A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about your real mathematician. My father was a real mathematician...

No, he wasn't! He came up with the wrong answer for his own math puzzle and when someone here corrected him, you stole the correction for the book without crediting the person who cleaned up your father's mess.

...and he didn't agree with your belief that time is a 4th dimension.

You father wrote nothing about time as the fourth dimension. All of this is your own emetic nonsense because you are a clueless little fuckbunny.

[I]There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else.

Voila! Is anus wrote this because he doesn't understand the maths. But he's wrong anyway. One CAN explain relativity theory and even quantum mechanics in a simple language that laymen can understand, with minimal math! That is what John Norton does at the site I linked you to, which of course you have ignored. And I already DID explain time dilation to you, in simple natural language.

It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand what first graders can grasp.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, a free radical like me is someone who is trying to explain the truth. Free will is nonexistent, and I think Trick is conceding because he doesn't want your version of "free" (all semantics) to get in the way of everyone agrees on: that under the same exact conditions, WE COULD NOT HAVE DONE OTHERWISE.

You do not seem to understand. As far as I see it, and maybe I can work this out with 'Trick, we agree more or less on the capabilities we have. But he does not want to call these capabilities 'free will', for reasons I understand, but do not quite agree with, i.e. I see other reasons to still use the concept of free will, even if it is not the kind of free will many people, in their naivety, think we have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Great, I will look it up. This is not about my father GdB. This is about understanding the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism, but you won't let me continue. I'm okay with that. You're just not the right person to discuss his book with.

You are not the right person to understand the whole topic of free will. And I am wondering if you can give us one example of somebody who takes your father's book seriously, and you can really discuss with. Can you provide some link?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You do not seem to understand. As far as I see it, and maybe I can work this out with 'Trick, we agree more or less on the capabilities we have. But he does not want to call these capabilities 'free will', for reasons I understand, but do not quite agree with, i.e. I see other reasons to still use the concept of free will, even if it is not the kind of free will many people, in their naivety, think we have.

It's okay if you want to hold onto your concept of free will. It's just not going to allow us to continue what could have been a good conversation. The truth is we don't have any kind of free will --- even though the average person believes that having choices (without restraint or without a gun to your head, or being able to reason and think through the consequences) is what free will is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Great, I will look it up. This is not about my father GdB. This is about understanding the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism, but you won't let me continue. I'm okay with that. You're just not the right person to discuss his book with.

Originally Posted by GdB

You are not the right person to understand the whole topic of free will. And I am wondering if you can give us one example of somebody who takes your father's book seriously, and you can really discuss with. Can you provide some link?

I have not found people online that will take the time to study this work. This book cannot be glossed over. I will probably have to pay for a review service. Even then, it must be people who are familiar with this subject. No one knows the treasure in this book (because it hasn't gotten any publicity), so it's ignored. Trick wants to interview me. I might take him up on it. How can you use the fact that I haven't reached the right people to read it and report on it as a measuring stick of this book's value?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about your real mathematician. My father was a real mathematician

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As it relates to the claim of efferent vision, yes, I know what the present theory is.

No, you don't. The Lone Ranger wrote a big essay and you refused to read it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, general relativity was derived from the assumption that time is a dimension, but of another kind as space dimensions. And as special relativity surely does not allow for reversing the causal orders for events (the 'past light cone' and the 'future light cone') there is at least for me no reason to believe that we can travel back in time. But we can travel forward in time: just by sitting still we do this already. At most we can slow down our time compared to other, by accelerating to high velocities. That's it.

And as I thought, you posted a link of a crackpot. (Or are you trying to prove there is no free will, because I can predict your behaviour?) Why don't you just say you do not understand enough of physics?

As I'm sure you know, there are solutions to general relativity that do allow for backward time travel (closed time-like curves). Whether such paths through spacetime actually exist or can somehow be built is an entirely different matter of course.

If there are such paths to the past, the self-consistency principle rules out the Grandfather's Paradox. Both the aforementioned Norman Swartz and also David K. Lewis discussed this in some detail without reference to closed timelike curves. They both concluded that if it is possible to travel to the past, one cannot change the past; rather, what you did there was already done, even before you traveled to the past.

[But]

Originally Posted by GdB

Well, general relativity was derived from the assumption that time is a dimension, but of another kind as space dimensions. And as special relativity surely does not allow for reversing the causal orders for events (the 'past light cone' and the 'future light cone') there is at least for me no reason to believe that we can travel back in time.

General relativity by itself allows such solutions. Quantum gravity may show that it's impossible, but that's not quite determined yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

As I'm sure you know, there are solutions to general relativity that do allow for backward time travel (closed time-like curves). Whether such paths through spacetime actually exist or can somehow be built is an entirely different matter of course.

If there are such paths to the past, the self-consistency principle rules out the Grandfather's Paradox. Both the aforementioned Norman Swartz and also David K. Lewis discussed this in some detail without reference to closed timelike curves. They both concluded that if it is possible to travel to the past, one cannot change the past; rather, what you did there was already done, even before you traveled to the past.

This is so asinine, it's funny. You are in two worlds David; the real one and your make believe one. You should stick to writing fiction.

A voodoo scientist can always count on other voodoo scientists to jump on his bandwagon and act as if they do understand his theory even though they are equally clueless. Vanity is not to be underrated. This creates a sort of tacit collusion among a group of voodoo scientists who may decide to specialize in the theory and build their careers around it. The idea seems to be to spend a great deal of time to learn the complex and carefully constructed rules of the game and hang in there long enough until one can be safely retired. I must say that many do sincerely believe in the importance and correctness of the theories they espouse but sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a true believer and a hanger-on who merely decides to go along for the ride.

Examples of voodoo science masquerading as legitimate science are all around us: time travel, wormholes, black holes, dimensions curled up into little balls so tiny as to be undetectable, parallel universes, continuum physics, quantum computing, symbolic intelligence, machine consciousness, etc... It is all worthless crackpottery. Yet a few voodoo scientists have managed to amass small fortunes selling some of this stuff to an unsuspecting public, a public that continually thirsts for mysterious things to worship. Hopefully this site will wake a few people up.

Rebel Science

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, did you read Trick's reply to GdB?

. I also think that any moral/ethical theory needs to take into consideration that people do not have the free will as I and most free will skeptics have defined…even if we have the (p) compatibilist varieties.

Say, how many times has explained this to you? A thousand? A million?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, you don't. The Lone Ranger wrote a big essay and you refused to read it.

I skimmed it. Optics is correct. The only thing there is disagreement on is the direction we see. The belief in afferent vision is not conclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, did you read Trick's reply to GdB?

Say, how many times has explained this to you? A thousand? A million?

He's yielding to the compatibilists so as not to cut off the discussion (due to semantics) before it even begins.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so asinine, it's funny. You are in two worlds David; the real one and your make believe one. You should stick to writing fiction.

A voodoo scientist can always count on other voodoo scientists to jump on his bandwagon and act as if they do understand his theory even though they are equally clueless. Vanity is not to be underrated. This creates a sort of tacit collusion among a group of voodoo scientists who may decide to specialize in the theory and build their careers around it. The idea seems to be to spend a great deal of time to learn the complex and carefully constructed rules of the game and hang in there long enough until one can be safely retired. I must say that many do sincerely believe in the importance and correctness of the theories they espouse but sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a true believer and a hanger-on who merely decides to go along for the ride.

Examples of voodoo science masquerading as legitimate science are all around us: time travel, wormholes, black holes, dimensions curled up into little balls so tiny as to be undetectable, parallel universes, continuum physics, quantum computing, symbolic intelligence, machine consciousness, etc... It is all worthless crackpottery. Yet a few voodoo scientists have managed to amass small fortunes selling some of this stuff to an unsuspecting public, a public that continually thirsts for mysterious things to worship. Hopefully this site will wake a few people up.

Rebel Science

Closed time-like curves solutions to general relativity permitting travel to the past are standard, humdrum science that have been known for decades. As I noted, it doesn't follow that such paths in spacetime to the past exist or could be built (several schemes for building them have been proposed). It's just that they are possible in principle. I know that this subtlety will go sailing over your little head.

Voila! Is anus has already been exposed as a fraud, not just by me, but by Dragar, who is an astrophysicist and explained to you years ago what was wrong with what he wrote. You're just too stupid to understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It's really not funny. He was a mathematician in his own right.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;1264942]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about your real mathematician. My father was a real mathematician...

Originally Posted by davidm

No, he wasn't! He came up with the wrong answer for his own math puzzle and when someone here corrected him, you stole the correction for the book without crediting the person who cleaned up your father's mess.

It was a typo David. It was not a difficult math problem. There were other puzzles in the book that you couldn't figure out without help from a computer. He was a deep thinker (much better than you), and you cannot take this away from him as much as you wish you could.

...and he didn't agree with your belief that time is a 4th dimension.

Originally Posted by davidm

You father wrote nothing about time as the fourth dimension. All of this is your own emetic nonsense because you are a clueless little fuckbunny.

No, he didn't write about a 4th dimension, but he did write about death and that all we have is the present. You're too blinded to see the truth.

[I]There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else.

Originally Posted by davidm

Voila! Is anus wrote this because he doesn't understand the maths. But he's wrong anyway. One CAN explain relativity theory and even quantum mechanics in a simple language that laymen can understand, with minimal math! That is what John Norton does at the site I linked you to, which of course you have ignored. And I already DID explain time dilation to you, in simple natural language.

It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand what first graders can grasp.

Then the term "time dilation" is a misnomer because time itself is not a dimension and therefore cannot expand or contract or dilate or shrink. There is no coordinate system whereby time can slide back to the past or forward to the future.

[davidm]

[quote=peacegirl;1264958]

Originally Posted by davidm

It was a typo David. It was not a difficult math problem. There were other puzzles in the book that you couldn't figure out without help from a computer. He was a deep thinker (much better than you), and you cannot take this away from him as much as you wish you could.

