Nothing Can Move in Spacetime. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Every few years, this nasty little truth about spacetime physics needs
to be told. It seems that, even though this is something that is known
to be true among a minority of the cognoscenti (Dr. John Baez
included), it is almost never taught to physics students. Why? What is
there to be afraid of? ahahaha...

It always comes as a surprise to graduate and undergraduate physics
students that, horror of horrors, nothing can move in spacetime, by
definition. Here it is from a well-known relativist.

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.

From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

This means that bodies do not move along their geodesics and that all
that time travel crap from noted relativists like Kip Thorne and
Stephen Hawking is just that, crap. There is no time travel at all,
either forward or backward. And we certainly are not moving toward the
future at 1 second per second as many brain-dead relativists claim.
There is only the present, the now. That's it! Spacetime is a figment
of some dumb mathematician's imagination. It does not exist. So get
over it. Goddmanit!

Physicists who know that nothing can move in spacetime:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/physicists.htm

However, don't go asking crackpots like Brian Greene, Kip Thorne or
Stephen Hawking. These guys are too dumb to understand. ahahaha...

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

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

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

"Traveler" wrote in message
news | Every few years, this nasty little truth about spacetime physics needs
| to be told. It seems that, even though this is something that is known
| to be true among a minority of the cognoscenti (Dr. John Baez
| included), it is almost never taught to physics students. Why? What is
| there to be afraid of? ahahaha...
|
| It always comes as a surprise to graduate and undergraduate physics
| students that, horror of horrors, nothing can move in spacetime, by
| definition. Here it is from a well-known relativist.
|
| 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.
|
| From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
|
| This means that bodies do not move along their geodesics and that all
| that time travel crap from noted relativists like Kip Thorne and
| Stephen Hawking is just that, crap. There is no time travel at all,
| either forward or backward. And we certainly are not moving toward the
| future at 1 second per second as many brain-dead relativists claim.
| There is only the present, the now. That's it! Spacetime is a figment
| of some dumb mathematician's imagination.


That's a ****ing lie! Spacetime is a figment of some dumb crackpot's
imagination, no mathematician would be that stupid.

Two squaddies eating a bad meal, one says "Who called the
cook a **** and upset him?"
The other replies "Who called the **** a cook?"





It does not exist. So get
| over it. Goddmanit!
|
| Physicists who know that nothing can move in spacetime:
| http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/physicists.htm
|
| However, don't go asking crackpots like Brian Greene, Kip Thorne or
| Stephen Hawking. These guys are too dumb to understand. ahahaha...
|
| Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
| http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
|
| ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
|
| Louis Savain
|
| Rebel Science News:
| http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Aug 6, 10:08*pm, Traveler wrote:
Every few years, this nasty little truth about spacetime physics needs
to be told. It seems that, even though this is something that is known
to be true among a minority of the cognoscenti (Dr. John Baez
included), it is almost never taught to physics students. Why? What is
there to be afraid of? ahahaha...

It always comes as a surprise to graduate and undergraduate physics
students that, horror of horrors, nothing can move in spacetime, by
definition. Here it is from a well-known relativist.

* *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.

* *From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

This means that bodies do not move along their geodesics and that all
that time travel crap from noted relativists like Kip Thorne and
Stephen Hawking is just that, crap. There is no time travel at all,
either forward or backward. And we certainly are not moving toward the
future at 1 second per second as many brain-dead relativists claim.
There is only the present, the now. That's it! Spacetime is a figment
of some dumb mathematician's imagination. It does not exist. So get
over it. Goddmanit!

Oh, dear. You seem to be addled a bit by terminology.

What does "move" mean to you, Louis?
Does it mean, maybe, having one location at one time and another
location at another time?

When something *moves*, then how would you characterize that in terms
of the other properties of the thing?

PD

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 06:56:53 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Aug 6, 10:08*pm, Traveler wrote:
Every few years, this nasty little truth about spacetime physics needs
to be told. It seems that, even though this is something that is known
to be true among a minority of the cognoscenti (Dr. John Baez
included), it is almost never taught to physics students. Why? What is
there to be afraid of? ahahaha...

It always comes as a surprise to graduate and undergraduate physics
students that, horror of horrors, nothing can move in spacetime, by
definition. Here it is from a well-known relativist.

* *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.

* *From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

This means that bodies do not move along their geodesics and that all
that time travel crap from noted relativists like Kip Thorne and
Stephen Hawking is just that, crap. There is no time travel at all,
either forward or backward. And we certainly are not moving toward the
future at 1 second per second as many brain-dead relativists claim.
There is only the present, the now. That's it! Spacetime is a figment
of some dumb mathematician's imagination. It does not exist. So get
over it. Goddmanit!

Oh, dear. You seem to be addled a bit by terminology.

What does "move" mean to you, Louis?
Does it mean, maybe, having one location at one time and another
location at another time?

When something *moves*, then how would you characterize that in terms
of the other properties of the thing?

You're just talking out of your ass, PD. You're stupid, man. In
spacetime, we don't just have one time. Every moment is laid out from
the infinite past to the infinite future. Contrary to the opinions of
mental midgets like you, Van de merde, Johnson and Erica Gisse, time
does not change. Nothing can move in time because a change in time is
self-referential. Variable time is an oxymoron. This is the reason
that Karl Popper compared spacetime to

Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing
ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes
Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens,
since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and
laid down from the beginning).

Popper was orders of magnitude smarter than all of you Einstein
Dingleberries combined and then some. He was no gutless ass kisser
like you people, that's for sure. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Aug 7, 1:38*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 06:56:53 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Aug 6, 10:08*pm, Traveler wrote:
Every few years, this nasty little truth about spacetime physics needs
to be told. It seems that, even though this is something that is known
to be true among a minority of the cognoscenti (Dr. John Baez
included), it is almost never taught to physics students. Why? What is
there to be afraid of? ahahaha...

It always comes as a surprise to graduate and undergraduate physics
students that, horror of horrors, nothing can move in spacetime, by
definition. Here it is from a well-known relativist.

* *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.

* *From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

This means that bodies do not move along their geodesics and that all
that time travel crap from noted relativists like Kip Thorne and
Stephen Hawking is just that, crap. There is no time travel at all,
either forward or backward. And we certainly are not moving toward the
future at 1 second per second as many brain-dead relativists claim.
There is only the present, the now. That's it! Spacetime is a figment
of some dumb mathematician's imagination. It does not exist. So get
over it. Goddmanit!

Oh, dear. You seem to be addled a bit by terminology.

What does "move" mean to you, Louis?
Does it mean, maybe, having one location at one time and another
location at another time?

When something *moves*, then how would you characterize that in terms
of the other properties of the thing?

You're just talking out of your ass, PD.

I asked you a three questions, Louis, and you tell me I'm talking out
of my ass. What does it indicate that you haven't answered any of the
questions, which are in fact variants of ONE question? Can't answer
ONE question, Louis?

What does "move" mean to YOU, Louis?

You're stupid, man. In
spacetime, we don't just have one time. Every moment is laid out from
the infinite past to the infinite future. Contrary to the opinions of
mental midgets like you, Van de merde, Johnson and Erica Gisse, time
does not change. Nothing can move in time because a change in time is
self-referential. Variable time is an oxymoron. This is the reason
that Karl Popper compared spacetime to

* *Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing
* *ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes
* *Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens,
* *since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and
* *laid down from the beginning).

Popper was orders of magnitude smarter than all of you Einstein
Dingleberries combined and then some. He was no gutless ass kisser
like you people, that's for sure. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

What does "move" mean to YOU, Louis?

Movement is a change in position over a temporal interval (an abstract
quantity). Every movement has a velocity. Mathematically it is
represented as dx/dt. Time is simply an evolution parameter. Nothing
can move in spacetime for the simple reason that time cannot change.
Why? because a change in time is circular. Why? Because its velocity
would have to be given as dt/dt wich is simply the unitless 1, which
has no meaning.

And please, I don't want to hear that velocity in spacetime is 1
second per second. That's pure BS.

I also don't want to hear that you can use proper time to parametrize
coordinate time either. What's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Time is time. If one time can change, so can another. If you
think that dt/dT represents a change in t, you must be also prepared
to show how T changes. And no, you cannot parametrize T with t because
that, too, is circular.

What is my point? My point is that y'all can kiss my ass. How about
that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Aug 7, 3:32*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
What does "move" mean to YOU, Louis?

Movement is a change in position over a temporal interval (an abstract
quantity).

Good. And how does that show up on a plot of position vs. time, Louis?

Every movement has a velocity. Mathematically it is
represented as dx/dt.

That sounds like the slope of a curve drawn on an [x,t] plane, doesn't
it?

Time is simply an evolution parameter.

And how does an evolution parameter t show up on an x vs t plot,
Louis?

PD

Traveler wrote in message

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

What does "move" mean to YOU, Louis?

Movement is a change in position over a temporal interval (an abstract
quantity).

Nice.
Savain looks at his watch twice, subtracts the numbers
and calls it an "abstract quantity":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...tQuantity.html

The rest is a Chronicle of an Insanity Foretold...


Every movement has a velocity. Mathematically it is
represented as dx/dt. Time is simply an evolution parameter. Nothing
can move in spacetime for the simple reason that time cannot change.
Why? because a change in time is circular. Why? Because its velocity
would have to be given as dt/dt wich is simply the unitless 1, which
has no meaning.

And please, I don't want to hear that velocity in spacetime is 1
second per second. That's pure BS.

I also don't want to hear that you can use proper time to parametrize
coordinate time either. What's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Time is time. If one time can change, so can another. If you
think that dt/dT represents a change in t, you must be also prepared
to show how T changes.

Savain doesn't know what other people carry around their wrists.
He's the only with a clock.
It produces an "abstract quantity".
Insanity Foretold.

And no, you cannot parametrize T with t because
that, too, is circular.

Yes, Savain is the only person on the planet with a clock.
It produces an "abstract quantity".
Insanity Foretold.

What is my point? My point is that y'all can kiss my ass. How about
that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

This is your point:
http://photoshopcontest.com/images/l...5yn2v98q5p.jpg
Good point, Savain - Ding!

Dirk Vdm

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:02:38 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

Traveler wrote in message

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

What does "move" mean to YOU, Louis?

Movement is a change in position over a temporal interval (an abstract
quantity).

Nice.
Savain looks at his watch twice, subtracts the numbers
and calls it an "abstract quantity":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...tQuantity.html

The rest is a Chronicle of an Insanity Foretold...


Every movement has a velocity. Mathematically it is
represented as dx/dt. Time is simply an evolution parameter. Nothing
can move in spacetime for the simple reason that time cannot change.
Why? because a change in time is circular. Why? Because its velocity
would have to be given as dt/dt wich is simply the unitless 1, which
has no meaning.

And please, I don't want to hear that velocity in spacetime is 1
second per second. That's pure BS.

I also don't want to hear that you can use proper time to parametrize
coordinate time either. What's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Time is time. If one time can change, so can another. If you
think that dt/dT represents a change in t, you must be also prepared
to show how T changes.

Savain doesn't know what other people carry around their wrists.
He's the only with a clock.
It produces an "abstract quantity".
Insanity Foretold.

And no, you cannot parametrize T with t because
that, too, is circular.

Yes, Savain is the only person on the planet with a clock.
It produces an "abstract quantity".
Insanity Foretold.

What is my point? My point is that y'all can kiss my ass. How about
that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

This is your point:
http://photoshopcontest.com/images/l...5yn2v98q5p.jpg
Good point, Savain - Ding!

ahahaha... Very funny. At least you got a sense of humor, more than I
can say for Mr. Ye-doesn't-have-to-call-me-Johnson aka Matthew
Johnson.

You're stupid as ****, Van de merde. ahahaha... Abstract means,
non-tangible. That is to say, you cannot see it, weigh it, move it,
**** on it, or isolate it in the lab. When was the last time you put a
temporal interval on a scale, Mr. Two-Neurons-between-the-ears?
ahahaha...

And Van de merde, stop wearing those transparent fifty-cent whore
panties. ahahaha... It does not work on me. It only works on Einstein
dingleberries. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:01:06 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Aug 7, 3:32*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:12:09 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
What does "move" mean to YOU, Louis?

Movement is a change in position over a temporal interval (an abstract
quantity).

Good. And how does that show up on a plot of position vs. time, Louis?

Every movement has a velocity. Mathematically it is
represented as dx/dt.

That sounds like the slope of a curve drawn on an [x,t] plane, doesn't
it?

Time is simply an evolution parameter.

And how does an evolution parameter t show up on an x vs t plot,
Louis?

What is your ****ing point, jackass? How does a plot on an abstract
diagram prove that there is motion in spacetime?

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/