In article <d4avf1$3um@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

>Traveler wrote:
>> In article <o5%9e.1950$49.854@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, Tom Roberts
>> <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:
>>> This involves a PUN on the word "move". Yes indeed, to an outside 
>>> analyst the entire spacetime manifold and all its contents are fixed and 
>>> can be examined at the analyst's leisure. That is what we mean when we 
>>> say the manifold is a _model_ of the world. To this analyst, nothing 
>>> does move in spacetime.
>> 
>> How can it be a model of the world if nothing moves in it, moron?
>
> Consider a train moving along a track. Now make a graph of its position 
> as a function of time. Nothing moves in that graph -- you just have a 
> single line depicting the tran's position as a function of time. This 
> graph is a _model_ of the train's motion in precisely the same sense 
> that spacetime is a _model_ of the world (but spacetime has more spatial 
> dimensions).

You are not teaching me anything that I did not know. If nothing moves
in the graph, it means that there is no spacetime in the real world.
And if there is no spacetime, talking about advanced and retarded
waves moving forward and backward in time is the ultimate in
crackpottery. This is what none other than Feynman and Wheeler
proposed.

> The statement "nothing moves in the graph" uses "move" in the sense of 
> the person holding the graph in her hand -- the analyist examining the 
> _model_. The statement "the train moves along the track" uses "move" in 
> the usual sense of a person inhabiting the world. This is a PUN on the 
> word "move", and such PUNs invalidate your claims.

No, it does not. My claim is that you relativists have been saying
that one can move in time via closed time-like curves and don't you
dare fucking deny it: it's all over the internet and in text books.
It's bullshit for the simple reason that there is no such thing as
physical time. Nothing moves in time, forward or backward. Pack that
up your ass.

>> There is no manifold. It's all in your mind. The spacetime manifold is
>> an abstract math construct that represents nothing in the world.
>
> Right! Spacetime is a _MODEL_ of the world, not a "representation" of 
> anything in it.

Model and representation means the same thing, jackass. Get a fucking
clue. But if you agree with me so much, why are you fighting me,
asshole? The fact is that relativists actually believe in a time
dimension. Baez claims that there is an infinite number of nows in
reality:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-07/msg0016990.html

Baez is a fucking crackpot for saying such nonsense. If there is an
infinite number of nows and nothing can move in time, how does one
move from one now to the next? The problem with GR is that there is no
now, no present in it. This alone invalidates it as a model of nature.
It's what I call chicken shit physics.

>> It
>> does not exist.
>
> Right again! It "exists" only in the mind of an analyst. It is a 
> _MODEL_, and as such is a pure artifact of a human mind.

So why do famous relativists like Kip Thorne, Kurt Godel, Feynman, and
Stephen Hawking say that GR allows one to travel backwards through
time via closed time-like curves? Why do you tolerate crackpots in
your midst? It's like the way the Catholic church tolerates pedophiles
in its ranks, IMO. Same difference. Your science is an organized
religion.

And one more thing, asshole. It did not escape my notice that you did
not respond to my refutation of your stupid assertion that time is not
invariant in relativity. You have been passing yourself as an expert
for years and you did not know that time is invariant. You are a
fraud, Roberts, a fucking con artist. Your only saving grace is that
you are not as famous as Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne. These two
should be arrested, IMO.

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm