No Time Travel, Sorry 888
MOBE2001 writes "The bad news is that time does not change. Spatial velocity is given as dx/dt. Velocity in time(dt/dt) is nonsensical. As simple as that. In other words, no time travel to the past or the future, no motion in space-time, no wormholes and no hanky-panky with your great, great grandmother. There is only the changing present, aka the NOW. The good news is that distance is an illusion and we'll be able to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere."
Of course time travel is possible! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course time travel is possible! (Score:5, Funny)
Read that in Mad Magazine about 20 years ago.
Only change: Alfred E. Neuman has been elected. Twice.
Re:Of course time travel is possible! (Score:3, Funny)
No, only once. And there's some doubt about that one.
When I want to go forward or backward in Time... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course time travel is possible! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the impossibility of motion in spacetime invalidate Einstein's relativity? The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events. If one chooses the former, one is obviously a crackpot or a fraud, or both. If one chooses the latter, then general relativity is to be seen as a mere math trick: the physical mechanism of gravity is still out there and it is incumbent upon physicists to find it.
This guy seems like an idiot to me. If you make the step to say that this is a mathematical construct that best describes our limited understanding of reality, which I believe to be true, you'll never be able to describe OR refute a more complete understanding of reality using that construct. You often need to discard and rethink the original concept or adapt it for it to improve. None of our knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is fully and completely right. Not one bit, it's just the best abstract model we've got. Everything we know will eventually be demonstrated to be incomplete, inconsistent or wrong. Which means you can't use any existing models to refute a new one. You can use them as a guide, you can say that the old and the new are inconsistent, but to refute them you need to go to the real world.
Parent is right! Article is FOS (Score:3, Informative)
The article creator sould look into string theory-they are cruising at 11 (or 10) dimensions (haven't checked lately, may be out of date but definitely down fr
Re:Of course time travel is possible! (Score:5, Funny)
Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Insightful)
That's weird because I could have sworn when I went to bed last night it was yesterday and now its today.
Nevertheless...this is fun. Looking at the equation from which all his arguments flow, it seems he is only demonstrating that it doesn't make sense to talk about one's velocity through time. I would agree. If I hop in my time machine and zip off to tomorrow, it doesn't make much sense for you to ask how long it took to get there. Or if you and I both have time machines and we decided to race to 1:00 pm tomorrow it would be always be a tie. But this is a far stretch from demonstrating that it is impossible. By this same logic we could define slope as the change in x over y or s = dx/dy. Does this definition make it impossible to move along the y axis because then the slope of our movement would be dy/dy? No. but it does say that if you move along the y axis your slope will be a constant.
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Now it's now, and that's all that is. You remember yesterday, but that is a memory occuring now. The past doesn't physically exist. Nor does the future. The only real (i.e. existing physically) part of our time perception is now.
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Funny)
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now, now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then!
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:2, Interesting)
Idiotic (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone agrees that practical time travel is at the very least exceptionally unlikely. But whether our model of the universe excludes the posibility of time travel is another matter entirely.
Note that even if our model of the universe allows for time travel it does not mean that time travel is possible. Not least because we know that our model of the universe cannot possibly be completely right. Quantum physics provides an excelent model of the universe at a large scale, relativity provides a good model at the cosmological scale. The problem is that the two models are incompatible. At leas one of our models must be wrong. Most likely they are both approximations.
The other issue that the writer does not seem to grasp is that the ability for matter to travel through time and the ability of information to travel through time are very different issues. For meaningful time travel it has to be possible for information to move backwards in time and not just matter. Otherwise what would come out the other end would be a random soup of quantum particles, not the time traveller. This is the problem with black hole time travel, the most that can come out the other side is a random soup.
The 'proof' provided by the author only demonstrates that he does not have the slightest understanding of the subject he is pontificating on. dt/dt = 0??? No, all that shows is that the dimensions of the two quantities are the same. Besides x/x = 1 in most algebras.
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Funny)
This dude's score is off the charts. I highlighted some of the good ones:
casuality is the key (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I think what most people mean by "time travel" is something different, a causality loop. That is, they mean you do something (which they call "time travel") and this something lets you become your own grandpa, or influence the outcome of the Civil War, and so forth. Since, of course, those things influence the you that's influencing them (otherwise the story is not interesting), this makes a nice little loop of cause and effect: you influence x which influences you who influences x, and around and around.
Whether or not the physics of the universe allows such a thing, I can't see any obvious reason why it would cause big problems -- or even be interesting. Certainly it could not manifest itself the way it's shown in the movies, in which you see the loop first one way (Marty McFly's parents marry and produce him), and then another way (Marty's parents fail to marry, because McFly travels back in time and interferes with their meeting). That's logically impossible. If the loop exists at all, it must have one unchanging form.
