Presidential Candidate Gen. Wesley K. Clark: Futurist.

Erik Max Francis wrote in message ...
...
It's been said before, and it'll be said again: relativity, causality,
and FTL. Pick exactly two.
...
Causality is a very similar situation. It seems like a completely
sensible assumption, but we have no way to demonstrate conclusively that
it's right. Certainly we don't see causality violations going on all
around us, so if causality _isn't_ preserved, then it must be broken
only in very exceptional circumstances, ones we've never experienced
before.

It's special relativity, with the assumption of causality, that leads
you to conclude that faster-than-light travel (within special relativity
anyway) is impossible. If you relax the causality constraint, then you
can get faster-than-light travel no problem, you just have causality
violations.


Of the three, I'd rather have causality and FTL.


Bob Clark

In article ,
Ray Drouillard wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

General Relativity must be incomplete because it cannot be quantized.
OK, who bells the cat? Superluminal transportation violates causality
- something the universe apparently does not tolerate. There is no
test, prediction vs. observation, in which General Relativity is not
perfect within experimental error,

What proof is there that causality must not be violated?

To the best of my knowledge there ain't no proof, it's just that
contemplating the mere possibility of things being otherwise makes
our brains hurt and liquefy and drip out of our ears, so we try not
to do that.

--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
om...
Clark Campaigns at Light Speed
By Brian McWilliams
02:00 AM Sep. 30, 2003 PT
NEW CASTLE, New Hampshire -- Wesley Clark: Rhodes scholar, four-star
general, NATO commander, futurist?
"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human
history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to
reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that
mankind can do it."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60629,00.html


Futurist huh? Is that what he's calling himself these days? I thought he
was a Klingon. ; )

Robert Clark wrote:

Of the three, I'd rather have causality and FTL.

The point is, you don't get to choose. The Universe does, and She isn't
likely to be too forthcoming about Her decision.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ What is now prov'd was once only imagin'd.
\__/ William Blake

Eric Flesch wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:12:40 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Eric Flesch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:14:28 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Metric theories of gravitation postulate the Equivalence Principle
(all bodies fall identically in vacuum)

Well, "identical falling" presupposes a reference frame in which to
measure the identical-ness. If you use the (say) planet that the
bodies are falling toward, in separate tests, then the larger bodies
will actually fall faster because the planet falls toward them with an
acceleration proportional to the bodies' masses.

Look at it from a center-of-mass origin and
see how silly you are.

Well, let's drop a rock towards the Earth in one case, and drop
Jupiter towards the Earth in the other case. See if the acceleration
is the same, from the center-of-mass origin if you want. Size does
matter. The equivalence principle is that the effect of gravity is
indistinguishable from inertial acceleration. But in the real
universe, the differential forces from the attracting body can, in
principle, be measured to distinguish gravitationally-caused
acceleration from pure inertial acceleration. Similarly, "all bodies
falling identically in vacuum" is an idealization which in practice is
only approached. That was my point.

"Local bodies," and one set has to be test masses. Do you know the
definitions of "locality" and "test mass?" By the boundary conditions
of the Weak Equivalence Princple, all local bodies fall identically in
vacuum; inertial and gravitational masses are fundamentally
indistinguishable. We won't stop here, oh no! We go to the Strong
and the Very Strong Equivalence Prnciples:

1) Non-rotating free fall is locally indistinguishable from uniform
motion absent gravitation. Linear acceleration relative to an inertial
frame in Special Relativity is locally identical to being at rest in a
gravitational field. A local reference frame always exists in which
gravitation vanishes.

2) Local Lorentz invariance[8] (absolute velocity does not exist)
and position invariance. All local free fall frames are equivalent.

3) The Strong Equivalence Principle embraces all laws of nature;
all reference frames accelerated or not, in a gravitational field or
not, rotating or not, anywhere at any time (frame covariance; global
diffeomorphism invariance aside from the Big Bang).

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7

HOWEVER... One can formulate an entirely equivalent theory of
gravitation without any spacetime curvature at all, instead using
spacetime torsion. Such affine theories of gravitation are entirely
indistinguishably equivalent to metric GR (plus a very small subset of
additional disjoint phenomena contained), do not postulate the EP, and
can violate it with impunity until observation is violated - if it is
violated.

Einstein has been exhaustively tested for predictions, and he never
fails,

http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

Einstein has never been been credibly tested for "not predictions,"
even though it is a trivially simple modification of existing
protocols,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm

GR is a self-consistent geometry. There are no mistakes in GR. All
GR predictions will be validated to the extreme limits of experimental
error. HOWEVER, GR *must* be incomplete because it cannot be
quantized. GR can only be meaningfully challenged by looking at "not
predictions," at the slim set of disjoint phenomena only predicted by
affine theories.

Physics has no balls for auditing itself. Physics has degenerated
into an effete exercise of publishing voluminous eldritch untestable
theory. Hey guys, it isn't real until it is falsifiable. You start
by pruning the dead wood and pulling the weeds, not by ****ing and
moaning about particle accelerators the size of Andromeda to acecss
Planck energies.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

"Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ray Drouillard wrote:

What proof is there that causality must not be violated?

To the best of my knowledge there ain't no proof, it's just that
contemplating the mere possibility of things being otherwise makes
our brains hurt and liquefy and drip out of our ears, so we try not
to do that.

ugh...

Minor Crank

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:51:47 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:


Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?


Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

David Johnston wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:51:47 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?


Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

Absent strict causality there is no physics. Absent strict causality
anything can happen, and all you have is religion. Religion is the
venue of fools and knaves.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

In infinite wisdom Uncle Al answered:
David Johnston wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:51:47 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:


Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?


Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.


Absent strict causality there is no physics. Absent strict causality
anything can happen, and all you have is religion. Religion is the
venue of fools and knaves.

So what causes virtual particles in a vacuum again?

Rich

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Rich wrote:

In infinite wisdom Uncle Al answered:
David Johnston wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:51:47 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:


Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?


Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.

Model the universe without causality as a postulate. How much physics
can you create that is not contradicted by empirical obseravation?

Just because strict causality may not exist does not mean that
phenomena can't affect the chance that something will happen.


Absent strict causality there is no physics. Absent strict causality
anything can happen, and all you have is religion. Religion is the
venue of fools and knaves.

So what causes virtual particles in a vacuum again?

Heisenberg Uncertainty by the book - Casimir effect, Lamb shift, Rabi
vacuum oscillations, electron anomalous g-factor... The Lamb shift in
hydrogen is accurately modeled to about 14 significant figures. The
Lamb shift in U(91+) includes fat relativistic components. Do you
have a causality problem with any of these?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!