motion, period.
> >
> >What keeps the highly energetic particles of the aether moving?
>
> No particle can move unless it interacts with another.
Idiot - go back to grade 8 and learn the basics - namely Newton's first law
of motion. But of course before doing that satiate your obsession with
homosexual acts.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> In article <QeadnS0mjpn...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
> <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:38ta61d9qso9k5ku4...@4ax.com...
> >> In article <42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> >> Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
> >
> >Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the internet.
> >
> >Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
>
> What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
Nothing. Your obsession with homosexual acts is plain for all to see. Get
relief quickly - maybe a trip to the local public toilets.
Bill
Traveler
Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:tmua61971snutdu5s...@4ax.com...
>> In article <QeadnS0mjpn...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
>> <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:38ta61d9qso9k5ku4...@4ax.com...
>> >> In article <42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>> >> Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
>> >
>> >Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the internet.
>> >
>> >Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
>>
>> What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
>
>Nothing. Your obsession with homosexual acts is plain for all to see. Get
>relief quickly - maybe a trip to the local public toilets.
Wake must've fucked you in the ass. Or was it Dick Van de merde or
GR_GR (aka Mike Varney)? Why else would you feel the need to jump to
their defense. You are a gutless ass-kissing maggot. You know it and I
know it.
Traveler
Bubba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
[cut]
Pack your opinion up your ass, Bubba. You're nothing but a gutless ass
kisser and you know it. What does the Dutch sissy boy's (Dick Van de
merde) ass smell like today, Bubba? :-D
GR_GR
> In article <R1h9e.17094$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill
> Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:tmua61971snutdu5s...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>In article <QeadnS0mjpn...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
>>><tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:38ta61d9qso9k5ku4...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>In article <42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>>>>>Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
>>>>
>>>>Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the internet.
>>>>
>>>>Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
>>>
>>>What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
>>
>>Nothing. Your obsession with homosexual acts is plain for all to see. Get
>>relief quickly - maybe a trip to the local public toilets.
>
>
> Wake must've fucked you in the ass. Or was it Dick Van de merde or
> GR_GR (aka Mike Varney)? Why else would you feel the need to jump to
> their defense. You are a gutless ass-kissing maggot. You know it and I
> know it.
>
> Louis Savain
Ding Savian, DING!
The good thing about your posting on Usenet, is that you will cease for
a period of time.
Traveler
<n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>The good thing about your posting on Usenet, is that you will cease for
>a period of time.
Naw. The good thing is that you will always be a fudge-packing, ass
kissing jackass. And gutless to boot. You know it and I know it.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
<n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
You and Varney are one and the same person: a fudge-packing jackass at
UC. Everybody knows it. You got in trouble and UC told you to fucking
cool it. So you had to change your name (I used to like Varnette) to a
pseudonym. So make sure you kiss everybody's ass at UC real good so
you can keep your worthless job there.
Anyway, fuck you. And fuck UC too while you're at it. UC Boulder (and
all of Colorado) is known for their racism and elitism. So why am I
not surprised that you work there?
Oh, BTW, what does Van de merde's ass smell like today? Why anyone
would want to kiss the Dutch boy's ass is still a complete mystery.
You must tell us one of these days.
GR_GR
> In article <d43n0n$m69$3...@peabody.colorado.edu>, GR_GR
> <n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>In article <42654948...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Traveler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
>>>>>physicists believe in and preach the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
>>>>
>>>>[snip crap]
>>>>
>>>>Idiots spew for no reason at all, as if by insanity. Yeah, that's the
>>>>ticket.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fuck you, Uncle Al, you racist sack of shit.
>>>
>>>Louis Savain
>>
>>DING Savian.... LOL...lol hahahaha.... I can see why Varney does
>>this.... Savian really does have a Pavlovian response!
>
>
> You and Varney are one and the same person: a fudge-packing jackass at
> UC.
First of all idiot, it is CU. Of course if you get something that simple
incorrect, no wonder you are wrong on other things.
> Everybody knows it. You got in trouble and UC told you to fucking
> cool it. So you had to change your name (I used to like Varnette) to a
> pseudonym. So make sure you kiss everybody's ass at UC real good so
> you can keep your worthless job there.
>
> Anyway, fuck you. And fuck UC too while you're at it. UC Boulder (and
> all of Colorado) is known for their racism and elitism. So why am I
> not surprised that you work there?
LOL! What about homophobic?
> Oh, BTW, what does Van de merde's ass smell like today? Why anyone
> would want to kiss the Dutch boy's ass is still a complete mystery.
> You must tell us one of these days.
DiNg SaViAn, dInG!
Gregory L. Hansen
That's begging for a few more questions.
What makes them move through the fourth dimension at c? How can two
particles interact without moving close to each other and, well, bumping?
If the aether is a four-dimensional lattice, how does a particle get from
aether node A to aether node B?
>
>> And how do they know which direction to push?
>
>It's governed by their properties. All particles have properties that
>determine which direction they're moving and how fast, i.e., how
>energetic their interactions will be.
Properties like velocity?
>
>>Everyone else thinks that if things were moving through an aether,
>
>Don't you fucking dare lump me with the other aetherists. I am a
>thinker, not a fucking crackpot.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
But you are unique among aetherists. The usual picture is of something
that acts like colliding billiard balls or a fluid or something analogous
to common macroscopic phenomena.
>
>>everything would slow down until it comes to rest with respect to the
>>aether.
>
>They are wrong. It is the exact opposite. It is interactions with
>aether particles that facilitate motion. Otherwise, there is no
>motion.
>
>> A failure to find such an "aether drag" was a blow against
>>LeSage's theory of gravity.
>
>Fuck Lesage and the mule he rode in on.
>
>>> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
>>> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
>>
>>Indeed. Every particle is at rest with respect to itself, and the
>>distance from a particle to itself is zero. It's as simple as 2=2.
>
>Why do you insist on being so fucking dense, Hansen? You make my
>fucking pet lizard look like a rocket scientist.
What's so dense about that? You're right, there is a system whereby any
given position or velocity is relative to itself. A position relative to
itself is zero, a velocity relative to itself is zero. It's the trivial
solution, so simple it's hardly worth mentioning. And it's a perfectly
good solution.
>
>>> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
>>> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
>>> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
>>> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
>>> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
>>
>>It only acts like it's relative?
>
>I think you need to get Uncle Al or Varney to fuck you in the ass.
>That would hopefully energize the two neurons between your ears.
Then I'll turn the question into a statement. It acts like it's relative.
The absolute position and absolute velocity are fictitious constructs.
>
>>> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
>>> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
>>> existence.
>>
>>EVERY theory is a mental invention. EVERY theory involves fictitious
>>concepts.
>
>So fucking what?
So you seemed to think you were scoring a point by saying that spacetime
is a fictitious math construct. So it's a fictitious math construct, we
knew that, so what?
>
>> That's the process of abstraction and modeling. Every good
>>theory relates its fictitious constructs to measurable things. Spacetime
>>is an abstract construct that models measurements made by clocks and
>>rulers.
>
>Is that why a bunch of famous (and clueless) relativists (Stephen
>Hawking, Kip Thorne, Carl Sagan, David Deutsch, etc...) believe GR
>does not forbid travel in spacetime?
A world line is just a trajectory tipped on its side. The trajectory is
a model that correlates positions with the readings of a clock. Movement
means the positions at two different times are not the same, and that is
empirically satisfied in many instances.
GR does not forbid travel in spacetime. GR allows for a particle to
occupy two different points at two different times.
>
>>> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
>>> time is invariant by definition.
>>
>>By whose definition?
>
>Everybody with more than two neurons between their ears. This is
>really pathetic. What do they teach you assholes in physics school? To
>fuck each other in the ass?
I can make up definitions; by definition time stops at your ass. That
doesn't mean much. The invariance of time was an assumption. For longer
than that, time has been associated with rates of change. And clocks in
orbit go faster than identical clocks on the ground.
>
>>>It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
>>>many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment.
>>
>>Or for a merry response.
>
>Indeed. I enjoy throwing shit in your faces.
Well, at least you admit it.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Gregory L. Hansen
Not so new. My dictionary has five entries for it, including a deep,
ornamental cut in the edge of a garmant. Show a little more leg at the
party?
--
"The probability of anything happening is in inverse ratio to its
desirability." -- Gumperson's Law
Traveler
They all share a specific property associated with the fourth
dimension. I am not at liberty to say more on this.
>How can two
>particles interact without moving close to each other and, well, bumping?
You moron! No two particles can interact unless they have **exactly**
equal positions. Get a fucking clue. Don't they teach you people
anything in school? Or is physics taught by clueless crackpots these
days?
>If the aether is a four-dimensional lattice, how does a particle get from
>aether node A to aether node B?
It interacts with a specific photon at node A. The result of the
interaction is that both particles move away from node A (hence the
magnetic and electric fields). I say a "specific photon" because there
is a huge number of photons at every node. They don't interact with
each other because they do not have the same energy. So they stay put.
But as soon as photon is dislodged by a particle (by another photon or
some other particle) it continues to move at C through the aether via
a series of interactions.
One can conclude from the above that all the matter particles of the
visible universe must have been initially placed in the 4-D aether at
some distant coordinate in the fourth dimension. They've been moving
in it ever since.
An interesting corollary to this hypothesis is that the entire history
of the universe is continually being etched (recorded) in the aether.
Everything you and I (or even a microbe) ever did is recorded. Some
mystics have known of this for millennia.
>>> And how do they know which direction to push?
>>
>>It's governed by their properties. All particles have properties that
>>determine which direction they're moving and how fast, i.e., how
>>energetic their interactions will be.
>
>Properties like velocity?
Yes. Velocity is determined by a particle's 4-energy level: it's a
four-vector. Some particles like photons are 100% energy. Others are a
combination of energy and mass. If all the mass of a particle is
transformed into energy, the particle will move at c in the aether.
Photons, once dislodged, always move at c because their energy cannot
be converted back into mass. They lack the mass "placeholder" if you
will. A hypothetical mass particle with zero energy cannot move at all
in the aether because it cannot interact with any of the photons in
it.
>>>Everyone else thinks that if things were moving through an aether,
>>
>>Don't you fucking dare lump me with the other aetherists. I am a
>>thinker, not a fucking crackpot.
>
>The two are not mutually exclusive.
To me they are. I abhor conventional aetherists just as much as I
detest conventional physicists. They can all go fuck themselves.
>But you are unique among aetherists. The usual picture is of something
>that acts like colliding billiard balls or a fluid or something analogous
>to common macroscopic phenomena.
Well, it is hopelessly wrong. And stupid.
[cut]
>>>> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
>>>> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
>>>
>>>Indeed. Every particle is at rest with respect to itself, and the
>>>distance from a particle to itself is zero. It's as simple as 2=2.
>>
>>Why do you insist on being so fucking dense, Hansen? You make my
>>fucking pet lizard look like a rocket scientist.
>
>What's so dense about that? You're right, there is a system whereby any
>given position or velocity is relative to itself. A position relative to
>itself is zero, a velocity relative to itself is zero. It's the trivial
>solution, so simple it's hardly worth mentioning. And it's a perfectly
>good solution.
No it is not. It is 100% moronic because it does not explain motion.
It does not explain the velocity of light or any velocity. It is a
self-referential system and it is stupid for this reason. In fact, it
is stupid to an obscene fucking degree. It certainly makes you look
stupid.
[cut a bunch of stupid crap]
>So you seemed to think you were scoring a point by saying that spacetime
>is a fictitious math construct. So it's a fictitious math construct, we
>knew that, so what?
No you did not know that. Otherwise you would not tolerate obvious
crackpots like Kip Thorne and the little con artist in the wheelchair
in your midst. They have been preaching that GR allows time travel and
motion in spacetime. Even Feynmann and that old fart John A. Wheeler
once proposed advanced and retarded waves moving forward and backwards
in time. It's fucking moronic. Nothing moves in time, goddamnit!
Forward or backward. There is only the present. Wake he fuck up!
>>> That's the process of abstraction and modeling. Every good
>>>theory relates its fictitious constructs to measurable things. Spacetime
>>>is an abstract construct that models measurements made by clocks and
>>>rulers.
>>
>>Is that why a bunch of famous (and clueless) relativists (Stephen
>>Hawking, Kip Thorne, Carl Sagan, David Deutsch, etc...) believe GR
>>does not forbid travel in spacetime?
>
>A world line is just a trajectory tipped on its side. The trajectory is
>a model that correlates positions with the readings of a clock.
How can a worldline be a trajectory since nothing moves in spacetime?
Earth to Hansen: Wake the fuck up! If spacetime is 100% frozen (and it
is) and if you all knew it all along, then Kip Thorne, Feynmann,
Stephen Hawking and many others should have been all arrested for
fraud.
>Movement
>means the positions at two different times are not the same, and that is
>empirically satisfied in many instances.
>GR does not forbid travel in spacetime.
Yes it does. Spacetime is frozen from the infinite past to the
infinite future.
> GR allows for a particle to
>occupy two different points at two different times.
That is not travel in spacetime since time cannot change. Time cannot
change because you would need another time, a meta-time to represent
change in time and another meta-time after that, ad infinitum. We do
not measure the passage of time with our clocks. We measure invariant
abstract intervals. 'Abstract' means it does not exist.
Motion does not need time anymore than the unemployed need the
unemployment rate. One is physical and the other is abstract. I can
represent motion with a single variable x. I have been explaining this
for at least nine years and you are still are as clueless as ever.
What the fuck is wrong with you, Hansen? If you don't believe me, at
least believe all the physicists I mentioned on my site who understand
this stuff and wrote about it. Here's what Geroch had to say in his
book, Relativity from A to B:
There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves
therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular,
one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or
as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just
"in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents,
all at once the complete life history of the particle."
If you don't trust my understanding, trust one of your own. Better
yet, try to understand it on your own. You are not making an effort.
>>>> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
>>>> time is invariant by definition.
>>>
>>>By whose definition?
>>
>>Everybody with more than two neurons between their ears. This is
>>really pathetic. What do they teach you assholes in physics school? To
>>fuck each other in the ass?
>
>I can make up definitions; by definition time stops at your ass. That
>doesn't mean much. The invariance of time was an assumption. For longer
>than that, time has been associated with rates of change. And clocks in
>orbit go faster than identical clocks on the ground.
Time has been invariant ever since Newton used it as an evolution
parameter in his equations to describe motion and change. Get a clue.
"Changing time" is self-referential and stupid. After all these years,
you are still as fucking clueless as ever. When are you going to wake
the fuck up, Hansen?
>>>>It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
>>>>many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment.
>>>
>>>Or for a merry response.
>>
>>Indeed. I enjoy throwing shit in your faces.
>
>Well, at least you admit it.
Yes. I always say what I mean and I always tell it like I see it. I am
not a gutless ass kisser like so many in the physics community. Fuck
them, and the fucking stinking mule they rode in on.
xx...@bellsouth.net
Traveler wrote:
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
>
> Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
> motion, period.
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> existence.
> time is invariant by definition.
