Thursday, September 3, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part I

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

Abstract

There are many things about mainstream physics that infuriate me, not the least of which is the physicist’s understanding of motion. In this multi-part article, I will argue that the physicist’s understanding of movement is fundamentally flawed, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. I believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation. It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels, move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down.

Physicists, Magic and Zatoichi

I know. The preceding paragraph sounds like crackpot nonsense but most of you who regularly read my blog know that I am not one to shy away from expressing my views even if they get me branded as a crackpot. In fact, I am a rebel at heart and I relish the satisfaction of rubbing the scientific community’s nose in their own excrement. But before you get too offended by my irreverent attitude (I love science, ok?), consider that physicists believe in magic. You don’t believe me? Go ask a physicist to explain why two objects in relative inertial motion remain in motion. You will get either one or both of the following answers.
  1. Nothing is needed to keep them in motion. Newton proved it already.
  2. Physics is not about the ‘why’ of things but the ‘how’.
Answer no. 1 is, of course, pure superstition (I'll explain why in my next post) while answer no. 2 is a sign of pride in (or a cheesy excuse for) one's admitted ignorance. It's strange, but every time I hear this crap, I get a vision of blind swordmaster Zatoichi, of Japanese cinema, calmly eating his enemies’ food in their presence, drinking their sake, taking their money, mocking them and then skillfully chopping them down in righteous anger. All right, it is just metaphorical fantasy and I am not advocating violence against physicists but I hope this article will convince a handful of you that at least one or two of the more famous physicists out there deserve to be dressed as chickens and paraded down NY Fifth Ave or the Champs-Élysées as an example to the others. My point is that something has got to be done.

In Part II, I will deconstruct the above answers and show that physicists are just as ignorant as the man in the street about the nature of motion. Heck, the man in the street may have a leg up on them; that's how bad I think the problem with motion is.

See Also:
More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

53 comments:

Tango said...

"Physics is not about the ‘why’ of things but the ‘how’.

Right. Atlast i got one right complement to the physicists, to save My virgin mind from getting physically and psychologically abused by those scientists.

Pendragon said...

PROVE IT!

The RacingStu said...

Go ask a physicist to explain why two objects in relative inertial motion remain in motion.

Because a force is required to cause an acceleration. To stop them moving would require a (negative) acceleration and therefore some energy input to create the force to slow them down.

This is really, really basic physics and not magic.

Muys said...

1. Nothing is needed to keep them in motion.

Nothing is not needed to keep them not moving because they probably were not moving at all. Movement is in the framework of relative perception and relative observation but if not in a framework her existence is unlikely, as red is red in our context but in reality photons are not colored and if they possessed the characteristic red then they would not be photons. Something like that happens with motion, you think you’re moving towards something or someone but without time and space nothing moves because nothing can move. So probably there is movement but probably not. So: nothing is needed, will do.

Muys said...

Nothing is not needed to keep them not moving because they probably were not moving at all. Movement is in the framework of relative perception and relative observation but if not in a framework her existence is unlikely, as red is red in our context but in reality photons are not colored and if they possessed the characteristic red then they would not be photons. Something like that happens with motion, you think you’re moving towards something or someone but without time and space nothing moves because nothing can move. So probably there is movement but probably not. So: nothing is needed, will do.

Muys said...

1. 2. Physics is not about the ‘why’ of things but the ‘how’.
Of course physics is also about the why of things, otherwise there would be no physics. Normal people like you and me are curious, they ask the why question. Children ask why-questions and they get answers they don’t like and so they ask and ask again and then they try to solve the why question themselves and that is why people stay curious. You can probably get an answer on a how-question, then the curiosity is gone. But people who stay curieus, they know that the why-question exists. So, as long as there is curiosity, there are why questions and there is physics

Louis Savain said...

Muys,

Please read the Part II and III. I adress some of the issues you mention.

nmatrix9 said...

I think you are on to something but I think the premise of the "particle" itself is something to be questioned. May I recommend you take a quick peek at http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

Thanks,

Bohrstein said...

Straw man fallacy?

Simon said...

Two objects in relative inertial motion remaining in that motion can be reworded as the fact that linear momentum is conserved.

This can be seen to be a consequence of something much deeper, it is a generally accepted fact that the laws of physics are space symmetric (you do an experiment at any place in the universe, and you would get the same result). A very beautiful result by Emmy Noether (Noether's theorem) states that for every symmetry in the laws of nature their must be a corresponding conserved quantity, in this case doing the maths shows it to be momentum, explaining the above.

balogna said...

You claim to love science but fail to actually do any science. Where are the experiments? All I see is ad hominem, selective quotations, and circular reasoning.

Anyone can postulate a hypothesis, real scientists perform experiments that produce results to back up their hypothesis.

Loukas said...

Ouch:P

Louis Savain said...

balogna,

I suspect you're a physicist. You can kiss my ass, whoever you are. I owe you nothing. You owe me. You should be grateful that I am bringing a lot of attention on the causality of motion issue. You thought you understood motion but you understood nothing as you ought to. You should thank me for explaining it to you.

When I am ready to demonstrate the power of the lattice, I will do so. And I will not do it for your benefit nor your approval. You people in the physics community are in no position to dictate anything to me. You are a bunch of crackpots who believe in magic and teach generations of young people to do likewise.

If you don't like the fact that I heap insults on physicists, that's just to damn bad, isn't it? Isn't free speech grand? And if you had any gonads, you would identify yourself. Don't be ashamed of who and what you are.

Bill said...

I am a curious human being that likes to keep an open mind to everything around me. Ill listen to all sides before creating my own theory/hypothesis. Whenever i make a decision on what to believe I still keep an open mind to different ideas then adjust my belief system to how I deem necessary.

I am no physicist nor am I any sort of scientist. I am simply an Manufacturing Engineer who works in Florida. However my favorite historical figure is Nikola Tesla and I love all his works both the known and questionable by modern society.

So sir I shall further read into your perspective for my own benefit and come up with what I deem appropriate as acceptable to my standards and understanding of the working universe. I will keep no biases as I have said I keep a very open mind to everything around me. I welcome any challenge to my beliefs because change is a wonderful thing that when embraced could change your life.

Ronan said...

I was wondering whether to spend some time reading your blog, but you come off like a rambling loon . I'm not a physicist, just an interested layperson. The massive chip on shoulder doesn't do you any favours.

Jerome said...

I love mainstream ideas being questioned and alternative explanations proposed. Kudos to you for questioning commonly held positions.

The parts you explain about causality of motion were thought provoking, such as the idea that all matter is discrete and there is only one speed, the speed of light. I can't say whether I agree or don't. But I enjoyed considering the ideas for a moment.

The implications of your ideas make me wonder why though you bother. The outcomes from the future energy and movement technologies you propose are absolutely boring. More freedom and authoritarian control... that's the best you can come up with? Fact is stranger than fiction, and your predictions are dull, giving them the air of trite fiction.

Also, while I am only half-interested in the answer, the question does loom exactly why would anyone hide scientific knowledge in the bible? Why does it have to be so cliched that ancient wise individuals hid their arcane knowledge in bewildering metaphors that only you would decipher? Seraphims and cherubims...

I like revolutionary ideas. So far only one person's works have I found really eye-opening and that is the work of Alice Miller on the repercussions of child abuse and the perpetuation of violence.

Though it is only a small part of her work, I find her interpretations of passages from the bible actually interesting and logical.

www.alice-miller.com

My love for logic says to stop reading your blog. Though I am interested on why you're so big on fine-grain parallel processing. So I might check that part out. But I'm calling strike one on your predictions of the outcomes of future limitless energy and movement. Strike two on your bible secrets that seem as logical as a Rorschach test. That is, I intuit that your interpretations say a lot more about you, because you project your ideas onto long ago bible passage writers. I do think bible passages are metaphorical, and I also think that there is also a lot unconsciously revealed by the bible passage writers. But I don't think they consciously or unconsciously hid scientific insights into the bible.

And I do think you have some unaddressed anger issues. But I do myself, and most people do too. There are good reasons for each person's attitude and feelings, and I like figuring that out too.

Louis Savain said...

Jerome writes:

The implications of your ideas make me wonder why though you bother. The outcomes from the future energy and movement technologies you propose are absolutely boring. More freedom and authoritarian control... that's the best you can come up with? Fact is stranger than fiction, and your predictions are dull, giving them the air of trite fiction.

You're kidding me? You don't find traveling from earth to Mars in hours or from New York to Beijing in minutes exciting? Personally, I would love to be able to float around silently in a rain forest, explore the far side of the moon, glide over the plains of Mars, or snake my way around the boulders of Saturn's rings. I think you read me wrong. I find the whole thing incredibly exciting.

Also, while I am only half-interested in the answer, the question does loom exactly why would anyone hide scientific knowledge in the bible? Why does it have to be so cliched that ancient wise individuals hid their arcane knowledge in bewildering metaphors that only you would decipher? Seraphims and cherubims...

There is a purpose to everything. All will be revealed in due time.

www.alice-miller.com

I'll check it out.

My love for logic says to stop reading your blog. Though I am interested on why you're so big on fine-grain parallel processing.

Not just fine-grained but also deterministic, synchronous and reactive parallel processing. There is no other way. And planted on top of it all should be the great hierarchical tree of all software applications.

I do think bible passages are metaphorical, and I also think that there is also a lot unconsciously revealed by the bible passage writers. But I don't think they consciously or unconsciously hid scientific insights into the bible.

You're setting yourself up for a big surprise.

And I do think you have some unaddressed anger issues.

Well, believe it or not, I don't think I'm angry enough. It's the rebel in me. Hang in there.

rsower said...

Dude, stop leaving comments on energy sites about how there is clear evidence and soon we will be using this crazy lattice of energy, which you can't even prove exists other than it explains your problem with Newtonian laws, since you don't know any of the affects of consuming this immense energy or what that would do to motion. Since it's this immense lattice of energy that is responsible for motion, what happens when we consume it? Would motion cease? Why don't you get some scientific evidence of your theory before telling energy researchers to pack up and go home. IDIOT.

Louis Savain said...

rsower,

You're gonna to stop me, Mr. anonymous coward? Or are you just bluffing? You don't even have the gonads to use your real name in your personal attack. How do you figure you can gather up enough cojones to stop me? MORON.

rsower said...

rsower is not anonymous. My first name is Richard. I'm not trying to "stop" you. I would love to see the things you are talking about. Who wouldn't? My point is, you offer up theories with no scientific evidence to support your claim, then you post on sites with an attitude that these energy researchers are wasting their time because the clouds of change are coming. Exactly what "work" is being done to tap into this limitless source of energy. Exactly what "research" is being done to study the effects of consuming this energy responsible for motion?

Louis Savain said...

rsower,

If these energy researchers don't like my work, all they need to do is ignore it. I am not twisting anybody's arm. The fact that we are swimming in an immense sea of energetic particles is not a theory. It's a logical conclusion arrived at by applying causality to observed motion. This alone should attract some attention from the public (my true peers) and, I can tell you, judging by the traffic on my blog, a lot of people are listening.

The only prediction that I make regarding this energy lattice is that we can tap into it for energy production and propulsion. And, if you had read the whole thing, you know that the energy cannot be depleted because the lattice is 4-D and we are moving through it at the speed of light. That, too, is a deduction, not a theory.

I'm the only person, as far as I know, who's doing research into exploiting the energy of the lattice. When the time comes, I will publish a set of experiments that almost anybody can perform at home to test my claim.

If you come on my site to call me an idiot using your own name, you do so at your own risk. You have more guts than some of the big university scientists who leave comments on my blog, that's for sure.