That is, if Marty McFly does go "back in time" he obviously can't (or rather doesn't) prevent his parents from marrying and having him, because they actually did. Whatever he does "back in time" is already part of history. His "changes" already exist, and have always existed. Indeed, they can't even logically be regarded as "changes" because nothing really changed. Although...it's possible McFly, with his imperfect knowledge of the past, could have assumed something about the past was different than it actually was (e.g. he thought his parents met at the dance, instead of afterward, when some strangely-dressed clown introduced them). Therefore, when he "changes" history (by interfering with his parents meeting during the dance, and then "fixing" things up by introducing them afterward), he might be under the illusion that he is really "changing" history instead of simply causing it to happen as it actually did.
I suppose we could now argue about whether Marty's sense of free will (as well as our own) is therefore just a big fat self-delusion, but, ugh, not before a pint or two.
Re:casuality is the key (Score:4, Interesting)
You do your little god thing, rearranging everything in the universe as it should be according to your snapshot, with a few exceptions... Marty and the Delorean. He didn't travel back in time, though, to him it can look like nothing else. But by the metatime clock that you the god uses, time has rolled on as it always has, only the universe was partially reset once or twice. I like this interpretation better, because you don't have to play mindfuck games with it.
Re:casuality is the key (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:casuality is the key (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure conversation of energy is my first worry though, not in the strictest sense. Mass worries me more. Does the god fill in the missing particles that was Marty with something that won't be missed from some far corner of the universe? Now, I know that mass and energy are convertible to each other, especially in something as outlandish as all of this, so it's kind of a nitpick on my part. I wonder just how much energy (besides the mass of Marty/Delorean) would be needed to roll the clock back 30 years, if it's calculable.
The real killer is probably information entropy though. The "snapshot" itself isn't allowed, even if you postulate a god sitting in a metaverse/metatime playing with the Universe on his VCR.
Re:casuality is the key (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:casuality is the key (Score:3, Interesting)
Quantum Mechanic for Hire (Score:3, Funny)
So, if you see some maintenance
{x,p} (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Insightful)
tm
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Informative)
He doesn't get British humor, clearly.
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:2)
It will take you about 24 hours. :)
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing about the time travel theories is that, they are all based on a specific "definition" of time, when time by itself does not exist, it is just another metric that we mere mortals created (no I do not believe in god
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Interesting)
Very true yet hard to convince folks that our perception of "time" is just and only that, our perception, filtered through sensory organs, language and symbols, thought and then socially acceptable explanations.
I suspect that time will show (heh) that our perception of our Universe and it's actions and what's really going on are very different -- we are severely limited by our perceptions and so see the Universe in a very specific way which isn't
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, let's say that you and I race to 1:00pm tomorrow. You decide to stay right where you are and wait for 1pm to arrive. I, however, jump in my ship for a trip around the solar system at relativistic speeds and meet you there. When 1pm comes around we are both there, but you've aged like 24 hours while I've only aged a couple of minutes. I would say I have won because it took me less time t
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:3, Insightful)
It took less time as you observe it. To use one of the standard ways of explaining relativity: there are two astronauts. One stays on Earth to train, while the other goes on a mission, zipping around the solar system near the speed of light. When he returns, he aged 1 month, while the astronaut on Earth aged 1 year. What gives? Well, the same amount of time "happened." Both spent one year on their individual tasks. The one that went on the space missions feels like one month passed, but that's just because
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not my point. I'm saying that while time appears to go slower, it didn't actually speed down. Sure, the tree grew more slowly, but that doesn't change the fact that time itself did not.
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:5, Informative)
The two frames are not inertial frames since one twin accelerates during the experiment. While the result is no doubt peculiar, there actually is no paradox to resolve.
You can read all about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:4, Insightful)
_Special_Relativity_ says that two observers moving past each other in unaccelerated reference frames will each perceive that the other's clocks are running more slowly. The observations are consistent. To get the two observers into the same reference frame, one or both of them would have to accelerate, and general relativity conveniently works it so that the paradox vanishes.
In the actual example, one observer is remaining stationary, while the other is accellerating to high velocity, then accelerating to change velocity ("around the solar system") and then presumably accelerating a third time to return to the original reference frame. All three accellerations, plus travelling at high velocity relative to the rest frame, will cause the traveller's clock to run more slowly, as observed by someone in the rest frame.
