| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| Pastor Al says that he can travel through nothing |
- 1.0 A mind is a terrible thing to waste
Relativists routinely talk about and entertain the possibility of traveling in both directions of time.
- " Time travel is the concept of moving backwards and/or forwards to different
points in time, in a manner analogous to moving through space." [1]
" Today, we know that time travel need not be confined to myths, science fiction,
Hollywood movies, or even speculation by theoretical physicists. Time travel is
possible. For example, an object traveling at high speeds ages more slowly than
a stationary object. This means that if you were to travel into outer space and
return, moving close to light speed, you could travel thousands of years into the
Earth's future." [2]
" Despite years of debate, scientists still haven't completely ruled out the possibility
of going back in time. 'Many physicists have a gut feeling that time travel to the
past is not possible,' said Columbia University theoretical physicist Brian Greene.
'But many of us, including me, are impressed that nobody's been able to prove that.' " [3]
" Kip Thorne took physics to the limit. He... discovered a way... that time travel might
someday be possible... I recognized that what he probably should do is replace the
black hole as a means for rapid interstellar travel with a wormhole. At that time
wormholes were not something that were part of science fiction. [4]
" If you subscribe to alternative-world theory, then time travel makes sense at some
level," said Professor Demaine, who would like future-guests to bring answers to
mathematical mysteries... you could imagine that there's actually many versions of
the universe, including one where suddenly you appear from 10 years in the future." [5]
" Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast moving vehicle
to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed
retards the rate of passage of onboard time. That is, the ship's clock (and
according to relativity, any human travelling with it) shows less elapsed time
than stationary clocks. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For
example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a
constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to circumnavigate the known
universe (with a radius of some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime.
The space-travellers could return to earth billions of years in the future
(provided the Universe hadn't collapsed and our solar system was still around,
of course)." [6]
- Some relativists spend your tax dollars (ultimately) investigating this nonsense:
" Cramer and his colleagues propose using a special lithium iodate crystal to create
two streams of photons... Theoretically, because the streams contain entangled
photons, the first detector should register the same changes 50 microseconds earlier. [7]
- Others claim to have already proven experimentally that time travel is not only possible, but a reality:
" The experiment of Lijun Wang might also give the appearance of causality violation
since it made it possible to send packages of waves through a bulb of caesium gas
in such a way that the package appeared to exit the bulb 62 nanoseconds before its
entry. [8]
" two physicists, Joe Hafele and Richard Keating, took very accurate atomic clocks
and put them in airplanes, which they then flew around the world. They then
compared the readings on the clocks in the planes to an identical clock on the
ground. The results were unmistakable; the clocks in the planes were 59
nanoseconds slower." [9]
" With a brilliant idea and equations based on Einstein’s relativity theories, Ronald
Mallett from the University of Connecticut has devised an experiment to observe
a time traveling neutron in a circulating light beam. While his team still needs
funding for the project, Mallett calculates that the possibility of time travel using
this method could be verified within a decade." [9]
" the time-slowdown is observed to be affecting the object as an object, not
merely the particular ancillary effects used in instrumental measurement
procedures" [10]
- When a mathematician studies for 10 years at a university and teaches 'physics' or belongs to a college
think tank and believes in such obvious rubbish, you wonder where we went wrong. How can Mathematical
Physics have anything to do with reality when the idiots of this religion truly believe that they can or will
someday be able to visit their grandfathers? When an entire generation of 'physicists' confuses Science
with fantasy such as this, you can do one of two things. You can either cry because you realize that you are
probably one of the few sane people remaining on Earth or you can just laugh at the mathematical world.
I don't cry any more for Earth because we have run out of time. As a species, we have but a couple of
seconds left on the geological clock and then eternity will rule again. I might as well enjoy myself in
what little time we all have left. The incredible artificial world we have built is about to come to an end. I
would rather ensure that some people on our planet know that they are not alone in their intuition, that not
everybody is insane. So I say it from the bottom of my heart:
- Relativists are the greatest bunch of idiots that ever walked upon the face of the Earth!
And I am being too kind for what I feel.
