Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Floating Sky Cities, Unlimited Clean Energy, Earth to Mars in Hours...

Wasted Money

A huge amount of money is being spent around the world on alternate energy and environmentally friendly transportation. I think all this money is being wasted because there is clear evidence that we are swimming in an ocean of clean energy, lots and lots of it. And here is why.

Magic

Physicists believe that two particles in relative inertial motion stay in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. The truth is that every effect must have a cause. An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are swimming in energy, in an immense lattice of wall-to-wall energetic particles, to be precise.

The Future

Soon, we will figure out how to tap into the lattice for energy production and transportation. It will be an age of practically unlimited free energy and extremely fast transportation. Vehicles will have no need for wheels, will go almost anywhere at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage as a result of inertial effects. Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes. That’s the future of energy and travel.

Read Physics: The Problem With Motion for more.

17 comments:

Dr. Polar Platypus said...

you post no citations or sources

this just sounds like bogus junk-science

until you prove a way to harness said energy (and in so doing become the richest man on the planet), I believe not a word of your blog

Louis Savain said...

Platypus wrote:

you post no citations or sources

There are several links embedded in the Motion series. I would post citations to articles and papers about the physics community's stance on the causality of motion but, unfortunately, there aren't any. Physicists all pretty much believe that motion is acausal, even if they deny it.

until you prove a way to harness said energy (and in so doing become the richest man on the planet), I believe not a word of your blog

Funny. Why even read my blog? Nobody is twisitng your arm, am I right, Doctor Polar?

chzchzchz said...

Wasted Money

A huge amount of money is being spent around the world on alternate energy and environmentally friendly transportation. I think all this money is being wasted because there is clear evidence that we are swimming in an ocean of unicorns, lots and lots of them. And here is why.

Magic

Physicists believe that unicorns do not exist for no reason at all, as if by magic. The truth is that every mythical creature must be real. An analysis of legendary beasts leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are swimming in unicorns, in an immense lattice of wall-to-wall unicorn particles, to be precise.

The Future

Soon, we will figure out how to tap into the lattice for unicorn production and transportation. It will be an age of practically unlimited free unicorns and extremely fast unicorn rides. Vehicles will have no need for wheels, will go almost anywhere and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down because we'll all be driving unicorns. Floating cities, unlimited clean unicorns, Earth to Candyland in hours, New York to Makebelieve in minutes. That's the future of unicorns and travel.

Louis Savain said...

chzchzchz,

That's very funny. Kinda like your proof that infinity exists because you can't put an infinite number of things in a finite set, eh? At least my unicorns are in the future. You're riding yours right now as you read this. Just don't let yourself get skewered by that horn. That would be really funny.

By the way, are you willing to attach your real name to your comments? Never be ashamed of what you are, you know. I say this because I got the feeling you're associated with some big name university on the US west coast. Correct me if I'm wrong.

chzchzchz said...

I stand by that proof, although I think I prefer the power set argument more since it doesn't need a formalization of the integers to be dragged into it. The former shows that either the set of all positive integers has an infinite cardinality or it is impossible to have a set containing all positive integers. I could go all the way down to axiomatic set theory and the Peano axioms for the second half, but it would be very tedious and you'd probably just reject the axioms in favor of some private intuition. All I'm claiming is that infinity is a fundamental concept in mathematics which in turn leads to useful applications in physics. Absolutely nothing will change your mind, as you said.

Does infinity exist in the sense that you can hold it in your hand? Probably not any more than an algebraic closure can be worn as a hat.

I take it you have the reverse DNS lookup information on my IP. You must be very good at the internet. I choose to be anonymous to some extent (moderate cyber-sleuthing will get you pretty much everything) because I believe affiliation, or any personal detail for that matter, has no place in a well-reasoned argument whatsoever.

At the moment you're still talking unicorns. I'd be thrilled if you produced some actual result. How's COSA coming along, by the way? I'm ready for the future!

Louis Savain said...

chzchzchz wrote:

I stand by that proof,

That proof is a big pile of bullshit and both you and I know it. But by all means, stand by it. I, on the other hand, will distance myself from it as far as I can. Thank you very much.

although I think I prefer the power set argument more since it doesn't need a formalization of the integers to be dragged into it. The former shows that either the set of all positive integers has an infinite cardinality or it is impossible to have a set containing all positive integers.

Wow. You're agreeing with me. Since the word 'all' implies a set, list or container, it follows from the proof that the phrase "all positive integers" is an oxymoron. ha ha ha...

[nip]

All I'm claiming is that infinity is a fundamental concept in mathematics

Of course it's a concept. I use it all the time in my blog. It's perfectly all right to say something like an 'infinite loop' or 'forever' or 'eternity' or 'never ending' or the like but that does not mean that an infinite set is a viable construct whether or not one is speaking in the abstract. You mathematicians are just full of yourselves. You know why? Because a large part of the math of infinities consists of incestuous monstrosities that are being regurgitated from a small and closed circle of people. Your meme pool is severely limited and crossbreeding is rare.

which in turn leads to useful applications in physics.

It's a lie that infinity is used in physics since it does not exist. Now that I know that physicists do not understand motion, time, space and a whole slew of other things (they're clueless, in fact), I will not touch anything they throw at me unless I make them eat gobs of it first. LOL.

Absolutely nothing will change your mind, as you said.

True, but you will change your mind when you see my unicorns galloping down Fifth Ave or Sunset Blvd, that's for sure. LOL.

Does infinity exist in the sense that you can hold it in your hand? Probably not any more than an algebraic closure can be worn as a hat.

It does not exist in any way you look at it. You are brainwashed. I guess it's OK unless, of course, you're sitting in a padded cell so that you can't harm yourself.

I take it you have the reverse DNS lookup information on my IP. You must be very good at the internet.

I got my ways.

I choose to be anonymous to some extent (moderate cyber-sleuthing will get you pretty much everything) because I believe affiliation, or any personal detail for that matter, has no place in a well-reasoned argument whatsoever.

Excuses aren't worth the paper they're printed on. It all comes down to gonads. Either you have them or you don't. And the bigger, the better.

At the moment you're still talking unicorns. I'd be thrilled if you produced some actual result. How's COSA coming along, by the way?

There is a time for everything. I've learned to be patient.

I'm ready for the future!

Ha ha... You'll be sorry you said that. LOL.

Ricardo Padilha said...

@Louis:

If you are so adamant against the concept of infinity and its mathematical application in real life, I wonder how do you feel about complex numbers and the whole sqrt(-1) affair.

This is an honest question, I'm not trying to troll here.

Louis Savain said...

Ricardo Padilha wrote:

If you are so adamant against the concept of infinity and its mathematical application in real life,

I haven't seen any application of infinity in real life. Using the infinity symbol in a calculus equation is not an application of infinity in real life. I am against the concept of infinite sets simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Why is that so hard for mathematicians and others to understand?

I wonder how do you feel about complex numbers and the whole sqrt(-1) affair.

It's more BS, of course, since it clearly contradicts the definition of multiplication.

This is an honest question, I'm not trying to troll here.

I'm not so sure about that.

Ricardo Padilha said...

It's more BS, of course, since it clearly contradicts the definition of multiplication.

You are aware that the very computer you are using would not exist without the very real application of complex numbers?

In the same way, pretty much every single component used to store, process, and transfer your posts here in this website has made extensive use of both infinite series-based and complex number calculus.

For starters, you can check the really basic phasor math for impedance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductance#Phasor_circuit_analysis_and_impedance) to see imaginary numbers being used for very real and observable phenomena.

I haven't seen any application of infinity in real life

Talk to someone from Electrical Engineering background. In particular someone in the area of Signal Processing and ask them about Fourier Transforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform). Without those applications of infinite integrals, there would be no MP3 players.

As Platypus wrote, I also suggest that you make a better effort to find and provide evidence before making those wildly extravagant claims of uselessness of well-established, 'bread-and-butter' tools used by engineers to make pretty much every single piece of technological equipment at your disposal.

Ricardo Padilha said...

It's more BS, of course, since it clearly contradicts the definition of multiplication.

Where does that come from, by the way? Complex number theory is entirely consistent with a geometrical definition of multiplication.

Louis Savain said...

Ricardo,

I won't respond to your comment regarding the use of complex numbers (e.g., square root of -1) in physics other than to state it's all BS. Mathematicians and physicists have an infinite (almost) ability to delude themselves. Their understanding of motion is a case in point.

You wrote:

Where does that come from, by the way? Complex number theory is entirely consistent with a geometrical definition of multiplication.

Are you kidding me? This is trivial stuff. According to the definition of multiplication, multiplying a signed number to itself always gives a positive result. Therefore the idea that -1 could have been the result of a squaring a root number is preposterous, to say the least.

In my opinion, mathematicians need to get out more and they need to get rid of that inferiority complex.

chzchzchz said...

According to the definition of multiplication, multiplying a signed number to itself always gives a positive result. Therefore the idea that -1 could have been the result of a squaring a root number is preposterous, to say the least.

Whose definition are you using? There's more to math than Mrs. Smith's third grade class. Complex numbers are a field extension of the reals, just like how the reals are a field extension of the algebraic numbers and algebraic numbers are a field extension of the rationals. By your reasoning, since squaring a non-integer rational number always gives another non-integer rational number, the idea that 2 could have been the result of squaring a non-integer number (i.e. sqrt(2)) is preposterous. Does this mean algebraic numbers also "bullshit"?

Louis Savain said...

By your reasoning, since squaring a non-integer rational number always gives another non-integer rational number, the idea that 2 could have been the result of squaring a non-integer number (i.e. sqrt(2)) is preposterous. Does this mean algebraic numbers also "bullshit"?

Nope. It only means that sqrt(2) is an abstract value that does not and cannot exist. Same with pi and other such quantities. You can get an approximation that's good enough for government work but that's about it.

By the way, chzchzchz. Do me a favor and stop posting comments on my blog. If you don't have the gonads to identify yourself, I no longer have the disposition to reply to your gutless crapitude. I got better things to do. I hope you catch my drift.

Lauri said...

Oh, it'd be a shame if chzchzchz left and would deprive this blog of read-worthiness. He's got the best comments so far.

Louis, I am sure you realise that blogs are public discussion forums, otherwise you would keep your ideas to yourself and not post here. So even if you don't appreciate the debate, there are others like me who enjoy it.

I'll believe you when you float that 100-ton block of stone in mid-air. In the meantime, tolerate the sceptics. Debate is good and healthy, even fun!

Zaery said...

I was reading your website, and rather than feeding the troll and proving your entire website wrong, i decided to just ask on little question: If all of physics is wrong, then what is the correct version of physics?

Philip said...

I second that, Lauri. Chzchzchz, please keep posting. I like reading these things because I've come across many obtuse people and would like to learn how to argue against them.

Louis, a set must either have a finite or infinite cardinality. There is no 'fence' or third option.

Once it has been shown (by contradiction) that there are sets larger than any arbitrarily sized set, they must be infinite.

Just like you can give me any integer and I'll add +1 and return a larger integer.

From here, by induction, there is no largest integer.

But you probably don't believe in that.

Next time you fill your car with gas, try and do it 'intuitively'.

Philip said...

Also, regarding your theme of the impossibility of motion: You're hardly the first to suppose it, although the least eloquent I've yet heard.

Protip: Zeno's paradox

Proprotip: Why is it bs?