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

Traveler wrote in message

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.

No Savain, for you Abtracts means "Ding!"
We know that since you heard it the first time.
It drove you right off the cliff, remember?

Dirk Vdm

On Aug 7, 4:20*pm, Traveler wrote:
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?


Geez, you have such difficulty answer simple questions, Louis. Do you
want me to repeat the questions?

PD

On Aug 7, 4:20*pm, Traveler wrote:
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...AbstractQuanti...

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...5zbnba8pfors5y...
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.

Is a magnetic field abstract, Louis?

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 Aug 7, 5:08*am, 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!

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/

To be honest, I kinda like it like that, seems more elegant than how
quantum physics describes it.

In the end it doesn't really matter either way, we don't know what's
coming next anyhow, even if it's predetermined.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:21:10 -0700 (PDT), LuckyE
wrote:

On Aug 7, 5:08*am, 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!

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/

To be honest, I kinda like it like that, seems more elegant than how
quantum physics describes it.

In the end it doesn't really matter either way, we don't know what's
coming next anyhow, even if it's predetermined.

Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the University of
Central Arkansas put it this way:

What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will
be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even
fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical
systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or
that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the
objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of
time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one
"way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result
of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one
might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual
disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a
change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.

From "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?"
Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994

I fully agree with Dr. Rosen on this issue. I leave time travel for
Einstein Dingleberries and the little con artist in the wheelchair.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

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

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:26:46 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

[snip crap]

How old are you now, Van de merde? 70? 80? ahahaha... You sound like a
senile old man with nothing to do but preach your geriatric physics on
usenet. ahahaha... You people are too old to learn any new tricks.
Your neurons have calcified. You are like a bunch of greying organ
grinder monkeys who learned to expose your privates to the public so
you can earn a few extra coins for your owners. ahahaha... Anyway, you
must look pretty funny with those transparent fifty-cent whore panties
on. Have you no shame?

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

Louis Savain

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

On Aug 7, 6:53*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:26:46 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"

wrote:

[snip crap]

How old are you now, Van de merde? 70? 80? ahahaha... You sound like a
senile old man with nothing to do but preach your geriatric physics on
usenet. ahahaha... You people are too old to learn any new tricks.
Your neurons have calcified.

Neurons don't calcify, stupid.

[snip]

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
"Dirk Van de moortel" ThankS-NO-SperM.com wrote:
"John Baez"
"Traveler" wrote:

Yo, Professor Baez. Would you tell the Einstein dingleberries
on the sci-physics newsgroups that nothing can move in
spacetime by definition?
Maybe if the ass kissers hear it from you, they'll have a
chance at regaining the use some of their atrophied neurons.

How old are you now, Van de merde? 70? 80? ahahaha...
You sound like a senile old man with nothing to do but
preach your geriatric physics on the usenet. ahahaha...
You people are too old to learn any new tricks.
Your neurons have calcified.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

"Eric Gisse" wrote
Neurons don't calcify, stupid.

hanson wrote:
Eric, there are
23,600 google hits for calcified neurons.
207,000 google hits for neural calcification.

Eric, read thru that literature to find out how far
that process and atrophy has advanced in you.

So, young. Pity. --- But that is what its precursor,
namely EDS, the Einstein Dingleberry Syndrome
is causing. Look for specific therapies, in particular
how to tear yourself loose from herd thinking...
Good luck to you, Eric ...
hanson

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:32:35 GMT, "hanson" wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
"Dirk Van de moortel" ThankS-NO-SperM.com wrote:
"John Baez"
"Traveler" wrote:

Yo, Professor Baez. Would you tell the Einstein dingleberries
on the sci-physics newsgroups that nothing can move in
spacetime by definition?
Maybe if the ass kissers hear it from you, they'll have a
chance at regaining the use some of their atrophied neurons.

How old are you now, Van de merde? 70? 80? ahahaha...
You sound like a senile old man with nothing to do but
preach your geriatric physics on the usenet. ahahaha...
You people are too old to learn any new tricks.
Your neurons have calcified.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

"Eric Gisse" wrote
Neurons don't calcify, stupid.

hanson wrote:
Eric, there are
23,600 google hits for calcified neurons.
207,000 google hits for neural calcification.

Eric, read thru that literature to find out how far
that process and atrophy has advanced in you.

So, young. Pity. --- But that is what its precursor,
namely EDS, the Einstein Dingleberry Syndrome
is causing. Look for specific therapies, in particular
how to tear yourself loose from herd thinking...
Good luck to you, Eric ...
hanson

ahahahaha... This is funny as hell. And sad at the same time. Such a
young man and already acting like a brainwashed untrainable old fool.
ahahaha... But hey, there are a zillion sad stories in the world. I
can't lose too much sleep over that fact. I'll just laugh at the funny
parts. Organ grinder capuchin monkeys, all of them, showing off their
little panties. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

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

On Aug 7, 8:32*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

...
"Dirk Van de moortel" ThankS-NO-SperM.com wrote:
"John Baez" "Traveler" wrote:

Yo, Professor Baez. Would you tell the Einstein dingleberries
on the sci-physics newsgroups that nothing can move in
spacetime by definition?
Maybe if the ass kissers hear it from you, they'll have a
chance at regaining the use some of their atrophied neurons.

How old are you now, Van de merde? 70? 80? ahahaha...
You sound like a senile old man with nothing to do but
preach your geriatric physics on the usenet. ahahaha...
You people are too old to learn any new tricks.
*Your neurons have calcified.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

"Eric Gisse" wrote
Neurons don't calcify, stupid.

hanson wrote:

Eric, there are
23,600 google hits for calcified neurons.
207,000 google hits for neural calcification.

Eric, read thru that literature to find out how far
that process and atrophy has advanced in you.

So, young. Pity. --- *But that is what its precursor,
namely *EDS, the Einstein Dingleberry Syndrome
is causing. Look for specific therapies, in particular
how to tear yourself loose from herd thinking...
Good luck to you, Eric ...
hanson

169,000 hits for hanson is a moron