EINSTEIN IDIOCIES FOREVER?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...c=most_popular

"How to Build a Time Machine. It wouldn't be easy, but it might be
possible. By Paul Davies"

"For decades, time travel lay beyond the fringe of respectable
science. In recent years, however, the topic has become something of a
cottage industry among theoretical physicists."

"Our best understanding of time comes from Einstein's theories of
relativity. Prior to these theories, time was widely regarded as
absolute and universal, the same for everyone no matter what their
physical circumstances were. In his special theory of relativity,
Einstein proposed that the measured interval between two events
depends on how the observer is moving. Crucially, two observers who
move differently will experience different durations between the same
two events."

"So travel into the future is a proved fact, even if it has so far
been in rather unexciting amounts."

"Clocks run a bit faster in the attic than in the basement, which is
closer to the center of Earth and therefore deeper down in a
gravitational field."

"At the surface of a neutron star, gravity is so strong that time is
slowed by about 30 percent relative to Earth time. Viewed from such a
star, events here would resemble a fast-forwarded video. A black hole
represents the ultimate time warp; at the surface of the hole, time
stands still relative to Earth."

"In science fiction, wormholes are sometimes called stargates; they
offer a shortcut between two widely separated points in space. Jump
through a hypothetical wormhole, and you might come out moments later
on the other side of the galaxy. Wormholes naturally fit into the
general theory of relativity, whereby gravity warps not only time but
also space."

"The wormhole was used as a fictional device by Carl Sagan in his 1985
novel Contact. Prompted by Sagan, Kip S. Thorne and his co-workers at
the California Institute of Technology set out to find whether
wormholes were consistent with known physics."

"Assuming that the engineering problems could be overcome, the
production of a time machine could open up a Pandora's box of causal
paradoxes. Consider, for example, the time traveler who visits the
past and murders his mother when she was a young girl. How do we make
sense of this? If the girl dies, she cannot become the time traveler's
mother. But if the time traveler was never born, he could not go back
and murder his mother."

"Suppose the time traveler goes back and rescues a young girl from
murder, and this girl grows up to become his mother. The causal loop
is now self-consistent and no longer paradoxical."

"Consider the time traveler who leaps ahead a year and reads about a
new mathematical theorem in a future edition of Scientific American.
He notes the details, returns to his own time and teaches the theorem
to a student, who then writes it up for Scientific American. The
article is, of course, the very one that the time traveler read. The
question then arises: Where did the information about the theorem come
from?"

"The bizarre consequences of time travel have led some scientists to
reject the notion outright. Stephen W. Hawking of the University of
Cambridge has proposed a "chronology protection conjecture," which
would outlaw causal loops. Because the theory of relativity is known
to permit causal loops, chronology protection would require some other
factor to intercede to prevent travel into the past. What might this
factor be? One suggestion is that quantum processes will come to the
rescue."

"Chronology protection is still just a conjecture, so time travel
remains a possibility. A final resolution of the matter may have to
await the successful union of quantum mechanics and gravitation,
perhaps through a theory such as string theory or its extension, so-
called M-theory. It is even conceivable that the next generation of
particle accelerators will be able to create subatomic wormholes that
survive long enough for nearby particles to execute fleeting causal
loops. This would be a far cry from Wells's vision of a time machine,
but it would forever change our picture of physical reality."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...c=most_popular

"How to Build a Time Machine. It wouldn't be easy, but it might be
possible. By Paul Davies"

"For decades, time travel lay beyond the fringe of respectable
science. In recent years, however, the topic has become something of a
cottage industry among theoretical physicists."

"Our best understanding of time comes from Einstein's theories of
relativity. Prior to these theories, time was widely regarded as
absolute and universal, the same for everyone no matter what their
physical circumstances were. In his special theory of relativity,
Einstein proposed that the measured interval between two events
depends on how the observer is moving. Crucially, two observers who
move differently will experience different durations between the same
two events."

"So travel into the future is a proved fact, even if it has so far
been in rather unexciting amounts."

"Clocks run a bit faster in the attic than in the basement, which is
closer to the center of Earth and therefore deeper down in a
gravitational field."

"At the surface of a neutron star, gravity is so strong that time is
slowed by about 30 percent relative to Earth time. Viewed from such a
star, events here would resemble a fast-forwarded video. A black hole
represents the ultimate time warp; at the surface of the hole, time
stands still relative to Earth."

"In science fiction, wormholes are sometimes called stargates; they
offer a shortcut between two widely separated points in space. Jump
through a hypothetical wormhole, and you might come out moments later
on the other side of the galaxy. Wormholes naturally fit into the
general theory of relativity, whereby gravity warps not only time but
also space."

"The wormhole was used as a fictional device by Carl Sagan in his 1985
novel Contact. Prompted by Sagan, Kip S. Thorne and his co-workers at
the California Institute of Technology set out to find whether
wormholes were consistent with known physics."

"Assuming that the engineering problems could be overcome, the
production of a time machine could open up a Pandora's box of causal
paradoxes. Consider, for example, the time traveler who visits the
past and murders his mother when she was a young girl. How do we make
sense of this? If the girl dies, she cannot become the time traveler's
mother. But if the time traveler was never born, he could not go back
and murder his mother."

"Suppose the time traveler goes back and rescues a young girl from
murder, and this girl grows up to become his mother. The causal loop
is now self-consistent and no longer paradoxical."

"Consider the time traveler who leaps ahead a year and reads about a
new mathematical theorem in a future edition of Scientific American.
He notes the details, returns to his own time and teaches the theorem
to a student, who then writes it up for Scientific American. The
article is, of course, the very one that the time traveler read. The
question then arises: Where did the information about the theorem come
from?"

