 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / January 2006Star-Trek Physics vs. Real Physics
The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, spacetime warps, etc... It's all driven by a desire to impress a lay public that continually seeks mysterious or incomprehensible things to worship, but it's Star-Trek physics crackpottery all the same. What would be more in keeping with actual physics while being equally astonishing, is instantaneous travel from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intermediate positions. This is possible because space (distance) is an illusion of perception. This is already corroborated in experiments with quantum tunneling. In certain circumstances, particles are observed going through barriers in a way that defies classical physics. Interestingly, they seem to do so at speeds greater than the speed of light. For more on nonspatiality, see: Nasty Little Truth About Space: http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space Quantum tunneling: http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010705/010705-4.html Quantum tunneling (long distance quantum jumps) is not to be confused with teleportation which is just another example of Star-Trek physics nonsense. Imagine a world where you can travel from anywhere to anywhere instantly. Cheers! Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, > spacetime warps, etc... It's all driven by a desire to impress a lay > public Nope- it is driven by a desire to understand nature and evidenced by the papers that are produced detailing it - they are aimed at other scientists not the lay public. It is the public that is interested in such things after hearing about what scientists have found out. But that proportion is quite low as evidenced by the fact few are actually interested in or even understand the basics of science http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html Bill > that continually seeks mysterious or incomprehensible things to > worship, but it's Star-Trek physics crackpottery all the same. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm >> The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: >> wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bill Oh I forgot to add that Traveler as of course one of those that would say it was heavy boots - that is of course assuming he could get admission to a university. Bill >> that continually seeks mysterious or incomprehensible things to >> worship, but it's Star-Trek physics crackpottery all the same. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: >> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm > > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: > > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > understand the basics of science > http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html so are yo tellin ta me taht you understan? this is bullshit, what is bullshit, i am not talkin about time travel back to kill the father of his own grandfather violating that causality i am talkin on somthin complitlty else you stoped mothofaka never understan take an inert matterial, sh.t, whatever, you decide, then send it back in time inert as it is you are violating tha second law of thermodynamics, are you makin the inevitable increassing entropy not ta happen? what are yo crazzy? > Bill stop redirecting tha posts you foken stoped moron > > that continually seeks mysterious or incomprehensible things to > > worship, but it's Star-Trek physics crackpottery all the same. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: > > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm >> > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: >> > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > what are yo crazzy? As explained before we post in English on this forum - not moron Bill >> Bill > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: >> > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm > > > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: > > > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > you are violating tha second law of thermodynamics, We only know the domain of applicability of a given law from our experience with it under conditions under which it has already been tested. We do not KNOW how laws operate under novel conditions. > http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html Wow, that's such an incredible story. I also enjoyed the ones about the $2 bill and the million watt grease liquefier. -Mark Martin [crap] In 1949, Kurt Godel announce to the world that Einstein's spacetime allows time travel to the past via time-like loops. Einstein agreed with the fruitcake even though it is well known that nothing can move in spacetime (see link below). Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics: http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm Tell me something, Bubba. What does Godel's dead a.s smell like today? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Making phun of "physicists" 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 > [crap] > > In 1949, Kurt Godel announce to the world that Einstein's spacetime > allows time travel to the past via time-like loops. That is not what he did. > Einstein agreed > with the fruitcake even though it is well known that nothing can move [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Tell me something, Bubba. What does Godel's dead a.s smell like today? > ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... And here we have that wonderful engaging moronic laugh of yours. Bill > Making phun of "physicists" 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 On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 06:30:49 GMT, Bubba wrote: >> [crap] >> >> In 1949, Kurt Godel announce to the world that Einstein's spacetime >> allows time travel to the past via time-like loops. > >That is not what he did. But fruitcake Godel did exactly that, Bubba. Here's an article that explains it all: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?050228crat_atlarge A quick search on Google will reveal many more references. You're in denial, Bubba. Why? Obviously because your idols look stupid and you can't stand it. That's the problem with being an a.s kisser, Bubba. ahahahaha... Sometimes, the a.s that you kiss does not look so good. ahahahaha... So, why did Einstein act as if he was unaware of the fact that nothing can move in spacetime? It was mentioned (see Karl Popper's "Conjectures") by several prominent thinkers during Einstein's lifetime. In fact, Gödel himself concluded that, if time travel were possible, then the past is not past and one could no longer talk of a passing time. In other words, if the past exists, time stands still and spacetime is unchanging. Of course, this is a roundabout and contradictory way of showing something that can be proven in a single sentence, but this is to be expected of someone like Gödel. Why is Gödel method contradictory? Because if time is unchanging (which it is), any talk of time travel to the past via time-like loops puts one