So what are my argument against time travel? What is it time travel that drives me up the walls?
| Aaaahh? Steve? Hang on a minute! What space coordinates did you punch into HAL? |
| Space coordinates? I distinctly heard you say time coordinates! Why? |
These 'researchers' and their buddies at the relativity club missed the main point. What none of the clocks
were able to do was move Mickey's arms counterclockwise! If they did, what physical entity came in
contact with the arms to twist them backwards? You can rewind the tape and watch the video again, but
the cuckoo on the wall and old Grandfather's clock always keep ticking 'forward' in time. If you travel
'through' the time tunnel at 10:00 a.m. to 5 minutes ago, will your wristwatch show 9:55 or 10:05? Is the
planet Earth on which you are now standing located 9000 kilometers (30 km/second x 5 minutes) back
where it was 5 minutes ago in its orbit around the Sun? Did the Earth travel backwards to that location to
accommodate you? Did you travel to a when 'in' time or to a where 'in' space? Did the sand in your
hourglass drip upwards because you are traveling ‘through’ time?
Therefore, the first thing we have to clarify is that no experiment has ever shown that we can travel
backwards 'in' time (whatever that means). Even when the idiots of relativity do their famous twin paradox,
you will never ever hear that one of the twins became a baby again! A year is still defined as the orbit of
Earth around the Sun. This implies that the Earth continued to orbit the Sun 'CW' (arbitrary) after our time-
ship departed. Or would a mathematician propose that the Earth started orbiting 'CCW' because of the
speed at which a twin travels 'through' space? What physical entity would compel it to revert its orbit? Or
perhaps the mathema-ticians would prefer to consider that in order to set foot on Earth as it will be one
hundred years from now would require that you travel to a location in space or space-time where the Earth
and the Sun and all the other planets and stars in the Universe will be positioned one hundred years in the
future. Does this mythical place coexist with the present Earth, Sun, planets, and stars? Do the idiots of
Math really believe in the block universe? Is this the nonsense that mathematicians feed the lay public? Is
this what their ridiculous religion says? So many years of schooling to arrive at such daunting conclusions!
6.0 Einstein's idiots have never defined the word time
It turns out that relativists have yet to define the crucial word that makes or breaks any of their theories.
From Paul Davies to Stephen Hawking, people who consider themselves and are regarded by everyone
as experts in their fields, have never defined the word time. In fact, they tell you without reservations that
they have no idea what time is:
- " the flow of time... hangs as a tantalizing mystery" [18]
" Einstein said time is that which is indicated by a clock. I think I know what a clock is,
therefore I think I know what time is." [19]
[A clock is the same as time? And this is the guy who allegedly proved time dilation! If you
know what time is, why don;t you define it for the morons of your religion,because they
don't seem to know!]
" Time is something which at a fundamental level we don't understand." [20]
- Let's put this important objection in the right perspective. It is the responsibility of the presenter to tell the
audience what the word time will mean for the purposes of his presentation, especially if he is going to talk
about some bullshit such as time travel! If the presenter talks for two hours about the wonders of time and
time travel and has not defined the word time or tells you that he doesn't know what it means, then what
was the purpose of such nonsense?
- " Because Mathematicians frequently make use of Time, they ought to have a distinct
Idea of the meaning of that Word, otherwise they are Quacks" I. Barrow
What was the presentation about? Will you bet your life on his theory? Did you go to the presentation just
to hear a novel story that tickled your mind, but has no meaning? Is this what Science is about?
Entertainment? If the presenter cannot define the word at the center of his dissertation, not only is he
not an expert, but his entire presentation is meaningless. He wasted your time!
Indeed, because the idiot of relativity does not define the word at the center of his dissertation, he arrives
at the most amusing conclusions:
- " space and time themselves get stretched and squeezed beyond recognition and
destroyed" [21]
- Oh my God! Please destroy my clock kind sir, if you must, but do not mess with my time. I am late as it is.
This is what happens when people fail to define the crucial words in their dissertation. They believe that
they can destroy a week or a year. They treat time as a physical object and then deny it in your face. They
backtrack and say that you didn't understand them, or that they were talking figuratively, or that their words
mean something different in relativity. You can either continue to gawk or tell them in their face that they
are a bunch of stupid idiots. For what little time remains for humans here on Earth, I have chosen the
second course. It is much more satisfying.