Re: Really? A tie? (Score:3, Informative)
The passage of time varies with velocity and the presence of gravitation fields. You can actually measure the difference using atomic clocks. Both clocks will pass through the same points in time, but at different relative times. That is, when you bring the clocks back together you will find they have a discrepancy that is due to the differenc
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:5, Insightful)
All well and good, except that we've already proved in practice [metaresearch.org] that time has a different rate of passage for different people. Quote: "For GPS satellites, General Relativity predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks."
The difference is about 38,000 ns/day. Since the speed of light is about one foot per ns, if relativity were wrong (because time passed at the same rate for everyone), GPS would accumulate an error of about 7 miles per day. Such an error would be blindingly obvious to everyone using the system, and wouldn't require any fancy equipment to measure.
I'm interested to hear Mr Savain give an alternate explanation for how GPS works.
Re:Drinking to much funny-juice (Score:3, Informative)
True, but according to the Lorentz Transformation, the one who goes the fastest gets there the youngest! So there is a winner.
Er am i the only one to notice that... (Score:4, Informative)
Nasa has done a lot of research on this. if you accelerate a physical object to the 'speed of light' it's 'relative' time stops in comparison to that of the universe, while time continues to flow for the rest of the universe, until that object is decelerated to normal velocity.
So if 'time' can't be traveled through, then what exactly is 'time dilation?' Also, black holes are only useful for traveling 'forward' in time, the 'intense gravity' within a black hole 'simulates' traveling forward at the speed of light, the closer you are the greater the gravity, and thus the greater the time dilation. no one has formulated or demonstrated the possibly to go 'to the past' although if 'gravity' and 'light speed travel' can decelerate ones own flow of time so the future can be reached, then 'anti-gravity' or some form of 'reverse momentum' might perhaps allow one to experience a pocket of time where as one progresses through it the entire universe grows 'younger' the problem with this is gravity and acceleration seem to both follow temeperature and have a common starting point or 'absolute zero' below which it is impossible to go.
appologies to all the great science fiction, but traveling back in time just isn't possible.* (unless of course one travels forward through time throught the end of the universe as we know it, until a new universe is created from the ashes of the old one, assuming that that Does in fact happen, and given the nature of atomic mass to develop in a consistant patter, one travels to the 'future' of a new 'third world inhabited by the evolutionary decendants of apes' before they manage to create time travel, and knowing exactly how the universe unfolds (because of a massive quantum computer and impressive algrythm that can determine the exact course of events Before they happen, again, based on the data it recieved while you were traveling 'forward' in time...) and thus influence the development of a primative world that the locals call 'earth' because everything formed along the same 'predestined' pattern based on the arrangment of molecules in the universe when it collapsed... only you went and went Forward in time, causing the end of the universe to happen differently than when it ended last time, so now you're ona world inhabited by 27 foot tall sentient lizards who think mamals are a tasty snack.
oops. well, you shouldn't have tried to avoid the big crunch to see how the universe would unfold the next time around
Crackpottery, Indeed (Score:3, Funny)
(Seriously. It's like he read Zeno's Paradoxes and it blew his mind, man.)
SG1 Answers! (Score:2)
Ah ha! So that is how to Tolan's were able to communicate so quickly with the Knocks from Earth after thier world had been destroyed!
Re:SG1 Answers! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SG1 Answers! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm no physicist (Score:5, Insightful)
But I time travel every day! (Score:5, Funny)
--dave
Re:But I time travel every day! (Score:3, Insightful)
The e-mail I sent to the editor was ignored. (Score:5, Informative)
This guy is a pseudo-scientific moonbat. Please don't waste your time with the not-so-FA.
Re:The e-mail I sent to the editor was ignored. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.ht
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Sp
(emphasis mine.) That alone should make it pretty clear that this isn't meant to be taken seriously. Oh yeah, and the story got the "foot" icon, too, so even Taco got it.
Re:The e-mail I sent to the editor was ignored. (Score:3, Informative)
I agree. I ran across this in my searching on this guy: Einstein was dumb. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... [groupsrv.com] To quote: Now a whole new generation of notorious crackpots in high places have jumped in lunatic Godel's time travel banwagon. Examples are Kip "wormhole" Thorne, Stephen "black hole" Hawking, Brian "superstring" Greene, Michio Kaku (Mucho Kuckoo), etc... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
I can deduce the following from this article:
Well obviously! (Score:4, Funny)
Or, as Ford Prefect put it... (Score:5, Funny)
Method of Travel? (Score:4, Funny)
Also, did they attempt to spin the Earth backwards on its axis? I heard that works if there is a lady in distress.
Re:Method of Travel? (Score:5, Funny)
That works well when aliens try to talk to whales.
Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if you're going to put up a web page in which you call all the foremost theoretical physicsts in the world frauds, then you'd better have more evidence than some undergraduate-level pseudo-calculus and verbal smoke screens.
The t-axis or time-axis velocity component is 1, a dimensionless number. Now there are relativists who will insist that it is perfectly acceptable to express velocity in time with a dimensionless number but the rest of us with our head on our shoulders, know that it is not true. We know that a dimensionless number such as 1 has absolutely no meaning in as far as expressing velocity.
Not true. Normalized velocities are perfectly reasonable things to express. Mach 1.25 is a perfectly well-defined speed that does not violate any laws of physics, and what do you know--it's a dimensionless number.
I'm sorry, but this page is really quite embarassing for the author's parents and any physics teacher's they've ever had. This sort of reminds me of people that read things like A Brief History of Time, a perfectly excellent book, and then try to tell me that the physics is really great and it would be so much better unencumbered by the mathematics.
I don't think real time travel, a-la Dr. Who is physically possible. But the "arguments" on this web page don't really make sense, much less prove all those physics wrong.
Craig Steffen
Ph.D. Physics, Indiana Unversity, 2001
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:3, Insightful)
This page is probably there because the author enjoys making people who know better and are uptight about it get hot under the collar. In other words, he's trolling. If that's the case, the author would have to have a pretty decent grasp of the concepts he is mocking in order to know exactly which buttons to push.
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:3, Insightful)
Mach is not a speed, it's a ratio of your speed (measured in distance per time) to the speed of sound in whatever medium you happen to be travelling in (also measured in distance per time). It's only used because it is very convenient to use such a proportion when making calculations about compressible fluid flow (shock waves and the like)--properties of the flow are ident
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm...point taken. I think technically it's supposed to be "mach number", rather than what I said, which is that it's a speed.
I don't know. Mach number is clearly dimensionless...but it gets larger in magnitude when you go faster, so it is a speed in a way. It's a dimensionless speed? That seems contradictory.
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:5, Funny)
And this guy should know what he's talking about-- somehow he's managed to make his post travel 5 years into the future.
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:5, Insightful)
Mach is the ratio of two speeds. Doing such produces a number in which the units cancel out. Speed/Speed = dimensionless. This also brings up another property of a dimensionless number, in that the value *does not change* in any unit of measurement. Mach 1.5 is the same in SI, FPS, or any other system.
Don't believe me? Here [wikipedia.org]. "As it is defined as a ratio of two speeds, it is a dimensionless number." I'd hate to think you believe what you said... as others are taking you seriously.
Please don't respond back... I don't want to debate this further and you are most utterly wrong. I hope you don't work on... anything.
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:3, Informative)
While I am not particularly impressed by people mentioning their PhD either, the guy was completely correct. The Mach number IS dimensionless just like the Reynolds number, Nusselt number, Prandtl number,... whatever number. These numbers (mostly having to do with fluid dynamics) have exactly been devised to be dimensionless. The are invented to scale experiments. As long as the dimensionless numbe
Re:Let's play: spot the Loony (Score:3, Informative)
Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
HA! Take this from a person who has been in a long distance relationship... The distance is a reality, the relationship is the illusion.
We really outa get these theoretical scientist types out of a lab for a beer.
I dont see why we try anymore (Score:2)
We're getting more and more pseudoscience garbage.
If i see incredible claims on slashdot now i just check the posts first to see if its worth reading.
Slashdot is fading into uselessness for me.
Digg is just so much more useful.
I must complain (Score:5, Funny)
All you need for time travel is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All you need for time travel is... (Score:5, Funny)
Contradictory statements (Score:2)
Those are contradictory statements. If you can travel from anywhere to anywhere instantly, then you can also travel from any point to any point in time instan
To the future (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No time travel into the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oooh, a lesson in time travel! (Score:2)
I'll keep dreaming, if you don't mind.
I desperately want to mod the story... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, ... (Score:5, Funny)
Dan Church is Wicked Ill [danchurch.tk]
Re:Actually, ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Actually, ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The author is a loon (Score:2)
Exactly how was this accepted for submission, especially in the "Science" category? This would be more appropriate under "kooky humor", at best.
Does this mean...? (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't anyone hear... (Score:2)
Textbook strawman arguments. (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be a lovely argument if changes in position were measured in velocity.
You describe spacial travel as the dx, not the dx/dt. It stands to reason that you would describe time travel with the dt, not as some rate of travel we haven't come up with yet.