>
are
> a relevant link:
>
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
>
>
> 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
xxein: Science history is replete with conclusions that were as wrong
then as they will be wrong tomorrow. Our scientific understanding
operates, at best, with incomplete understanding. We tend to form
theory based on that incompleteness. When we do so, we inject a false
truism into the works because that is all we CAN understand.
For you to inject your views into the matter of theory is just a
reflection of your own (perfectly justified) bias. It is no more
binding on this universe than any other viewpoint within history.
The universe will continue to stick its tentacles into our dark places
until we open them up to light (figuratively). No such thing will
occur anytime soon (despite our continued and relentless effort in the
long run) because we choose to believe only what we THINK we understand
today. We have no way of knowing what we will discover tomorrow that
would (will) change that thinking.
It is rather normal that an isolated individual, such as yourself,
would conduct such a tirade. Many would and do just that. It is just
that some have a choir behind them that makes them believe that they
are more right. A support group, such as it were. It doesn't make
them any MORE right though. It just makes them feel more right.
I, for instance, was ready (ha!) to do just that. But time and
information quelled that notion (lucky that I was timid and felt the
waters first). CHANGED MY MIND? NO. There is still no valid or
justifiable reason for changing my viewpoint. It is sufficiently
advanced so that there is no condemnation except on the grounds of
virtual belief.
There is a choir behind my (or rather, along with) my thinking, but it
is disorganized and not functional as a belief (as some/most would
demand for a theory). It is not my fault that belief behaves amongst
people the way that it does (so tell me about how "yours" is the
"right" religion).
So, actually, you are not fighting against a physical theory: you are
fighting against a belief. Good luck on that!
One additional note: If you can TRULY understand why the opposition
thinks as they do, and THEIR ultimate justification for it, then you
have something to work with/against.
It would seem that you would try to identify their 'tune' by only
hearing one note. That is unfair to 'them', but it is mostly unfair to
yourself to only play one note to 'them' in return.
I hope that you can understand something besides the incomplete
understanding of yourself.
Bill Hobba
"GR_GR" <n...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:d44761$4ca$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Yes indeed. Although it is amusing to poke fun at him while he does post -
just do not spend too much time on it.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> In article <R1h9e.17094$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Bill
> Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:tmua61971snutdu5s...@4ax.com...
> >> In article <QeadnS0mjpn...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
> >> <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:38ta61d9qso9k5ku4...@4ax.com...
> >> >> In article
<42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> >> >> Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
> >> >
> >> >Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the
internet.
> >> >
> >> >Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
> >>
> >> What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
> >
> >Nothing. Your obsession with homosexual acts is plain for all to see.
Get
> >relief quickly - maybe a trip to the local public toilets.
>
> Wake must've fucked you in the ass. Or was it Dick Van de merde or
> GR_GR (aka Mike Varney)? Why else would you feel the need to jump to
> their defense. You are a gutless ass-kissing maggot. You know it and I
> know it.
What is it another poster said about a Pavlovian reponce?
Bill
Traveler
Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
You are all a bunch of cock-sucking queers and fudge packers. You know
it and I know it. Bubba fucks Dick Van de merde who fucks Varney (aka
GR_GR) who fucks Wake who fucks Uncle Al, etc... It's a big fucking
merry-go-round of cock suckers, a big fucking ass-kissing pederast
fraternity, not unlike a Catholic diocese. :-D
Haysoos Martinez! I knew that the physics community was a fucking
superstitious religion all along but only now do I get a real sense of
how religious they truly are, down to the fucking homosexual
hanky-panky. Question is: Who are the pedophiles among you? Is it you
Dick Van de merde? Is it you Varnette? Are you motherfuckers molesting
young boys while you teach them your chicken shit physics. I wouldn't
be surprised. Where there is rampant dishonesty and elitism, there are
always vices lurking in the shadows. Oh well. I hate your stinking
guts even though you are all a bunch of gutless ass kissers. Fuck all
of you! And the fucking mule you rode in on!
Traveler
Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
You mutual ass kissers are all responding to me, the last time I
checked. BTW, what does Dick van de merde's ass smell like today,
Bubba? I knew you'd like that one. LOL.
FrediFizzx
| In article <3clecbF...@individual.net>, "FrediFizzx"
| <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com...
| >| Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics
because
| >| physicists believe in and preach the following:
| >|
| >|
| >| 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
| >| 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
| >| 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
| >| 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
| >
| >Hey Traveler Savain!
| >
| >http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
| >
| >Pack that up your ass and take a good sniff. LOL
|
| Funny. LOL. But seriously, there is not need to posit anything other
| than photons to populate he aether. This is the reason that a moving
| charged particle generates a magnetic field. Gravity too, comes
| indirectly from the interactions of normal matter with aether
| particles. It's an energy conservation phenomenon. But then again,
| almost everything (including simple inertial motion) is due to energy
| conservation principles.
Photons? Ya freakin' moronic jackass! Someone should rip your head off
and shit down your neck! LOL Problem is that no one could find your
freakin' head because it is stuck up your ass. Photons ain't got enough
of what it takes, my man. Only "less than virtual" fermions can do it.
Bound space-time charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) rules, baby!
| Having said, I now know that there are exactly four types of photons,
| one associated with each of the four dimensions. But that's another
| story for another day.
Pack those four photons where the moon don't shine! All they are are
chunks of energy; might give you a little buzz up there. Freakin'
photon snorter. Sheesh. Hehe.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Koobee Wublee
This is a nice work. Folks who believe in General Relativity are crackpots
themselves. It is so hilarious that they point their fingers and calling
some one else so. This is a great example of pot calling kettle black.
In your website, you even believe GR predicts all the observations. That is
not true. GR does not predict the deflection of a photon as currently
understood nor does GR predict the anomaly to Mercury's orbit. All these
crackpots will argue with you that GR does predict all these but have never
gone through the math to understand the derivations. In fact, the
derivations are truly fraudulent. They are not really that difficult to
understand. GR is the biggest hoax in physics. The subject of time not
being an axis in the same status as a spatial dimension is implied in the
principle of least action.where it is the passage of time that represents
the minimal action of an event. Fermat was one of the very first physicist
to apply this principle in derivation of Snell's Law.
I just went through a discussion with one of the most knowledgeable person
on this subject. After the discussion, Mr. Roberts wisely avoided pursuing
these GR predictions any further. He knows where I will lead him, and I am
sure he does not like that because he should have done so as a young man
studying GR. So, if any crackpot (with honor and reputation on the line)
would like to take me up on discussing how GR derives the deflection of a
photon and Mercury's orbital anomaly, I would be very gladly to do so.
Please note this is a sincere invitation and not a trollish bluff.
Bilge
>physicists believe in and preach the following:
so your opinion isn't relevant.
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
>
>Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Every effect must have a cause. The motion of any particle
> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
> motion, period.
> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> existence.
> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
> time is invariant by definition.
>
>It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
>many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment. Here is
>a relevant link:
>
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
>
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote in message news:Nxl9e.27698$lv1.25269@fed1read06...
Australopithecus Afarensis (aka Scholarly Fungi, aka Time Traveler)
at his best :-)
Dirk Vdm
Not Martin Stone
> In article <QeadnS0mjpn...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
> <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> In article <42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> >> Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
> >
> >Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the internet.
> >
> >Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
>
> What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
You didn't actually tell him to eat shit.
Traveler
<dont...@me.com> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:tmua61971snutdu5s...@4ax.com...
>> In article <QeadnS0mjpn...@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
>> <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:38ta61d9qso9k5ku4...@4ax.com...
>> >> In article <42656d80$0$38700$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>> >> Go pack fudge with Dick Van de merde, jackass. And see if I care.
>> >
>> >Once more another fantastic rebuttal by the wittiest man on the internet.
>> >
>> >Is there a reason why you need to repress your sexuality so much?
>>
>> What part of 'eat shit' don't you understand, Wake?
>
>You didn't actually tell him to eat shit.
Sorry. Eat shit, Wake.
GR_GR
Hey peter puffer, science is about sharing information and knowledge.
From your vapid web page.
"here is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist
claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to
explain the theory"
Oh the irony.
Oh... and Savian....
DING!
Traveler
<n...@colorado.edu> wrote:
>Oh the irony.
I got your irony hanging, shitface. Oh, before I forget. What does
Uncle Al's ass smell like today, Varney? :-D
The Ghost In The Machine
<eightwi...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:41:29 -0400
<pcfa61tjg2uu0t2ti...@4ax.com>:
> Modern physics is what I call chicken feather voodoo physics because
> physicists believe in and preach the following:
>
>
> 1. Objects move for no reason at all, as if by magic.
Without context I have no idea what you're on about here.
QM, in particular, only requires that the entire system
conserve energy and momentum but says nothing about
how that energy or momentum need be distributed, apart
from perhaps some probabilistic suggestions (I'd have
to look long and deep to figure out how to determine,
for instance, why gas likes to spread throughtout an
enclosed room as opposed to just huddling in a corner,
though if one partitions a 10m x 10m x 3m room in half
and hypothesizes 7.4 * 10^27 molecules (which is
about right for sea level), it's far more probable
to have exactly half of the molecules than it is to
have all of them on one side, but both pale in comparison
to "approximately half".
So what, precisely, is your complaint?
> 2. Every position/velocity in the universe is relative.
The Lorentz distortion (and its GTR counterpart, which I'd
have to research) ensures that one can select any arbitrary
moving origin and get reasonably good results. Of course,
a better phrasing is that all physical laws are the same
to all observers.
> 3. Gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime.
As opposed to little men pushing down on one's head?
Or what?
> 4. Clocks slow down due to time dilation.
You'll have to clarify this. A moving clock ticks more
slowly than a stationary one, *even when the Galilean Doppler
Effect* is compensated for.
>
> Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Every effect must have a cause.
Oh please. Not *that* old chestnut. What caused the First Cause?
What is that single electron interfering with, in a certain
variant of the double-slit experiment?
This is not a deterministic universe. Live with it.
> The motion of any particle
> is necessarily sustained by a series on interactions. As a
> result, we must be moving in an ocean of highly energetic
> particles: an aether. The primary reason for the existence of
> the aether is to facilitate motion. Without it, there is no
> motion, period.
Rockets must look at you very strangely. :-)
> 2. If every position/velocity was relative, we would have a
> system whereby every position/velocity is relative to itself.
> It turns out that, contrary to what we have been taught,
> everything in the universe is absolute. For the relativist
> morons out there, 'absolute' means independent and 'relative'
> means dependent. And no, the absolute is not dependent on a
> reference frame. It would not be absolute if it were.
The absolute *IS* a reference frame. In SR it's as meaningful
as any other. In BaT there are some issues, but AFAIK BaT does
not postulate an absolute reference frame, either.
> 3. Spacetime is a fictitious math construct. Why? Because nothing
> can move in spacetime by definition. Spacetime has no physical
> existence.
Math is in some sense a fictitious concept (as well as a
very useful tool, of course). Can you hold a 1? Have you
tried to capture pi using a butterfly net? Do integrals
fly in the air and drizzle infintesimals on one's head?
I've had a bird poop on the back of my hand (it was on an
overhead wire -- lucky shot!), but I've never had Euler's
number try to sneak up and paint my toenails blue, or a
logarithm form part of a bridge -- at least, a bridge I can
walk over and dance on with my blue toenails, soiled hand,
butterfly net, and wet head.
This is why experimentation (and peer review) is so important in science.
> 4. A clock could not possibly slow down due to time dilation since
> time is invariant by definition.
A clock does not slow down. A clock is *observed* to slow down.
There's a difference.
>
> It is for these reasons that modern physics is chicken shit. There are
> many more but these will suffice. Deny at your own detriment. Here is
> a relevant link:
>
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
>
>
> 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
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Gregory L. Hansen
Mysterious!
>
>>How can two
>>particles interact without moving close to each other and, well, bumping?
>
>You moron! No two particles can interact unless they have **exactly**
>equal positions. Get a fucking clue. Don't they teach you people
>anything in school? Or is physics taught by clueless crackpots these
>days?
What they teach in schools has very little to do with what you're throwing
in my face.
>
>>If the aether is a four-dimensional lattice, how does a particle get from
>>aether node A to aether node B?
>
>It interacts with a specific photon at node A. The result of the
>interaction is that both particles move away from node A (hence the
>magnetic and electric fields). I say a "specific photon" because there
>is a huge number of photons at every node. They don't interact with
>each other because they do not have the same energy. So they stay put.
>But as soon as photon is dislodged by a particle (by another photon or
>some other particle) it continues to move at C through the aether via
>a series of interactions.
So a particle can't change position without cause, but two particles can
move each other around?
>
>[cut a bunch of stupid crap]
>
>>So you seemed to think you were scoring a point by saying that spacetime
>>is a fictitious math construct. So it's a fictitious math construct, we
>>knew that, so what?
>
>No you did not know that.
Yes we did know that. Every theory is an invention of the mind, that's
been a standard part of the philosophy science at least since Poisson
wrote about it more than a hundred years ago. We want the theory to be
predictive of measurable things, but the theory itself is a model.
>Otherwise you would not tolerate obvious
>crackpots like Kip Thorne and the little con artist in the wheelchair
>in your midst. They have been preaching that GR allows time travel and
>motion in spacetime. Even Feynmann and that old fart John A. Wheeler
>once proposed advanced and retarded waves moving forward and backwards
>in time. It's fucking moronic. Nothing moves in time, goddamnit!
>Forward or backward. There is only the present. Wake he fuck up!
I think your definition of time must be different from the norm.
>
>>>> That's the process of abstraction and modeling. Every good
>>>>theory relates its fictitious constructs to measurable things. Spacetime
>>>>is an abstract construct that models measurements made by clocks and
>>>>rulers.
>>>
>>>Is that why a bunch of famous (and clueless) relativists (Stephen
>>>Hawking, Kip Thorne, Carl Sagan, David Deutsch, etc...) believe GR
>>>does not forbid travel in spacetime?
>>
>>A world line is just a trajectory tipped on its side. The trajectory is
>>a model that correlates positions with the readings of a clock.
>
>How can a worldline be a trajectory since nothing moves in spacetime?
>Earth to Hansen: Wake the fuck up! If spacetime is 100% frozen (and it
>is) and if you all knew it all along, then Kip Thorne, Feynmann,
>Stephen Hawking and many others should have been all arrested for
>fraud.
A real particle, like a baseball, is just wherever it is right now. A
trajectory or a worldline is a model that pairs positions with times. You
plug in a time and see what position you would get *if* the model were a
true representation of the motion and *if* it was that time. Mapping out
a worldline doesn't freeze the baseball, it just says you think you know
where it's been or where it will be.
>
>>Movement
>>means the positions at two different times are not the same, and that is
>>empirically satisfied in many instances.
>
>>GR does not forbid travel in spacetime.
>
>Yes it does. Spacetime is frozen from the infinite past to the
>infinite future.
But the present keeps moving.
>
>> GR allows for a particle to
>>occupy two different points at two different times.
>
>That is not travel in spacetime since time cannot change. Time cannot
>change because you would need another time, a meta-time to represent
>change in time and another meta-time after that, ad infinitum. We do
>not measure the passage of time with our clocks. We measure invariant
>abstract intervals. 'Abstract' means it does not exist.
How about a clock? Mine says 10:15:15 AM. Now it says 10:15:20 AM.