squarely into crackpot territory. Gödel apparently failed to grasp the obvious inconsistency. ahahaha... Once a fruicake, always a fruitcake, eh Bubba? Making phun of "physicists" 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 > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 06:30:49 GMT, Bubba wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But fruitcake Godel did exactly that, Bubba. Did he show the universe was rotating? Unless he did that then he did not show acasual solutions actually existed - they quite possibly are like the acasual runaway solutions of EM with point particles ie invalid because point particles do not classically exist. But of course such simple reasoning is way beyond your capabilities - I simply mention it for those reading this thread that have a brain. > Here's an article that > explains it all: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ahahahaha... Sometimes, the a.s that you kiss does not look so good. > ahahahaha... Your a.s fetish needs treatment - seek it and soon. > So, why did Einstein act as if he was unaware of the fact that nothing > can move in spacetime? Becasue he was not an undeducatible idiot like you. Bill > It was mentioned (see Karl Popper's > "Conjectures") by several prominent thinkers during Einstein's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm Bubba wrote: [cut irrelevant autistic crap] ahahaha... What does lunatic Godel's dead a.s smell like today, Bubba? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm > [crap] > > In 1949, Kurt Godel announce to the world that Einstein's spacetime > allows time travel to the past via time-like loops. Einstein agreed > with the fruitcake even though it is well known that nothing can move > in spacetime (see link below): Repeat after me: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AutisticSpacetime.html Dirk Vdm Dick van de merde wrote: [crap] ahahahaha... The MAKS (Mutual a.s Kissing Society) is in session. Dick kisses Bubba's a.s and Bubba returns the favor. ahahaha... Making phun of "physicists" 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 > Dick van de merde wrote: > > [crap] Yes indeed, yours actually: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AutisticSpacetime.html :-) Dirk Vdm Dick van de merde wrote: [crap] ahahahaha... The MAKS (Mutual a.s Kissing Society) is in session. Dick kisses Bubba's a.s and Bubba returns the favor. ahahaha... Making phun of "physicists" 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 > > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: > > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nope- it is driven by a desire to understand nature and evidenced by the > papers that are produced detailing it - .... [snip apologies] Yup, let's go ahead understand the world: AXIOMS of SR: Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- falis verification Axiom 2. Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- falis verification. Axiom 3. POR -- fails verification Axiom 4. Constancy of the speed of light -- fails verifiction. It is obvious that from a theory founded with four unverifiable axioms only crap could could result. Hmmmm.....isn't it the same "mentality" that created some other crap some time ago?....hmmmmm..... details are left out for the educated reader.....hmmmm.... By the way, can you spot the hidden axioms of SR? A free picture of Dirt ton de Merde for anyone who will explain correctly why a stupid theory appears to be confirmed in "laboratories". No, we know about those fraud cases. I am talking about guided experiments. China exchanges currency appreciation status quo against the dollar for delaying presentations of experiments falsifying SR/GR. Let us keep the "tradition" a little longer even if it costs so much. Let us not lose the "heritage" we paid a fortune to establish. At least, let us divide the world in two hemispheres of influence. Mike Mike they are aimed at other scientists > not the lay public. It is the public that is interested in such things > after hearing about what scientists have found out. But that proportion is [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: > > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm >> > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: >> > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- falis > verification The claim of SR is not that inertial frames exist - it is they exist conceptually like points having position and no size exist - which also do not exist in your sense either. Fully covered in grade 8 geometry - repeat it until understood then repost. But of course you will not since this has been explained to you time and time again yet you can not grasp it. I suppose you will always simply be fodder for Dirks list; http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html Those that give us mirth and merriment have their uses; but I am humanitarian enough to wish you at least had an inkling of a clue. Bill > Axiom 2. Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- falis verification. > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: >> > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm >>> > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: >>> > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Those that give us mirth and merriment have their uses; but I am >humanitarian enough to wish you at least had an inkling of a clue. I'll add here something, not for the benefit of the OP (who deserves no attention) but for some educable folks who may be following this thread. Physics postulates (and yes, they're called "postulates", not "axioms", and there is a reason for this distinction) require ***no*** verification. In fact, they don't even require justification (one may be provided but it is not necessary). What they require, in order to be considered (provisionally) valid is: 1) Consistency, i.e.that the postulates do not contradict one another. 2) Independence, i.e. that none of the postulates may be derived from the other ones. Of course, if something like this occures, the one derived is no longer a postulate and it may just be dropped from the list. 3) That the results derived using the postulates are not in disagreement with observations. To these one may add a fourth one 4) Relevance. That's a matter of Occam's Razor. It is always possible to complement any set of postulates with additional postulates that have no bearing on *any* result obtainable from the theory. To use a recent example, ID, one can take the set of postulates of any physical theory and add to it the extra postulate of "things are this way because God ordained it so". This extra postulate doesn't violate the consistency or independence of the set and, obviously, doesn't violate rule (3) since the results derived are not changed by its inclusion. For this very reason, though, it is not relevant, thus it doesn't belong in the set. So, these are the requirements. And if anybody complains that "these postulates aren't proven" the answer is "of course, if it would have been possible to prove them, they wouldn't have been postulates". And if somebody complains that "there is no guarantee that these postulates are true", the answer is, again, "of course". Science doesn't give you guarantees of Truth, and never will. It gives you models consistent with available information. That's all. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > >>> > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: > >>> > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" Nice! Thanks! p > I'll add here something, not for the benefit of the OP (who deserves > no attention) but for some educable folks who may be following this [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" Thanks Mati. -Sam >>>> > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: >>>> > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" Thanks as well Mati. Thanks Bill > The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: > wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, > spacetime warps, etc... It's all driven by a desire to impress a lay > public No, you watched too many movies. The real reason behind research into all that weird stuff is simply to test the boundaries of the theories. As is well-known, GR and QM are not reconciled and one method of looking for clues is to see HOW exactly one or the other theory fails (or at least becomes "weird" in some widely accepted sense). The type of failure can tell you a lot about structure of weak points in general and is most helpful is thinking up alternatives and enhancements. It's just a good engineering practice. Having said all that, I agree that there will be obviously lots of people who want to cash in and write silly pop-sci books or make money off Star Trek fans. -- Jan Bielawski >> The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: >> wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >thinking up alternatives and enhancements. It's just a good engineering >practice. ahahaha... Equating time travel physics with boundary testing must be the ultimate in a.s kissing. Time travel is unmitigated crackpottery. And yet, history teaches us that Einstein believed it when Godel announced to the world that spacetime allows time travel to the past via time-like loops. Kip Thorne of CalTech Pasadena made a career out of it. Most of the Star-Trek physics crap came directly from the likes of Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking. Heck, the little con artist in the wheelchair even had a cameo appearance in one of the Star-Trek episodes where he was portrayed as the equal of Newton and Galileo. >Having said all that, I agree that there will be obviously lots of >people who want to cash in and write silly pop-sci books or make money >off Star Trek fans. Who do you think you're fooling? The fact is that crap like time travel, wormholes, black holes, etc... are not the inventions of pop-sci authors hoping to cash in on Einstein's fame. They are the brain children of "serious scientists" such as Kurt Godel, Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and even Albert Einstein himself. The record speaks for itself. You know something, Bielawski. You've always been an a.s kisser and a weasel, kinda like Mati Meron. You will be defending your turf and your masters' reputation until they start oozing out of your pores. ahahaha... Making phun of "physicists" 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 > >> The theory of relativity has engendered a lot of weird physics: > >> wormholes, black holes, time travel via time-like loops, tachyons, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ahahaha... Equating time travel physics with boundary testing must be > the ultimate in a.s kissing. You make no sense - testing models for weird predictions is a standard practice. > Time travel is unmitigated crackpottery. But that's the point. If GR allows it then it's an important clue. OTOH it's quite possible something more physical comes out of it. > And yet, history teaches us that Einstein believed it when Godel > announced to the world that spacetime allows time travel to the past > via time-like loops. Goedel's is a correct solution to the Einstein equation. It has plenty of weird properties which tells you to what extent GR is not good enough. > Most of the Star-Trek physics crap came directly from the likes > of Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking. Again, these are valid solutions of the Einstein equation. But I agree that most pop-sci books are entirely overboard in how they report these findings. > >Having said all that, I agree that there will be obviously lots of > >people who want to cash in and write silly pop-sci books or make money [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and even Albert Einstein himself. The > record speaks for itself. You are totally confused. It's not any "invention" - these are actual solutions to certain PDEs. I agree that popularisations of these results were in many cases inappropriate but people with an ambition like yours should be able to cut through all that and see what is really happening and why. > You know something, Bielawski. You've always been an a.s kisser and a > weasel, kinda like Mati Meron. You will be defending your turf and > your masters' reputation until they start oozing out of your pores. > ahahaha... You talk like you were born yesterday. -- Jan Bielawski [crap] Eat sh.t, Bielawski. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Making phun of "physicists" 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 Very interesting. Star-trek star ship (United States Star Ship) is a ion beam propelled machine. Those long tubes are ion accelerator tubes called a Rhombadron in which microwaves accelerate ions (protons) to 1 times the speed of light ans a subsidery tube does likewise with elecrons to prevent charge building up. They have much more thrust than a photon rocket but waste mass in the form of hydrogen shooting out the back. And so have an overall inferior performnce to photon propulsion. However they can do warps of about 100 and get there quite quickly and use a lower power level that could be made by di-lithium a well known nuclear fusion fuel (only found naturally on lithos). The impulse power is just charged capacitors that accumulate charge during normal powered flight and are used in emegancy and for starting the di-lithium reaction which takes a lot of power. Tri-lithium is better but it saps energy to make. Mono-lithium is the usual form and that is found everywhere especially in London clay. It is in the form of lithium-aluminium-silicate. And is mined for use in lithium batteries (I got one in my mobile phone). (Oh by the way, before you laugh like a drain - lithos is greek for Earth) The nearest worm hole is 65,000 light years away and ends in a mass of superdens matter where hydrogen spins in and gamma jets come out at the poles. I would not go anywhere near it the non-linear gravity traps the star ship, you can go in but you can't get out, you just get shredded to hydrogen and then spat out as gamma radiation. Chris. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.