Re:Textbook strawman arguments. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to add what doesn't really need to be added, to really spell things out in case anyone isn't following this:
The guy's saying that velocity in space is measured in such-and-such a way (dx/dt, or change in position relative to change in time) and so velocity in time is impossible because it would be dt/dt, or change in time divided by change
Closet time travel (Score:5, Funny)
Now wait...and eat sometimes.
5 years later, exit the closet.
You will find that time of the world has advanced from when last remembered by 5 years.
PS. don't forget to setup an auto-pay for your residential rent/payment. Otherwise your travel may be interrupted, and you will not be able to travel the full 5 years.
Don't trust articles with no author (Score:2, Interesting)
of course time travel is impossible (Score:2)
it's really quite simple:
Religious Singularity is evil,
Academic Singularity is evil.
Singularity is damnable lie,
Educators altered your mind,
You cannot think opposite of
what you were taught to think.
You have a cyclop perspective
and taught android mentality =
lobotomized analytical ability.
Educated singularity stupid -
You can't think 4 corner days.
Einstein misunderstood his own threory ? ... (Score:2)
I don't know about the rest of the Slashdot crowd, but I'll tend to side with Einstein here say "probably not"
Talking about time and how you can move through time doesn't make sense because time is part of spacetime and it is one entity. (Yes, that is exactly why it is spelled together as one word.) So one cannot travel in time if he is not traveling in space and vice-versa. I know, it is simple to say that but perhaps hard to understand, and that why there are people
Not nearly as cool as timecube... (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy is way off (Score:3, Funny)
and only dumb ass students condone such evil. Cubeless institutions are spreaders of evil, and students lack mentality to challenge it.
People overlooking markers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suspicious URLs:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.h
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#S
Check.
Comments taking the article 100% seriously: check.
This must be Slashdot.
This is a breakthorough (Score:3, Funny)
We can take the differences between this guy and the time cube guy as one vector, and the differences between this guy and Archimedes Plutonium as another.
Now that we have two basis vectors, we can define a two-dimensional phase space for crackpottery instead of relying on scalars.
Now that we can apply some basic vector and tensor operations to the field of psychoceramics, think of the new discoveries to be made!
spacetime is NOT a general 4-space (Score:3, Insightful)
Object do not pop in and out of existence as time progresses.
If time were simply a velocity in a dimension in a 4-space, that could happen. Instead, we see a continuity in 3-space, where an object might move, but there is a relationship between where it "is" and where it "was" and where it "will be".
So, it makes sense to model spacetime as a 4-space, but not as a general one.
Slashdot trolled by Usenet kook (Score:3, Informative)
CmdrTaco has been scammed by Usenet schizo (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry to have to tell you but you've been scammed by a well-known internet kook called Louis Savain into slashdotting his junk
If you google for "nothing moves in spacetime" and "rebelscience.org" you'll find lots of references to this particular paranoid schizophrenic (no, I'm not kidding)
He likes to spam sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity with his junk. One of his recent postings [google.co.uk] is fairly typical:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC),
glhan
>In article
>Traveler wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glhan
>>Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.
>World lines don't move in spacetime. When people talk about the motion of
>a particle they refer to a succession of points on the worldline, not the
>worldline in its entirety.
Repeat after me: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME!
NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
What this means is that there is NO CHANGE in spacetime (that's why it
was called Einstein's block universe by Karl Popper) and spacetime is
a fictitious math construct with no counterpart in reality. Now, isn't
it a tad weird that your idol Einstein agreed with his friend Kurt
"lunatic" Godel when he announced in 1949 that the spacetime of GR
allows time travel to the past via time-like loops?
Now hold on a southern cotton picking second! Aren't Kurt Godel and
Albert Einstein revered by physicists as two of the smartest men that
ever lived? Yep. ahahaha... One then wonders how they can be so stupid
as to believe in motion in spacetime. ahahaha...
http://www./ [www.] rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm#Einstein
ahahaha...
>>> Or that your alien-induced lattice that exists nowhere is
>>>also an abstract model of your invention?
>>Nope. My lattice is not made of abstract crap but of real particles.
>>You crackpots call them virtual photons. ahahaha...
>You have a model that describes a lattice that is not made of abstract
>crap. You're like the screen writer who writes a line like "This isn't a
>movie, you know."
Maybe in your imagination but I know one thing: I am not an ass
kisser. I do my own thinking, than you very much. ahahaha... And
that's the way I like it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm [rebelscience.org]
I would suggest you remove the story
Re:Slashdot allows any bullshit site now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I just came back from the future... (Score:3, Funny)
So my best guess is you were 10 hours ahead?