- 7.0 Conclusions
Whenever we travel, we travel not in time, not through space, but towards an object (e.g., to the Moon). In
Science, it is irrational to say that you 'travel to London.' This statement belongs 'in' ordinary speech. In
Science, you travel to a piece of land we happen to call London. London is not a physical object for the
purposes of Science. London does not have a standalone shape. The word London is meaningless
without Birmingham or Liverpool or the UK. We named that city London to distinguish it from Shanghai
and Lagos. London is a relation like Socrates is a relation. London is not a physical object. Likewise, time
is not a runway your saucer can land on. You can't travel 'to' 1815 any more than you can travel to love.
We can also say perhaps that we swim through an ocean or walk through a tunnel. We are tacitly treating
both the ocean and the tunnel as physical objects. We have no problem here. The question is whether the
word through can be used in the context of space and time. Unless the mathematician can show us that
space or time are physical objects (i.e., have form), he is introducing metaphor in his dissertation. This is
poetry; not Science.
If you travel to the future, are you traveling to a when or to a where. Will you land where the Earth will be 'in'
space 100 years from now? Will you travel to a location on Earth that has an extrapolated set of new
distances with respect to the Andromeda Galaxy than we have today? Does it make sense to say that the
distances we have today with respect to Andromeda exists simultaneously with the distances we will have
in 100 and 200 years from now? Are these still frames in some universal archive? Do we just have to get to
the right ‘cosmic file’ to see our descendants?These are the questions Einstein's idiots have to answer with
their stupid equations! Mental retards!
Corollary:
If one of Einstein's idiots tells you that there is experimental evidence in support of time travel, you now
have experimental evidence against it as well. It turns out that Einstein's idiots had a pow wow expecting
time travelers from the future to arrive and shake their hands. They were very disappointed that no distant
descendants attended the meeting.
- " Perhaps the best experimental evidence yet against the feasibility of going back
in time is that no one from the future showed up at a convention on time travel
on 7 May at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)." [21]
- There is absolutely no excuse for someone from the future not to attend if time travel is a possibility and
you can travel to any epoch at your whim and come back. Certainly, those descendants of ours who live
1 million years in the future, with exponential technology helping them through so many thousands of
years, should have no problem in stopping by and returning to any point in time they wish.
So why did no one from the future attend the meeting?
That's the question you should ask yourself. Until a relativist can answer, take time travel for what it is:
another idiocy invented by the mathematicians of this world which has nothing to do with reality. The
next question you should ask yourself is: Why are you reading about time travel in Nature and Science?
2.0 It is unscientific to say that you travel through or in space
The word through has essentially two meanings in the instant context, both as a preposition and as an
adverb. It can either mean 'in at one end and out the other of a physical object or medium,' or it can mean
'going physically past something' like through a stop sign. [11] In both cases you are alluding to or invoking
a physical object or medium. You are not using it in a metaphoric or abstract way such as in 'I have gone
through is project.' Likewise, the preposition or adverb 'in' can be used in the context of a physical medium
-- 'I am in the water' -- or in a metaphorical/abstract sense -- 'in the year 1941.' When Einstein's idiots say
they are traveling 'through' or 'in' time, they are not invoking the abstract notions of 'through' or 'in.' They
are alluding to a physical medium. They are saying that they are traversing an ocean or a tunnel to reach to
the other side. (Thus, the time tunnel, traveling through a wormhole, moving through space-time. )
Therefore, our task is simple. We have to establish whether space or time qualify as physical mediums that
you can walk through or be in. This takes us back to the definition of object. That's where we must start.
That's where the war will take place.
- [Now you know why the words object and exist are so important in Science and in Physics.
Unless the prosecutor defines these two strategic words unambiguously, whenever he says
that time or space is an object, we will have no idea what he's talking about. He will insinuate
that he is moving through a physical medium such as air when he is actually proposing to
move through a concept such as wind. Can you move through love? Does it make sense in
Science to say that you are 'in' love? Is this just a metaphor or are you physically inside a
physical medium called love?]