"The bizarre consequences of time travel have led some scientists to
reject the notion outright. Stephen W. Hawking of the University of
Cambridge has proposed a "chronology protection conjecture," which
would outlaw causal loops. Because the theory of relativity is known
to permit causal loops, chronology protection would require some other
factor to intercede to prevent travel into the past. What might this
factor be? One suggestion is that quantum processes will come to the
rescue."

"Chronology protection is still just a conjecture, so time travel
remains a possibility. A final resolution of the matter may have to
await the successful union of quantum mechanics and gravitation,
perhaps through a theory such as string theory or its extension, so-
called M-theory. It is even conceivable that the next generation of
particle accelerators will be able to create subatomic wormholes that
survive long enough for nearby particles to execute fleeting causal
loops. This would be a far cry from Wells's vision of a time machine,
but it would forever change our picture of physical reality."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Paul Davies is by no means the most talented perpetuator of Einstein
idiocies; Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation), Steve
Carlip and John Baez are even better:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5cd4c741adeb8?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Paul Davies is by no means the most talented perpetuator of Einstein
idiocies; Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation), Steve
Carlip and John Baez are even better:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5cd4c741adeb8?

Pentcho Valev

Sad case .. you keep posting nonsense and replying to yourself.

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Paul Davies is by no means the most talented perpetuator of Einstein
idiocies; Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation), Steve
Carlip and John Baez are even better:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5cd4c741adeb8?

Pentcho Valev

Sad case .. you keep posting nonsense and replying to yourself.

Unfortunately. But I don't think time travel is nonsense anymore - a
hypnotist managed to hypnotize me by moving a light clock in a very
special way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Paul Davies is by no means the most talented perpetuator of Einstein
idiocies; Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation), Steve
Carlip and John Baez are even better:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5cd4c741adeb8?

Pentcho Valev

Sad case .. you keep posting nonsense and replying to yourself.

Unfortunately. But I don't think time travel is nonsense anymore - a
hypnotist managed to hypnotize me by moving a light clock in a very
special way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

Einstein criminal cult have already started building the time machine.
The zombie world is paying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI...elated&search=

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Paul Davies is by no means the most talented perpetuator of Einstein
idiocies; Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation), Steve
Carlip and John Baez are even better:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5cd4c741adeb8?

Pentcho Valev

Sad case .. you keep posting nonsense and replying to yourself.

Unfortunately. But I don't think time travel is nonsense anymore - a
hypnotist managed to hypnotize me by moving a light clock in a very
special way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

I somehow recovered from this hypnosis but then hypnotists devised
another hypnotic procedu

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...01469919583974

No escape from Einstein's face. Big Brother is watching you.

Pentcho Valev

Causality can't be broken.

If you were able to leap back in time, you'd find "forces", or events
would stop you from being able to break causality.

"Things" would just happen around you to stop you. You might try to
kill your own grandmother, but... somehow events would change that you
were never able to. Perhaps the local sherif would round you up, or
perhaps she'd be out that night, or perhaps she'd kill you instead
(which wouldn't break causality!!), or another thing would happen.

Basiscally, the laws of physics would stop you from breaking
causality.

The same thing goes for reading something you wrote yourself.
Something would stop you.

Or perhaps, you'd read it, then get struck on the head and forget it
all, setting you back so many years that in fact it takes you LONGER
to write the original article than had you not tried cheating
causality

On Jun 1, 12:31 pm, wrote:
Causality can't be broken.

If you were able to leap back in time, you'd find "forces", or events
would stop you from being able to break causality.

"Things" would just happen around you to stop you. You might try to
kill your own grandmother, but... somehow events would change that you
were never able to. Perhaps the local sherif would round you up, or
perhaps she'd be out that night, or perhaps she'd kill you instead
(which wouldn't break causality!!), or another thing would happen.

Basiscally, the laws of physics would stop you from breaking
causality.


The problems is that no such laws are known to act that way. One would
rather say 'the laws of logic' but this, of course, would not fit.

Perhaps it's simpler. If you travel to the past, you can change
nothing in it because you have already been in that past doing exactly
the same things you will do again.

This view poses at least one peculiar difficulty for time travel: your
body would simply disappear from the present and would not appear in
any past time in which it was nor already.

Most important, this alternative does not avoid cicularity in
causation although it avoids contradiction.

Regards

"LauLuna" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jun 1, 12:31 pm, wrote:
: Causality can't be broken.
:
: If you were able to leap back in time, you'd find "forces", or events
: would stop you from being able to break causality.
:
: "Things" would just happen around you to stop you. You might try to
: kill your own grandmother, but... somehow events would change that you
: were never able to. Perhaps the local sherif would round you up, or
: perhaps she'd be out that night, or perhaps she'd kill you instead
: (which wouldn't break causality!!), or another thing would happen.
:
: Basiscally, the laws of physics would stop you from breaking
: causality.
:
:
: The problems is that no such laws are known to act that way.

: One would
: rather say 'the laws of logic' but this, of course, would not fit.
:
: Perhaps it's simpler. If you travel to the past, you can change
: nothing in it because you have already been in that past doing exactly
: the same things you will do again.
:
: This view poses at least one peculiar difficulty for time travel: your
: body would simply disappear from the present and would not appear in
: any past time in which it was nor already.
:
: Most important, this alternative does not avoid cicularity in
: causation although it avoids contradiction.
:
: Regards


Causality is a law of Nature just as inertia is.

Newton's 1st law contain the caveat
"unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon"
and the forces impressed causes Every body not to persevere in its state of
rest, or deviate from its uniform motion in a right line.

Causality is the Zeroth law.