Bohrstein said...

I don't get it. You assert to have all the answers but you are so cruel and defensive about your work, why?

Louis Savain said...

Bohrstein,

I don't hide the fact that I despise the physics community. My blog is not directed at them. And it's a lie that I assert that I have all the answers. I just know that I am right about the causality of motion and that, as a result, we are immersed in a sea of energy. I don't care if the physics community disagrees. The can kiss my ass for all I care. If that's cruel of me, so be it.

Bohrstein said...

Have you, at the very least, and I am asking honestly, considered that you might be a little out of touch with the reality of things?

If you have considered this, then I ask, how do you verify that you are not out of touch with the reality of things?

I know it is a nice idea, to think that you are able to ride in on a horse and save the world, and slay down a bunch of evil doers, but man, you gotta make sure that you aren't nuts.

While I am certain that the physics community disagrees, I doubt they care much about your ideas (until you publish your experiments anyways).

Louis Savain said...

Bohrstein,

On the contrary, I know I am a nut. How else would I think these things? But then again, I also know I live in an insane world.

And no, I don't care if the physics community disagrees with my ideas. They don't put food on my table. When I am ready to publish my experiments, they're going to be the last to get the news. LOL.

jarson said...

Awesome this guy is the equivalent of Shelley the republican but for physic!

ericzundel said...

Its easy to poke fun, but did anyone else hear the This American Life issue on a similar subject? One of the segments gives a fascinating listening for the skeptic. Gives an in depth interview with another person with a non-conventional theory, like Louis', as he confronts a physicist.

chris g said...

Hi guys,

While I think it's great to have new ideas even though some times they sound out of this world. Our history has been changed many many times with crazy ideas at first we didn't want to believe.

However while this is true, we should never be too hung over our ideas and must always acommadate the capacity to learn new things and listen to other people and try to understand new things.

Anyways, just my two cents. We should never forget what comes before the fall.

Aktaion said...

ROFL! You got nothing but SWAG supposition, chump. Step up with some serious numbers or sit down.

"This alone should attract some attention from the public (my true peers)".

Stand on the corner and preach to your peers, bro. They'll totally give you money, and possibly even the number of a mental health unit in your area. Meanwhile, thanks for the bellylaugh.

daniel said...

Do you believe in GOD, Aliens, or, are you an Alien?

Louis Savain said...

daniel asked:

Do you believe in GOD, Aliens, or, are you an Alien?

I believe that we, humans, are gods. There are other gods besides us, of course, some good, some bad, some very powerful. The others can be called aliens, if you wish.

daniel said...

WOW...

Well I believe the technology you speak of is here on earth already.

Able to move at right angle turns, speeds breaking the soundbarrier to say the least! I just think we as humans or "GODS" as you say, just want to perfect it.

Noah said...

Dear Louis, is not this "Lattice" similar to the "Zero-Point" energy field? I would believe that harnessing this energy would be impossible without some sort of contradiction to the conservation of energy. The "Canvas/Lattice/Zero-point field" or whatever label you want to put on it is not accessable in the manner you hope, my reasoning is the same as I think harnessing "Zero-point" energy is a silly and impossible idea. However - I agree with that the math behind Realativity works very well but does not represent the true mechanism of gravity. There has been some recent ideas (and actual math equations to explain - something I have never seen on any of your sites) that it can be explained as a field. I enjoy your enthusiasm but if you cannot explain your ideas with math they cannot be validated. And you ideas on Software are noble but very silly - ever heard of OOP programing (been around a long time)? As a software developer I can see your problems with the status quo. Do you understand what Microsoft is doing with its .net platforms? I traded my "Rebel"-ness in a long time ago. I prefer to get a understanding of people than a rise out of them. Then things can move forward. Please read Tao-Teh-Ching - Lao Tzu would like to have a word with ya! -Noah (myspace.com/woodenpoliticians)

Louis Savain said...

