Michio Kaku and Charles Liu: Time Travel Crackpots

http://www.livescience.com/php/video...me_travel_lite

As Paul Feyerabend once wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid
procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are
surrounded with an aura of excellence". ahahaha...

Nothing Can Move in Spacetime:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

Louis Savain

On Jul 26, 9:32 pm, Traveler wrote:
[snip idiocy]

Go back to trolling slashdot, you waste of meat.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:37:43 -0000, Eric Gisse
wrote:

[crap]

ahahaha... The truth irritates you every time, ****e. You know why?
Because you can't use it to kiss ass. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

On Jul 26, 9:49 pm, Traveler wrote:
[snip whining]

Nobody cares about your ass fixation. Go away.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:56:28 -0700, Eric Gisse
wrote:

[crap]

What does Kaku's ass smell like today, ****e? ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

On Jul 26, 10:02 pm, Traveler wrote:
[snip whining]

Nobody cares about your ass fixation. Go away.

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
http://www.livescience.com/php/video...me_travel_lite

As Paul Feyerabend once wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid
procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are
surrounded with an aura of excellence". ahahaha...

Surely that's a farce... right?! No real scientists would seriously claim
that one can break the light barrier. ;-)

Nothing Can Move in Spacetime:

Indeed. And to accelerate matter to go faster than c would require more than
infinite energy.

Harald

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

Louis Savain

"harry" wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
"Traveler" wrote:

http://www.livescience.com/php/video...me_travel_lite

As Paul Feyerabend once wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid
procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are
surrounded with an aura of excellence". ahahaha...

Surely that's a farce... right?!

Right. The Farce of Physics:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
differences between science and the other religions. The other
dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence. The word science was derived
from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that
the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate
of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd
College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to
joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers
the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that
showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use
scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to
consider that they have two to three times more right to be called
scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with
Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no
way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at
the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to
the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev

"CeeBee" wrote in message
2.164...
: On 27 jul 2007 harry wrote in sci.astro:
:
: Surely that's a farce... right?! No real scientists would seriously
: claim that one can break the light barrier. ;-)
:
: Troll alert. Kaku and Lui don't. They're talking a little bit about the
: fabric of spacetime. That is, if you're talking about the movie snippet
: the OP referred to, where they deny the possibility of FTL in flat
: spacetime.
:
: Indeed. And to accelerate matter to go faster than c would require
: more than infinite energy.
:
: We all move in spacetime.


The event "Superbowl" (x1,y1,z1,t1) and the event "World Cup"
(x2,y2,z2,t2) exist simultaneously in spacetime. Even if you attended
both events and followed a path from one event to the other, you are
everywhere and everywhen on that path in spacetime.
Nothing 'moves' in spacetime. Motion is meaningless in spacetime.
In the real world motion is possible, but not in spacetime.
The quirky thing about spacetime is that real world future events
are already there and then, so believers in spacetime are nothing
more than old world palmists, tea-leaf readers and fortune tellers
who'll predict the future for you in their crystal balls if you pay them.

On Jul 27, 11:36 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"CeeBee" wrote in message

2.164...
: On 27 jul 2007 harry wrote in sci.astro:
:
: Surely that's a farce... right?! No real scientists would seriously
: claim that one can break the light barrier. ;-)
:
: Troll alert. Kaku and Lui don't. They're talking a little bit about the
: fabric of spacetime. That is, if you're talking about the movie snippet
: the OP referred to, where they deny the possibility of FTL in flat
: spacetime.
:
: Indeed. And to accelerate matter to go faster than c would require
: more than infinite energy.
:
: We all move in spacetime.

The event "Superbowl" (x1,y1,z1,t1) and the event "World Cup"
(x2,y2,z2,t2) exist simultaneously in spacetime. Even if you attended
both events and followed a path from one event to the other, you are
everywhere and everywhen on that path in spacetime.
Nothing 'moves' in spacetime. Motion is meaningless in spacetime.
In the real world motion is possible, but not in spacetime.
The quirky thing about spacetime is that real world future events
are already there and then, so believers in spacetime are nothing
more than old world palmists, tea-leaf readers and fortune tellers
who'll predict the future for you in their crystal balls if you pay them.

[I guess I am getting on some people's nerves. My usual usenet server
just banned me from posting. ahahaha... I love it. Oh, well. There is
always http://groups.google.com]

Well said but my problem with you, Androcles, is this: how is it that
you understand that nothing can move in spacetime and still believe in
the existence of time as a variable? A variable time is an oxymoron
for the very reasons that you mentioned above. The existence of time
makes motion impossible and meaningless for the same reason that
motion is impossible and meaningless in spacetime. Change exists
empirically and time is abstractly derived from change. What could be
simpler?

BTW, it is for these reasons that Sir Karl Popper called spacetime
"Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens". Einstein is the
new Parmenides and Kurt Godel the new Zeno. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...

I noticed something funny about the relativist's explanation of
gravity over the years. Most of them (with the notable exception of
Brian Greene, the Columbia University superstring crackpot who loves
to be interviewed on coast2coast AM, ahahaha) no longer talk about
gravity being due to mass curving spacetime such that curved spacetime
would then affect the motion of moving bodies along their geodesics. I
guess they have slowly come to the realization that many people among
the lay public (who ultimately pays for all scientific research) are
smart enough to see the utter crackpottery of that explanation of
gravity. ahahaha... It's never a good idea to tell your master that
he's stupid in his face. ahahaha...

Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...

Louis Savain

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