No, he didn't write about a 4th dimension, but he did write about death and that all we have is the present. You're too blinded to see the truth.

Then the term "time dilation" is a misnomer because time itself is not a dimension and therefore cannot expand or contract or dilate or shrink. There is no coordinate system whereby time can slide back to the past or forward to the future.

Clocks and all other physical processes slowing down IS time dilation. This has been explained to you a million times. If you had gone to the page by John Norton that I linked you to, which of course you did not, you would have seen a simple animation demonstrating the reality of time dilation by comparing a light clock in motion with respect to a stationary light clock. As always, you refuse to learn anything, even when it is spoon fed to you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

General relativity by itself allows such solutions. Quantum gravity may show that it's impossible, but that's not quite determined yet.

I think you were intending to reply to me here, not GdB.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Another way to look at it is this: A planet like Venus isn't exactly where you see it when you look at it. The Sun is. When you see the Sun, it's exactly there, in the direction where you see it. (ignoring atmospheric effects)

Now I get it, But is a Peacegirl sock and is posting more of Lessans nonsense, trying to make it sound like she knows what she's talking about. From the Earth we see the Sun constantly in a different position, unless the observer is moving 1'000 MPH to the East. Saying that Venus is moving but the Sun is not, is just nonsense to confuse those who don't know any better.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really not funny. He was a mathematician and a good one at that.

Your father wouldn't know good math, or any kind of math, if it bit him in the ass, but math couldn't get close enough, he was too busy pulling shit out of his ass and putting it in his joke of a book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I skimmed it. Optics is correct. The only thing there is disagreement on is the direction we see. The belief in afferent vision is not conclusive.

The belief in afferent vision is not conclusive because 1% of the "scientists" who have been proven to be crackpots, or are a victim of the "publish or perish" syndrome, disagree with it. Just like 1% of the scientists, who happen to be Psudo-scientists don't believe in evolution, or how many scientists believe the Earth is flat? You're hawking a lost cause Peacegirl, Lessans was wrong.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's really not funny. He was a mathematician and a good one at that.

No. Babbling about world peace and translucent robes doesn't count as doing mathematics, neither does saying stupid shit like "3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8".

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now I get it, But is a Peacegirl sock and is posting more of Lessans nonsense, trying to make it sound like she knows what she's talking about. From the Earth we see the Sun constantly in a different position, unless the observer is moving 1'000 MPH to the East. Saying that Venus is moving but the Sun is not, is just nonsense to confuse those who don't know any better.

Dude, you're lucky that Ari doesn't seem to get it either, otherwise I would make fun of you now.

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think you were intending to reply to me here, not GdB.

No, that was a cross-post. I basically said the same thing you did.

To make a closed timelike curve, spacetime has to be curved, and special relativity only ever talks about flat spacetimes. The causal ordering at every point along the curve is completely normal, nothing runs backwards. It's only when you look at the big picture and follow the loop once until you encounter the same point twice that the time travel becomes apparent.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Dude, you're lucky that Ari doesn't seem to get it either, otherwise I would make fun of you now.

Give it up Peacegirl, Lessans was wrong.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Give it up Peacegirl, Lessans was wrong.

Oh fuck off, you idiot, go get some crayons and figure it out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Clocks and all other physical processes slowing down IS time dilation.

Then that phrase is a misnomer because time does not dilate.

Originally Posted by davidm

This has been explained to you a million times. If you had gone to the page by John Norton that I linked you to, which of course you did not, you would have seen a simple animation demonstrating the reality of time dilation by comparing a light clock in motion with respect to a stationary light clock. As always, you refuse to learn anything, even when it is spoon fed to you.

You are the one failing because you don't like any controversy on issues that are open to interpretation. If you can't win the debate, you then resort to insults and attacks on a person's character or lack of formal credentials (sort of like what you did with my father ) because you have nothing legit to resort to.

Is Relativity Wrong?

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.

Not Against Relativity

I get angry emails from people accusing me of badmouthing relativity, one of the most corroborated theories of physics. I am not. In my opinion, the special and general theories of relativity are mathematically correct and make correct predictions. What is wrong are all the obviously false claims made on the basis of their correctness. Relativity does not allow motion in spacetime or time travel, as Dr. Wheeler, Sir Stephen Hawking, Dr. Kip Thorne and the others claim. It forbids motion in spacetime! It is important that people see relativity for what it is, a mathematical trick for the prediction of macroscopic phenomena involving the motion of bodies in a spatial coordinate system.

Spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct, that is all. The other stuff (motion in spacetime, time travel, advanced and retarded waves, wormholes, etc...), is pure hogwash. This stuff is so trivially proven wrong in fact, that it is insulting to the lay public, the same public that funds most scientific projects. Even the relativity-derived notion of time dilation is hopelessly misleading. Time does not dilate (as if time could change!). On the contrary, it is the clocks that slow down (for whatever reason) resulting in longer measured intervals.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics