nemesis wrote:
> fairly amusing. :)

I didn't really look at anything beyond his computer stuff. I do like 
this one:

"This gem of pseudoscience comes from one of the most celebrated 
physicists of the twentieth century."

Um, and you, in calling him a crackpot, are obviously more celebrated? I 
mean, I'm not one of those who believes in Proof By Authority, but I'll 
take the word of "most celebrated physicists" over "never studied 
physics" any time. Especially when the celebrated results lead directly 
to the technology I have sitting in front of me.

"Second, dt/dt is always the same (1) regardless of the actual rate of 
velocity."  I'm pretty sure this isn't true, actually, is it?

Indeed, that whole page is silly. First he says you can't have a time 
dimension, because otherwise things wouldn't move. Then he says "people 
talk about time changing, but time doesn't change."  Well, yes. You're 
confusing two meanings of "time" there, and complaining that the popular 
meaning doesn't match the physics meaning. So?

Heh. "Time does not dilate (as if time could change!). On the contrary, 
it is the clocks that slow down (for whatever reason) resulting in 
longer measured intervals." Riiiight. He's another one of these 
crackpots who attempt proof by vigorous assertion.

""Time dilation" = process slowdown. There is no causal link between the 
two. They are equivalent."  Um, yes. Clearly he doesn't understand what 
is even meant by "time dialation".

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message