I think you're making too much of a fictitious mathematical construct.
Spacetime was never meant to be or used to try to derive space and time
from first principles. It's just a representation of measurements. And
we know how to measure distances and times.
10:17:32 AM
10:17:36 AM
10:17:40 AM
...
>
>Motion does not need time anymore than the unemployed need the
>unemployment rate. One is physical and the other is abstract. I can
>represent motion with a single variable x. I have been explaining this
>for at least nine years and you are still are as clueless as ever.
>What the fuck is wrong with you, Hansen? If you don't believe me, at
>least believe all the physicists I mentioned on my site who understand
>this stuff and wrote about it. Here's what Geroch had to say in his
>book, Relativity from A to B:
>
> There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves
> therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular,
> one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or
> as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just
> "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents,
> all at once the complete life history of the particle."
>
>If you don't trust my understanding, trust one of your own. Better
>yet, try to understand it on your own. You are not making an effort.
Geroch can think of it as he likes.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
[cut crap]
Fuck you, Hansen. Once again, you have managed to waste my time. Do me
a favor and put me in your killfile, moron.
Creighton Hogg
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Traveler wrote:
> In article <d45ofo$b6e$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
> [cut crap]
>
> Fuck you, Hansen. Once again, you have managed to waste my time. Do me
> a favor and put me in your killfile, moron.
I guess that puts the score at
Greg: 1
Savian: DING
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:d45ofo$b6e$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <13cb61582vsv4cm4s...@4ax.com>,
> Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <d448ro$rn9$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
[snip]
> >Motion does not need time anymore than the unemployed need the
> >unemployment rate. One is physical and the other is abstract. I can
> >represent motion with a single variable x. I have been explaining this
> >for at least nine years and you are still are as clueless as ever.
> >What the fuck is wrong with you, Hansen? If you don't believe me, at
> >least believe all the physicists I mentioned on my site who understand
> >this stuff and wrote about it. Here's what Geroch had to say in his
> >book, Relativity from A to B:
> >
> > There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves
> > therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular,
> > one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or
> > as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just
> > "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents,
> > all at once the complete life history of the particle."
> >
> >If you don't trust my understanding, trust one of your own. Better
> >yet, try to understand it on your own. You are not making an effort.
>
> Geroch can think of it as he likes.
So, he's got you exactly where he wanted you :-)
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down
to their level and beat you with experience" - Dilbert.
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.44.05042...@dill.hep.wisc.edu>, Creighton
Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu> wrote:
Hog, I think that Mike Varney (aka GR_GR), Uncle Al (the racist
asshole) and Dick Van de merde (the sissy Dutch boy) must have all
fucked you in the ass. :-D
Traveler
>So, he's got you exactly where he wanted you :-)
Hey, Dick de merde. Leave Hansen alone and stop looking at his ass,
espèce d'enculé de merde. :-D
Traveler
xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
[cut]
>There is a choir behind my (or rather, along with) my thinking, but it
>is disorganized and not functional as a belief (as some/most would
>demand for a theory). It is not my fault that belief behaves amongst
>people the way that it does (so tell me about how "yours" is the
>"right" religion).
>
>So, actually, you are not fighting against a physical theory: you are
>fighting against a belief. Good luck on that!
It has always been about religion and belief. What's really annoying
is that this particular elitist religion (scientism) insists on
claiming that it is not a religion. They can go fuck themselves.
>One additional note: If you can TRULY understand why the opposition
>thinks as they do, and THEIR ultimate justification for it, then you
>have something to work with/against.
They are fighting for their religion as I am fighting for mine. There
is enmity between us. May the best religion win! That's all.
>It would seem that you would try to identify their 'tune' by only
>hearing one note. That is unfair to 'them', but it is mostly unfair to
>yourself to only play one note to 'them' in return.
I try to play the notes that hurt the most. I always aim to be
ruthless and merciless in my battles. And I take no prisoners.
>I hope that you can understand something besides the incomplete
>understanding of yourself.
I have no idea what this means.
Creighton Hogg
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.44.05042...@dill.hep.wisc.edu>, Creighton
> Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Traveler wrote:
> >
> >> In article <d45ofo$b6e$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >>
> >> [cut crap]
> >>
> >> Fuck you, Hansen. Once again, you have managed to waste my time. Do me
> >> a favor and put me in your killfile, moron.
> >I guess that puts the score at
> >Greg: 1
> >Savian: DING
>
> Hog, I think that Mike Varney (aka GR_GR), Uncle Al (the racist
> asshole) and Dick Van de merde (the sissy Dutch boy) must have all
> fucked you in the ass. :-D
I've heard far better insults. Work harder!
GR_GR
LOL!
Traveler
The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>>
>> Every item in the list above is false for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. Every effect must have a cause.
>
>Oh please. Not *that* old chestnut. What caused the First Cause?
>What is that single electron interfering with, in a certain
>variant of the double-slit experiment?
Since when must a cause require a cause? I thought that only effects
required causes. If a cause is also an effect, certainly it needs a
cause but not all causes have to be effects. Some causes just are
because there is no other way for them to be.
The rest of your post I don't care to comment on.
