Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part III

[My original series on motion, which was first posted in September of last year, ruffled so many feathers that I decided to repost it over the next few days. Who knows? I may add something new at the end.]

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV


In Part II, I showed that, contrary to what we’ve been taught, Isaac Newton did not believe that a body in motion remains in motion for no reason. I also railed against the concept of continuity, which I compared to the flat earth hypothesis. In this article, I argue that a thorough understanding of the nature of motion inevitably leads to the conclusion that the visible matter of the universe is moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Understanding the properties of these particles and how they interact with normal matter will unleash an age of unlimited free energy and super fast travel. In this post, I write about the futility of trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is flawed. I also argue that, at the microscopic level, there is only one type of motion: acceleration.

Either Or

Is it possible to prove Aristotle’s motion hypothesis? I think it’s an either-or situation. It all depends on whether or not you believe in causality. If you do believe in causality, then there should be absolutely no doubt in your mind that Aristotle was right for insisting that nothing can move unless it is caused to move. If you don’t believe in causality, it is because you believe in hocus-pocus and you should not even be reading my blog. Sorry.

Lost Cause

Unfortunately, using simple causal logic that anybody can understand is not nearly enough to persuade the physics community to suddenly confess that they were all a bunch of morons for believing in magic. It’s just not going to happen. The only way to pull it off might be to wait for all the old timers to croak, fire every physicist over twenty-five and then silently float a 50,000-ton cruise liner above the Eiffel tower. And that still would not convince them because you neglected to submit a paper for peer their review. One must never underestimate the capacity of scientists to deceive themselves and others into believing that they have a rightful monopoly on knowledge production.

Is it really worth it to try to convince the physics community that Aristotle was right about motion? Are they really that important in the greater scheme of things? I don’t think so. If you could float a goat five feet above the White House lawn, then you wouldn’t need the approval of the physics community. They would be forced to kiss your ass whether they agreed with your theory or not. In my opinion, any real progress in humanity’s understanding of motion will have to come from outside the physics community. Besides, waiting centuries for them to finally see the light is not particularly appealing.

The Causality of Motion

What does it mean to say that motion is causal? All it means is that no particle can move unless it is caused to move during the entire duration of the particle’s motion. Remove the cause (or causes) and the particle will come to an immediate halt. "But this is not observed", vehemently objects the nearest clueless physicist. True, but so what? Neither are virtual particles, quarks, spacetime, space, etc. Rightly or wrongly, these things were all inferred on the basis of what is observed. Likewise, we can logically infer that there is a cause that keeps a moving particle in motion. What follows below assumes that the reader understands and accepts that the universe is discrete, that the relative is abstract and that only the absolute exists.

Acceleration Is All There Is

Inertial motion is a macroscopic phenomenon that consists of a series of jumps of equal magnitude (actually, given that the universe is probabilistic, this definition is not entirely correct but it will do for now). At the microscopic level, there is no such thing as inertial motion. It is all acceleration. The reason is that a particle moves by making a jump from one discrete position to an adjacent one. A jump consists of two things: a positive acceleration away from the position of origin and a negative acceleration toward the destination. The cause of each jump is an imbalance in nature, i.e., a violation of some conservation principle. Nature uses jumps to rectify the imbalances. Two particles having equal positions and one or more similar properties will produce an imbalance. The ensuing interaction is manifested as a change in position by both particles. The magnitude of the interaction (how fast they react to the imbalance) depends on the energies involved.

Wall-to-Wall Particles

As can be seen in the previous paragraph, a sustained sequence of interactions is necessary to keep a particle in motion. The consequence of this is obvious. The particle must be moving in what I call a wall-to-wall sea of other particles. The primary purpose of the sea is to provide a causal substrate for motion. No sea = no motion. The amount of energy contained in the sea is so huge as to defy description. In Part IV, I will argue that the sea particles are organized as a 4-D lattice. My claim is that there is a way to use the properties of the lattice particles for propulsion and energy generation. Unlimited free energy for the whole world is there for the taking, if only we can figure out how.

See Also:

More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part II

[My original series on motion, which was first posted in September of last year, ruffled so many feathers that I decided to repost it over the next few days. Who knows? I may add something new at the end.]

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV


In Part I, I claimed that the physics community’s understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. In this post, I will give a brief introduction to the two main competing theories of motion and explain why the causality of motion and the discreteness of the universe mean that Newton’s laws are incomplete.

Aristotle’s Dead Baby

Greek philosopher Aristotle was a fervent believer in cause and effect. He maintained that the natural state of matter was absolute rest and that nothing can move unless it is caused to move. In other words, if an object is caused to move by a force, it will stop moving as soon as the cause is removed. Let me come right out and say that I agree 100% with Aristotle in this regard and I will explain why later. I think it is a shame that subsequent thinkers utterly failed to grok the supreme importance of causality and rejected Aristotle’s motion hypothesis mostly on the basis of the man’s propensity for crackpottery.

Aristotle was hard pressed to explain why an arrow kept moving after it was released from an archer’s bow. He offered a cockamamie hypothesis according to which the arrow created a trailing vacuum that pushed it in its direction of travel. He should have kept his mouth shut and admitted that he had no understanding of the actual causal mechanism of movement. I guess that, given the state of knowledge in his day, the man can be forgiven for venturing a made up explanation, especially since nobody at the time could muster a convincing refutation. Needless to say, this and Aristotle’s strange explanations of other natural phenomena did not work in his favor in the eyes of future generations. So out the window, it was, with the bathwater and Aristotle’s baby!

Newton’s Other Principle

Centuries later along came Sir Isaac Newton who declared that a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will remain in motion with constant speed in a straight line, as long as no unbalanced force acts on it. Newton’s ideas were wildly successful and it did not take long for physicists and philosophers to completely abandon Aristotle’s causal theory of motion. The current scientific doctrine is that Newton’s laws of motion destroyed Aristotelian logic and that a body in inertial motion stays in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. Yep, physicists do believe in magic even if they claim otherwise. Of course, this is all hogwash because Newton was just as fanatical about causality as Aristotle. Some have mistakenly argued that Newton’s laws of motion deny causality but the fact is that he never believed that moving bodies remain in motion for no reason. The proof of this can be found in Optiks, in which Newton clearly indicated that he believed that a principle other than inertia was necessary to keep a body in motion:
The vis inertiae [i.e., inertia] is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this principle alone there never could be any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies in motion; and now they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving motion.
This is powerful stuff. This is one of the reasons that Sir Isaac is not known as the father of modern physics for just grins and giggles. The man was a thinker. Unfortunately, Newton never described the other principle, the one that conserves the motion of a moving body. His sole explanation, as far as I can tell, was to assert that God was the universal mover. Even Christians should recognize this as a rather weak argument. I suspect that this was Newton’s way of acknowledging that he did not understand everything about motion. It would have been nicer if he had taken a more down to earth approach or just adopted the same stance that he took with regard to the cause of gravity: Hypotheses, non fingo. But it seems strange that he would mention this other principle only in Optiks and not in Principia, and almost as an afterthought, mind you, as if the entire subject was somehow taboo.

I think that, even though Newton understood enough about the subject to realize that some other principle (cause) was required to keep a body in motion, he was handicapped by his failure to fully grasp the causality of motion at the fundamental level. Above all, Newton was betrayed by his tacit belief in continuity, another one of my pet peeves. That’s too bad, as I’m sure he would have loved to know the real answer. I’ll have more to say about that silly notion of continuity later.

[Addendum 9/17/2009]

I now realize that Newton’s language leaves the quoted passage above somewhat open to interpretation. He did not specifically write “some principle other than the vis inertiae is necessary for conserving motion." I think it's possible that Newton had meant the opposite. Still, I think that calling inertia a "passive principle" does not immediately bring "causal principle" to mind. Why? Because something that is passive is reactive as opposed to active. A reaction is an effect rather than a cause. One would think that an active principle is required to conserve (maintain?) motion.

If I'm wrong about Newton (very slight probability), it still feels good to imagine that he might have understood, way back then, that motion, like everything else, was a causal phenomenon. And why not? Aristotle had understood it centuries before that.

Albert Einstein

Early in the last century, Albert Einstein made his mark on physics with the publication of his Special and General Relativity theories. However, good old Albert had nothing really interesting to add to the causality of motion debate other than the claim that nothing can move faster than light in a vacuum. It’s an interesting claim in its own right but one that is woefully incomplete and misleading. In a future post, I will show that there is, in reality, only one speed in nature: the speed of light (surprise!).

From my perspective, Einstein muddied the entire subject by equating reality with what is observed and using that false premise to claim that only relative motion and position exist in nature. This is another one of those things that brings to my mind visions of Zatoichi, the blind Japanese swordmaster (see Part I). I am not going to repeat my critique here but the relativist’s denial of the existence of absolute motion is one that is easily refuted with simple logic that even children can understand. Please read my arguments against the relativity of motion, if you’re interested.

Discrete Universe

A correct understanding of motion is impossible unless one first realizes that nature is discrete. Why is nature discrete? Simply because continuity, the opposite of discreteness, leads to an infinite regress. I realize that there are those of the math persuasion who choose to disagree but I don’t care. From my perspective, the discreteness of nature is beyond argumentation. The concept of continuity (a.k.a. infinite divisibility) is one of the things that I call “chicken shit physics”. As physicist Wolfgang Pauli would put it, it is not even wrong. As with acausal motion, its fallacy is on a par with the flat earth hypothesis.

It is certain that Newton’s laws of motion are inadequate to fully explain motion and that physicists have no clue as to what keeps a moving body in motion. Their minds are irreparably poisoned by the belief in continuity that was impressed upon them at an early age. Continuity is as dumb as it gets. It's a religion of cretins, in my opinion. Even Einstein who built his entire career on continuity, had his doubts about it. In 1954, not long before he died, he wrote to his friend Besso: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

That the concept lasted so long is proof that scientists are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as religious folks, probably even more so since they consider themselves to be the voices of reason. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method that "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence."


Discreteness implies that the observed motion of a particle, regardless of how smooth we think it is, actually consists of a series of minute jumps. In Part III, I will explain how Newton’s laws of motion can be extended or modified to incorporate discrete motion at the microscopic level and why the causality of motion means that we are swimming in an enormous ocean of highly energetic particles.

See Also:

The Scientific Revolution and Contemporary Discourse on Faith and Reason
More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

Monday, June 28, 2010

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part I

[My original series on motion, which was first posted in September of last year, ruffled so many feathers that I decided to repost it over the next few days. Who knows? I may add something new at the end.]

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV


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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Why Does Eugene Kaspersky Eat Japanese Baby Crabs and Grin?


I just read an excellent article on the cyber security crisis by David Talbot, Technology Review's chief correspondent. My position is that the cyber security crisis is identical to the software reliability crisis. The cyber security industry has a conflict of interest in that it is in no hurry to see the problem solved once and for all because a final solution would put it out of business. Below, I argue that the crisis will be solved when we change to a new software model. I defend my thesis by commenting on a few quotes I selected from Talbot's article.

It Is All About Bugs in the Code
Code is more complex, and that means more opportunity to exploit the code. There is more money to be made in exploiting the code, and that means there are more and more sophisticated people looking to exploit vulnerabilities.
The cyber security crisis is really identical to the software reliability crisis because vulnerabilities are, as everyone knows, bugs in the code. And the more complex the code is, the more buggy it gets. What is a bug? A bug is either a defect in the code or an omission, i.e., something important that the programmers and/or designers overlooked. Usually, a savvy attacker will use his knowledge of a specific bug in a software application in such a way as to cause it to behave in a manner that the original software designers did not intend.

So it is rather interesting that the cyber security industry chooses to focus on virus and other malware detection and not on finding ways to construct bug-free code. But then again, why not? After all, the security industry is in business to make money and the more buggy the code is, the more opportunity there is for the attackers, and the more money the industry makes. They have no interest in coming up with a final solution to this pressing problem. Now you know why Eugene Kaspersky, the head of Kaspersky Lab, a famous Russian cyber security company, eats Japanese baby crabs in his Moscow office and grins for the camera. Business is good and getting better all the time. (read Talbot's article for context)
Eugene Kaspersky Is Happy
Bring in the Lawyers
"Hardening targets--and having good laws and good law-enforcement capacity--are the key foundational pieces no matter what other activities we want to try to pursue," Christopher Painter, the White House senior director for cyber security, pointed out at a recent conference.
Now that everyone has given up on eliminating the vulnerabilities that malevolent hackers exploit, it makes sense to bring in the lawyers. The problem with the legal approach is that it is not just criminals that are a threat to cyber security. Governments are engaged in it as well, probably more so than the criminals.
"Botnets are a serious threat, but we're out of luck until there is international agreement that cyber crime really needs fairly rigorous countermeasures and prosecutions across pretty much all of the Internet-using nations," says Vern Paxson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies large-scale Internet attacks.
In truth, a country's hackers are a national treasure. Why should they incarcerate them when they can use them for spying on other countries? China does it. So do the US, Russia, India, and others. So good luck on getting those countries to vigorously enforce international cyber security laws. Not that the lawyers really care. There is money to be made either way.

Danger Ahead

What if there were a way to construct 100% bug-free code and a hostile nation finds out about it and uses it to protect its critical systems from your cyber war specialists while at the same time continuing to spy on your country's networks and finding ways to disrupt them? This would create a dangerous situation. My thesis is that there is indeed a way to construct 100% bug-free code and I have written about it elsewhere (see links below). The solution has to do with making timing an inherent and fundamental part of the software model. The only drawback is that it will require a switch to a new software model.

One may argue that we cannot wait for the industry to switch to new software model because it would take years to implement. Legacy systems must be protected right now. True but I contend that it is not necessary to reprogram our entire network infrastructure to gain the full security benefit that comes with bug-free code. By reprogramming a few critical nodes of a network, we can fully protect the entire network against cyber attacks. Of course, every software system in the world will eventually have to be reprogrammed. There is no way around it.


My advice to cyber security policy makers is to take a good look at the folly of our current approach. Unless something is done now that has not been tried before, the whole thing can get very ugly in a hurry. There is a way to solve the problem once and for all but do not count on the cyber security industry to do it. We must acknowledge that the baby boomer geeks have shot computing in the foot in the last century with their Turing cult and their infatuation with the Turing machine. The truth is that the Turing computing model is the problem, not the solution. It is time for the boomers to retire so that a new generation can have their turn at the wheel.

See Also:

Technology Review: Moore's Outlaws
How to Construct 100% Bug-Free Software
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
The COSA Software Model
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Why the FAA's Next Generation Air Traffic Control System Will Fail (repost)

[I am reposting this April article because it seems to have captured the attention of a few people at the FAA and in the aviation industry.]

The FAA Is at it Again

According to an Associated Press article, the FAA's NextGen air traffic control system is being delayed on account of glitches in a $2.1 billion crucial software subsystem. Why am I not surprised? Many years ago, I contacted the FAA about my ideas on software reliability and they treated me like I was a filthy bum in Beverly Hills. I am not callous enough to say that the FAA's current troubles serve them right and I am not one to say 'I told you so' but I did. It's kind of funny that both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, who are major contractors to the FAA for NextGen, have visited my blog many times over the years. Somehow I doubt that either of these giant defense firms have incorporated my ideas into NextGen. That's too bad.

Why NextGen Will Fail

I predict that NextGen will fail. And it will fail miserably (and maybe even catastrophically) unless the FAA has the guts to do the right thing. Why will it fail? Because the baby boomers have shot computing in the foot in the last century. That's why. The hacker culture of the boomer generation is usually credited with launching the computer revolution in the early eighties but nothing could be further from the truth. What launched the revolution was the introduction of a highly empowering new technology called Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI). The Von Neumann architecture was already well-known in those days. Opportunistic computer geeks were suddenly free to fully abandon discrete transistor technology and began using VLSI to create all sorts of cheap processors and computers based on Von Neumann's old ideas.

What the boomer geeks really gave us is the cult of Turing. They forced everyone in the business to worship the Turing machine as God's gift to humanity. The result is that we are now faced with a nasty problem known as the parallel programming crisis. This is on top of the software reliability and productivity crises that have been wreaking havoc from the beginning. So now, with the old geeks still in charge of computer science and the computer industry, the FAA, Toyota and the rest of society are paying a heavy price for their mess.

There is a Solution

It is not too late for the FAA to do the right thing. There is a way to build bug-free code regardless of complexity. Just don't ask the boomer geeks because they don't know how. They're too busy worshiping the ground Turing walked on. And they're liable to lynch you if you say anything against their hero. But guess what? Turing's antiquated ideas are useless in the search for a solution. In fact, the Turing computing model is the problem, not the solution. It's time for the boomer geeks to admit that they have failed. They should gracefully retire and let a new generation have their turn at the wheel. Click on the links at the end of this article for more on how to build reliable software applications.

What the FAA Should Do

There is no question that the FAA's NextGen effort will fail because of their chosen software model. Current approaches to software construction are crap, primarily because deterministic timing is not an inherent and fundamental part of the programming model. As a result, complex software systems used for automation become unreliable as their complexity increases. Since NextGen falls into the category of extremely complex software systems, it's a guarantee that it will be riddled with bugs, including potentially dangerous and/or costly bugs. However, I would not advise the FAA to abandon their current overall design.

I believe that most of the current NextGen software and design documents can serve as the specs for a new reliable system based on the COSA software model. Every safety-critical NextGen application, including all avionics software, should be (re)programmed in COSA and hosted on a computer running the COSA OS. Existing non-critical applications can continue to run on existing computers plugged into the network as a way to keep costs down, if desired. With the right team in place, I believe that the entire NextGen system, as it stands, can be rebuilt within five years. The new COSA-based NextGen system would be fully and easily upgradeable without fear of introducing new bugs into the system and would provide rock-solid operation for years to come. There is no doubt in my mind that it is possible to use COSA to fully automate air traffic control before the end of the decade. Even the aircrafts can become self-piloting, as they should be. Let us hope that FAA administrators can read the writing on the wall. But I am not holding my breath.

See Also:

How to Construct 100% Bug-Free Software
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
The COSA Software Model
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Phil Plait: Really Bad Astronomer

Bad Astronomy at Discover Magazine

Take a look at this hilarious discussion at Discover Magazine's Bad Astronomy Blog where I make fun of bad astronomer Phil Plait and his famous buddy James Randi. Randi is, of course, the skeptic who enjoys debunking palm readers and psychics in the name of science. Check out how Phil Plait cowardly manages to ignore my debunking of Einstein's physics and ends up banning me from his blog in frustration. Oh, the horror! I am trembling as I write. LOL.

Of course, as every scientist should know, the best way to help science is to debunk scientists but don't tell that little truth to Randi and Plait. You see, they've got a little religion to defend against outside attackers like me.

PS. Someone at Bad Astronomy posted the picture below to mock me. I am supposed to be the black knight on the ground with both arms cut off. I think it's funny. Note that stereox112, one of the last persons to post a comment on Plait's blog calling me a crackpot, recently wrote a stupid comment in reply to one of my articles and got an ass whipping in return by yours truly. The comedy never ends.

See Also:

How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies


In the last one hundred years, there has been a veritable cult surrounding Albert Einstein. Not a day goes by without someone praising Einstein as the greatest scientist that ever lived. Schools, avenues, parks, hospitals, holidays are named in Einstein's honor. So it should come as no surprise that watching someone like me heap scorn and ridicule on Einstein's physics should fill his followers with righteous rage. As a rebel at heart, I find it rather amusing and I admit that I enjoy it. So, it is with great pleasure that I continue with yet another one of my Einstein-bashing articles.

Bringing Down Einstein's Castle in the Air

Einstein once wrote to a friend, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

There is no doubt that a discrete universe would bring Einstein's physics down. That the universe is discrete is beyond argumentation and only an inveterate ass kisser would insist that continuity is a logical concept. Heck, it is not even a scientific concept in the Popperian sense since it cannot be empirically falsified by definition. Leave it to gutless physicists to demand falsifiability from such 'strawman' adversaries as astrologers and psychics while conveniently excusing themselves from the same rule. However, there is another way to falsify Einstein's voodoo physics that is much more direct and impervious to bullshit and lame arguments in support of continuity. It is very simple.

One of the requirements of Einstein's physics is the existence of a time dimension. The only problem with that is that a time dimension makes motion impossible. This is something I have written about many times but it bears repeating over and over because it invariably takes Einstein's defenders by surprise. I like this argument, not because it is enough to convince them of the stupidity of Einstein's physics but because it is fun to watch the ass kissers morph into babbling fools, foaming at the mouth and jumping up and down. (See Nothing Can Move in Spacetime)

What Will It Take to Destroy Einstein's Physics?

Don't count on physicists to clean up their act. It's not going to happen. The scientific community is like an incestuous gang; they view the rest of the world as their prey and enemy. They take the public's money while, at the same time, forbidding the public the right of oversight on their business. Somehow, they've managed to convince the public that they are too stupid to understand science. Their arrogance and pompous condescension are legendary.

Only the lay public can bring enough pressure on the powers that be to bring an end to a century of stupidity and what amounts to a wild goose chase. I think it is time that the public reverses the table on them and show that scientists can be just as stupid as everyone else. In fact, their stupidity is all the more glaring since they pride themselves on being smarter than everyone else. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."


Here are a few quotes from knowledgeable people regarding the impossibility of motion or change in Einstein's spacetime:
"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle."
Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
"According to Einstein's doctrine the world is a finite four dimensional sphere full with force-lines. No motion is possible in it since time is one of its geometrical dimensions, and there is no external time."
Source: Methodologia (pdf) by Dr. Uri Fidelman.
"What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming."
Source: "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?" Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994 by Professor Joe Rosen
"At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation."
Source: Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper. Emphasis added.
See Also:

Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Gravitational Waves Are Nonsense
Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Sitting on a Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time (repost)

[I am still pissed at the physics community and I am still venting my spleen. This is my third repost of this article.]

Theater of the Absurd

I love physics but I cannot stand physicists. No other field of science has more ass kissers and more blatant, in-your-face crackpottery. Just a couple of days ago, some crackpot physicist by the name of Nikodem Poplawski announced to the world that the universe is inside a wormhole, which is inside a black hole that lies within a much larger universe full of other black holes, wormholes, crackpot physicists and other universes. I swear I am not making any of this shit up. But this crap is common fare in the physics community. And only physicists can get away with going public with such absurdities.

A Mountain of Unadulterated Bullshit

As we all know, black holes and wormholes are based on Einstein's physics. The problem is that Einstein's physics is based on the existence of continuous structures and of a time dimension, both of which are pure unmitigated crackpottery. This crap is not even wrong because, as anybody with a lick of sense should know, a time dimension makes motion impossible. Moreover, continuity (infinite divisibility) is, of course, a pile of crap on the face of it because it leads to an infinite regress by definition. But these two turd examples only scratch the surface of the Himalayan-size mountain of bullshit on which modern physics is resting. Almost everything you learned in physics school is crap, from the Star-Trek voodoo fairy tales of time travel and multiple universes to the Einsteinian idea that only relative motion and position exist in the universe. It's all pure unadulterated bovine excrement. I need lots of synonyms for 'crap', I know.

Chicken Shit Voodoo Physics

Who will rise up to deliver us from this mountain of crap? Will it be the little con artist in the wheelchair over in England? I seriously doubt it. Stephen Hawking is one of the most prolific crap makers of them all. His shit stinks to high heaven even if his band of disciples and the clueless media love it so. I feel like vomiting every time I think about Hawking's chicken shit voodoo physics.

The situation in the physics community is so bleak that, lately, I am considering buying a rubber chicken to make my point. I will write 'Physicist' on it with a black marker pen and I will hang it by the neck at the entrance of my home. Why? Because all I read about lately is worthless chicken shit voodoo physics and chicken shit voodoo physicists like Hawking and Poplawski.
Please do me a favor. Don't write to tell me that you're offended because I don't care. I am the one who should be offended because I spent countless hours of my life learning a bunch of physics crap only to spend countless more hours unlearning it. Yes, I have been sitting on this mountain of crap most of my life, wasting my precious time. And I don't like it. The physics community owes me and everybody else an apology, goddammit. But thanks to the internet and computer engineering, none of which was made possible by wormhole physics, multiverses, time travel and other such crap, I can vent my spleen to my heart's content. I can crap all day long on their wormhole, black hole, Big Bang and time travel religion. It's the rebel in me. Isn't free speech grand?

I feel better now. Thank you.

See Also:

How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Physics: The Problem With Motion
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
D-Wave's Quantum Computing Crackpottery