Noah wrote:

Dear Louis, is not this "Lattice" similar to the "Zero-Point" energy field?

I don't like comparing the lattice to mainstream constructs derived from conventional physics. There is too much baggage to search through. Briefly, the lattice is defined thus: It is a 4-dimensional field of massless particles, initially at rest. Its primary purpose is to provide a source of energy for all movements.

An interesting consequence of the above is that the interactions between normal matter particles and the lattice particles are the cause of all EM and gravitational phenomena.

I would believe that harnessing this energy would be impossible without some sort of contradiction to the conservation of energy.

It would seem so but you'll be surprised to find out that the energy conservation principle is one of the essential keys to harnessing the energy of the lattice. Keep your ears and eyes open.

The plot thickens. Soon comes the climax, and then the dénouement. Hang in there.

Marc De Puma said...

Louis, you are a raving loon. An uneducated fraud. You say there are things about physics you don't like. Yeah like it doesn't match your delusions. Nothing you stated makes any sense. All you spout is bullshit anti-science garbage. In other words, you're a twit.

Louis Savain said...

Marc de Puma wrote:

Louis, you are a raving loon. An uneducated fraud. You say there are things about physics you don't like. Yeah like it doesn't match your delusions. Nothing you stated makes any sense. All you spout is bullshit anti-science garbage. In other words, you're a twit.

LOL. I'm assuming that Marc de Puma is your real name. At least you got a little bit of gonads, however miniscule. LOL.

Vincent Waitzkin said...

Physics is also intimately related to many other sciences, as well as applied fields like engineering and medicine. The principles of physics find applications throughout the other natural sciences as some phenomena studied in physics, such as the conservation of energy, are common to all material systems. Other phenomena, such as superconductivity, stem from these laws, but are not laws themselves because they only appear in some systems. I am a college sophomore with a dual major in Physics and Mathematics @ University of California, Santa Barbara. By the way, i came across these excellent physics flash cards. Its also a great initiative by the FunnelBrain team. Amazing!!

tonyguinn said...

The reason the 2 bodies remain in motion is because there is no outside force acting upon it. That is a basic property of an object in motion.

"Newton's Laws" don't tell us why things happen this way, but are simply description statements concerning evident behavior.

Some properties of the universe are self evident for those enlightened and open minded enough to look.

Louis Savain said...

tonyguinn wrote:

The reason the 2 bodies remain in motion is because there is no outside force acting upon it. That is a basic property of an object in motion.

Come on, man. A lack of force is not a cause. It is the absence of cause.

Some properties of the universe are self evident for those enlightened and open minded enough to look.

You are not enlightened. You are immersed in darkness. Turn the light on and be cool.

Bohrstein said...

Me again, been awhile, but I get these e-mails every once and awhile.

I don't think you understand what causation is.

While it is true, that a lack of force is not a cause, it is not the case that because there is no force, an event is not being caused. For example, if we consider a particle flying through space at 5 m/s, the event "There is a particle passing through this point in space at the rate of 5 m/s" is caused (all events have causes, right?), and look, there is no force!

What is the cause of this event then? Learn a little about causation to answer it.

Louis Savain said...

Bohrstein writes:

I don't think you understand what causation is.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing about you. Let me teach you what a cause in physics is. A cause is violation of a conservation principle. The effect is nature correcting the violation.

While it is true, that a lack of force is not a cause, it is not the case that because there is no force, an event is not being caused. For example, if we consider a particle flying through space at 5 m/s, the event "There is a particle passing through this point in space at the rate of 5 m/s" is caused (all events have causes, right?), and look, there is no force!

Wow, man. This crap is not even wrong. Dude, I don't know where to begin. What is wrong with you? Have you not read anything I wrote? Are you so brainwashed that you are now a fully morphed zombie? Don't even read what I am about to write because you are a lost cause. I write only for normal people.

A series of changes in position is certainly caused by a force. However, it is not the same force as the Newtonian force because the Newtonian force was defined (by Newton) as the cause of acceleration. A force is simply a violation of a conservation principle, which nature must correct.

So where does the force that causes a body in inertial motion to remain in motion come from? It comes from the immense lattice of energetic particles in which all particles moves.

What is the cause of this event then?

Your momma?

Learn a little about causation to answer it.

Only a physicist or an aspiring one can be so proud of his stupidity. Look, Bohrstein. Don't bother replying because you're boring me, man. And you're wasting my time. I'll just reject your comments from now on.

philktyu said...

How is this any more credible than the string theory? Speculation is an easy thing. It's also a slippery slope.

However, what you propose is very interesting, and as much as I'd like to believe it, all my common-trained logic points me in the opposite direction.

I'll be looking forward to proof, numbers, and experiments that the hated physicists all like. What's your future plans concerning this theory?

Louis Savain said...

philktyu wrote:

How is this any more credible than the string theory?

Because it is simple causal logic?

Speculation is an easy thing. It's also a slippery slope.

What speculation? Oh, you mean string theory. Well, I agree. What a pile of crap string theory is compared to simple Causality 101, eh?

However, what you propose is very interesting, and as much as I'd like to believe it, all my common-trained logic points me in the opposite direction.

That's the problem with the common-trained. They are common-brainwashed.

I'll be looking forward to proof, numbers, and experiments that the hated physicists all like.

As in string theory, you mean? Or were you referring to the proofs of wormholes, quantum computing, superposition, time travel, spacetime, time dimension and the like. You know, all the non-existent things that shit-for-brains physicists like. LOL.

What's your future plans concerning this theory?

I can't tell you because you're not on my rebel list. Sorry.

shlomit56 said...

Causality cannot - in principle - be included in our sicenses, especially not in physics, at least not as long as we keep expressing it by equations. A sentence like f = m.a cannot by definition include the causal factor or otherwise it'll be a god-like position: knowing in advance the cain of causes and effects. BTW, Hertz tried more than 100 years ago to base his alternative mechanics on a similar idea, but he did not realized it too: physical equations, more than anything else, express the last frontier of the current human form of thinking. In other words, the scientific paradigma that physics should be expressed by mathematical equatuions, or more simply: to say that something is equal to something alse, conceals our very limits: causes are beyond science's reach.

Louis Savain said...

shlomit56:

Wow. Man, you hit the nail squarely on the head. One of the worst things to have happened in science is the idea that mathematics is the sole language of science. Mathematicians love to delude themsleves and others by reciting the mantra that one cannot understand physics without the math. The actual truth is the exact opposite: one cannot understand the math without the physics. This is the reason that Newtonian math does not explain anything about motion and gravity. Newton had no idea what a force was or what caused gravity or inertial motion. His math could only describe the observations. Math has no explanatory power whatsoever. And Newton was aware of his handicap in this regard.

The biggest problem with math is that it is not intuitive because the human mind thinks in terms of causes and effects, things that equations do not express. This is the reason that most people (other than geeks) are put off by math and I don't blame them.

By the way, physics is not the only science that mathematicians have shot in the foot. They've done the same to computer science. Computers were designed by mathematicians for mathematicians. The Turing Machine is strictly sequential and was meant to calculate algorithmic functions. The result of this is that the computer industry is struggling mightily to solve several crises having to do with software reliability, productivity and now parallel programming. All because of the mathematicians.

I think it is time that mathematicians be given a lower position in science and society.

bitsmith said...

If you were to ask Richard Feynman why two objects in relative inertial motion remain in motion he would give you answer number three...

3. I don't know. If you can show some more fundamental property that is itself useful for some other reason and can be tested you can earn a nobel prize like I did.

bitsmith said...

What I don't understand is the constant need of some people to "explain" rather than to merely "describe"... but *wwhhhyyyyyyy*

There doesn't need to be a why, or a how, just a does. Stop trying to justify your own existence and go have some fun with our discoveries.

Hyphenated American said...

While physicists may be mistaken - they were able to build a nuclear bomb, put the man on the Moon and invent the first transistor. They may be not up to your high standards, but at least they have something to show for their crackpot ideas.

Now, you very strongly believe that your derivations are correct, and that you are above those pesky scientists. Fine. But can you match what these scientists achieved? Talk is cheap, you know, it would be fun to see some empirical results on your part. When can you bring to the market a new motor that is designed based on the theory that you propose here? And please, no need to tell us that you KNOW that you are right - just show us the data that supports your conclusions. Make a prediction and then check if your theory brings more accurate results than Newtonian or Enstenian physics.

Eric Hudson said...

This blog was referred to me by one of my department's doctoral students following a discussion on dejected theorems. I can't recall the last time I was so incredibly amused while simultaneously bemused. I applaud you for the eccentric comedy you produce here, it is certainly unique in its own right. People like you inspire me in my day to day life; whilst you assert truly absurd, nonsensical, uneducated dribble - my colleagues and I produce proven, repeatedly demonstrable results that are completely contrary to your claims and disprove all of this silliness. I have many publications that I invite you to "debunk" with either science, reason or logic in lieu of your incredibly childish and petty ad hominems. If you're not up for the challenge, it's certainly understandable - surely you're far too busy to disparage the scientific works of a mere MIT lecturer.

I suspect the request to stay away from ad hominems is far too great of me; after all that seems to be the only rebuttal you can offer to skeptics requesting evidence - three years of blogging and you have no publications, articles, experiments, peer editing or demonstrations to support your theories (and I use that word begrudgingly, since "theory" implies rational thought is involved somewhere). I can only assume it's a part of the conspiracy to suppress your ground breaking findings! Hah, well I've amused myself enough for one evening.

ehudson@mit.edu if you feel compelled to reply with anything remotely intelligent. My junk filter automatically deletes communications with curse words, so do go easy on the name calling so that I can at least read the response - or don't, I'm sure it'll be all the same anyways.

Louis Savain said...

Eric,

Fuck you and go read somebody else's blog.

SDail said...

There is no spoon.

You cannot define the cause any more than you can say "well the universe began here and ends here." It simply is - from our current limited understanding. We cannot grasp a limitless - or "beginningless" idea so we must attempt to define it using - by their very definition - cheap and limiting measurements. If I would find fault with the comments on this blog, it would be that even comments such as "4D" or some such are a feeble attempt to quantify that which is unmeasurable.

Todd Andrew Melville said...

Thank You.

The proof that energy is infinite is all around us.

That the earth rotates, the sun rises, and the waves on the shore ebb and flow--this is our proof that energy is infinite... It's the ~How To Harness It~ that is the question-- Many sciences have been suppressed over the past 100 years, the most notable is that of Nikola Tesla... Even The GEET/Plasma Converter is proof that energy can be converted from other forms.

Technology is everywhere for future advancements--it is only the Mind that is the limiter to this potential.

Cheers,
Todd

youtube said...

"the scientific works of a mere MIT lecturer"...oh my you sound amazing, I hope you don't flush your poos down the toilet because you could bag them up; people would probably like to buy them.

And so the Chinese-speaking man laid out his ideas and a queue of the most self-agrandising English-speaking intellectuals formed. One by one they approached the man to mock his ridiculous scrawls:

"Haha look, these lines match no letter in the English language, this fool is clearly deranged!"

"These ideas make no sense at all, in fact I have studied every English dictionary ever written and they have provided me with absolute Kopperian positive proof that these silly shapes are arranged incorrectly."

"My professor used to beat me and make the whole class laugh at me when I suggested that there might be a different way of looking at things. Now I pee myself sometimes."

But in the end they all went back for a party in the lab and had a massive group hug and whispered in each other's ears "don't worry, we know...we know".

And the readers of the blog thought "if you hate it so much why don't you bog off and read something else?"