Traveler
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Photons? Ya freakin' moronic jackass! Someone should rip your head off
>and shit down your neck! LOL Problem is that no one could find your
>freakin' head because it is stuck up your ass. Photons ain't got enough
>of what it takes, my man. Only "less than virtual" fermions can do it.
>Bound space-time charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) rules, baby!
>
>| Having said, I now know that there are exactly four types of photons,
>| one associated with each of the four dimensions. But that's another
>| story for another day.
>
>Pack those four photons where the moon don't shine! All they are are
>chunks of energy; might give you a little buzz up there. Freakin'
>photon snorter. Sheesh. Hehe.
>
>FrediFizzx
>
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
>or postscript
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
LOL. I still think photons are all there is to the aether. Sorry.
According to my research, there are four types of photons: one for the
electric field and three for the magnetic field.
But feel free to dismiss everything I write about photons or any other
hypothesized composition of the aether. Unless someone comes up with a
mechanism that can navigate the aether and use the energy therein for
propulsion, it's all talk. And talk is cheap.
Schoenfeld
FrediFizzx wrote:
> Someone should rip your head off and shit down your neck!
Duke3d quote.
Bill Hobba
Hey Louis have you ever thought about hiring yourself out to psychology
departments? You show perfectly conditioned Pavlovian responses. Pull this
sting and vitriol pours out. Pull that string and vitriol pours out. Hey -
wait a minute - maybe it would not be such a good idea after all. Since it
does not matter what you do vitriol pours out there is not way to tell what
he is reacting to.
Bill
Traveler
Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>Bill
Did you give Uncle Al a blow job today, Bubba?
Louis Savain
FrediFizzx
news:1114032787.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > Someone should rip your head off and shit down your neck!
|
| Duke3d quote.
It's an old Hell's Angeles term.
FrediFizzx
Traveler
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Interesting. You got a reference for this gem?
FrediFizzx
Warp drives will be comin', baby! And it has nothing to do with
extracting energy from the quantum "vacuum". It has to do with using
properly configured, very powerful EM fields to reconfigure the bound
charge of dual space-time. We might be lucky enough to see them in our
lifetime.
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
| In article <3coapaF...@individual.net>, "FrediFizzx"
| <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:1114032787.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| >|
| >| FrediFizzx wrote:
| >| > Someone should rip your head off and shit down your neck!
| >|
| >| Duke3d quote.
| >
|
| Interesting. You got a reference for this gem?
Old ex-Angels buddy of mine, GrassHopper (AKA Roger Lee Howard), from 35
years ago told me that one. Who the hell is Duke3d? Was that around 35
years ago? Probably went to shit and the hogs ate 'em. LOL
FrediFizzx
Bilge
>It has always been about religion and belief.
A good lap dance at the kabal's topless relativity bar will do that
to a person.
>What's really annoying is that this particular elitist religion
>(scientism) insists on claiming that it is not a religion. They
>can go fuck themselves.
That isn't part of the ritual. What those of us in the kabal
really do is to carefully place $50.00 in the g-string of a
dancer at the topless relativity bar for the ritual lap dance.
[...]
>I try to play the notes that hurt the most. I always aim to be
>ruthless and merciless in my battles. And I take no prisoners.
Maybe you'd have better luck getting taking prisoners if
you took them somewhere they could get a lap dance.
schoe...@gmail.com
It's a video game.
> FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
news:1114048838....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
No shit, chicken. LOL All ya get around here is flies, fools, chickens
and punks. Do ya think there was any video games like that in 1970?
When the hell did Pong come out?
Schoenfeld
> No shit, chicken. LOL All ya get around here is flies, fools,
chickens
> and punks.
And the mentally ill (like you), don't forget.
FrediFizzx
In my case, it is not an illness. More likely drain bamage from snorting
too many fermions. LOL What's your excuse? Are you a photon snorter
like Luigi? Hehe Or do you just pack 'em up your ass (instant access
to your brain)? LoL
Traveler
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1114103457.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>| FrediFizzx wrote:
>| > No shit, chicken. LOL All ya get around here is flies, fools,
>| chickens
>| > and punks.
>|
>| And the mentally ill (like you), don't forget.
>
>In my case, it is not an illness. More likely drain bamage from snorting
>too many fermions. LOL What's your excuse? Are you a photon snorter
>like Luigi? Hehe Or do you just pack 'em up your ass (instant access
>to your brain)? LoL
LOL.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Traveler wrote:
>
>
>>In article
>><Pine.LNX.4.44.05042...@dill.hep.wisc.edu>, Creighton
>>Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <d45ofo$b6e$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
>>>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[cut crap]
>>>>
>>>>Fuck you, Hansen. Once again, you have managed to waste my time. Do me
>>>>a favor and put me in your killfile, moron.
>>>
>>>I guess that puts the score at
>>>Greg: 1
>>>Savian: DING
>>
>>Hog, I think that Mike Varney (aka GR_GR), Uncle Al (the racist
>>asshole) and Dick Van de merde (the sissy Dutch boy) must have all
>>fucked you in the ass. :-D
>
>
> I've heard far better insults. Work harder!
They are not actually insults.
It's just his mind overflowing.
Paul