In Science, we define an object as 'that which has shape.' This is not my definition, as a relativist or theist or
philosopher would argue. This is a definition we can use consistently (i.e., scientifically). If Einstein's idiots
have a better definition, one that does not treat every word in the dictionary as both an object and a concept,
they should begin by spitting it out. Otherwise, they'll be pulling the wool over your eyes. They will allege
that love is an object (meaning that they can use the word in a sentence as a subject (i.e., a term), and then
proceed to move through or in it. This may make sense in the religion of Mathematical Physics. It is irrational
for the purposes of Science.
There is a single way for relativists to show that space is a physical object, and it is not by running an
experiment or 'proving' that a particle comprising the vacuum is ushered into the detectable world at the
accelerator. The way we 'prove' an object in Science (that the word we utter designates a shape) is by
pointing to it. You say horse and point. You say table and point. That's how the ET learns the names of
objects in your language.
So what is the shape of space? What will a relativist point to when he wants to teach the ET that space is an
object?
The idiot of relativity will say either that he doesn't know what space looks like or that space is infinite.
Therefore, he cannot do it like I am requesting with space.
The 'knowledge' argument is easily demolished. In Science, the prosecutor simply needs to tell us what the
object space looks like for the purposes of his presentation. He has to tell the jurors what is on his
mind. The prosecutor can say that, for the purposes of his presentation, he will assume that space looks
like a sphere. No problem! If this is what space looks like for the purposes of his presentation, so be it. But
we are not through with the hypothesis. What is this stuff that gives shape to the sphere? We cannot shove
this loose end unto the philosophers. This is the prosecutor's theory. This theory did not originate in
someone on the other side of campus.
The 'infinite' argument leads the proponent to contradiction and instantly debunks the notion that space
could possibly be an object. All objects are finite. That's what the word shape means. The words finite and
shape are synonyms. The term 'infinite object' is an oxymoron, something like infinite
finite. It is a self-contradiction.
Therefore, unless the proponent can pass the minimum criterion of Science (i.e., presenting the objects
relevant to his dissertation), he cannot say that he travels through or in them. For the purposes of Science,
an astronaut does not travel through space to go to the Moon because there is no such thing as space. An
astronaut simply travels TO the Moon (i.e., to a location, or towards an object). Would it make sense to say
that you travel to space? How would you know when you reached there? Aren't you already 'within' space
as I speak? Isn't every atom in your body already contoured by space? How else would we distinguish
them were it not for space?
3.0 It is ridiculous to claim that you are able to travel through time
Yet more idiotic is the argument that you travel through time. If space is this nothingness that 'envelopes'
every object in the Universe, time is a figment of Man's imagination. We invented time.
- " Time must never be thought of as pre-existig in any sense; it is a manufactured
quantity." H. Bondi
" The word Time came not from heaven but from the mouth of man." J. Wheeler
Time is an artificial concept. We invented time like we invented justice and beauty. There are no such notions
as anger and conscience in the world of the inert. Atoms can have a single location in the Universe.
They exist only in present tense. Atoms have developed no such notion as time. On the other hand, humans
have memory and make it a practice to watch movies that constantly run in their minds. We have to face the
fact that time is circumscribed to a very tiny portion of the matter in the Universe.
Even worse is that time is a dynamic concept. What do the mathematicians propose? That we're traveling
through a movie? Would it make sense to say that you traveled through running or in thinking? This is the
irrational type of nonsense the idiots of relativity are proposing when they claim that they can travel
'through' time? Is this what their equations 'predict'?
4.0 Back to the future
- The mathematicians begin their presentation telling you all the wonders about time and time travel:
- " You slow down, stop, and accelerate back to Earth. You arrive home. You have
aged two years during your flight. Two hundred years have passed on Earth.
You have successfully travelled forward through time." [12]
" according to relativity, you can only travel through time in one direction." [13]
" The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created... He can move through
time as a man flips through a history book." [14]
[I am happy that the 'scientists' of relativity and Christians finally agree on something.]
The members of the establishment have been brainwashed to believe in college that we can travel to the
past holding information from that past’s future. Therefore, the traveler ends up knowing exactly what
is going to happen after he arrives at destination. For example, if you travel to 1815 and already know what
is going to happen to Napoleon from what you read in the history books, you have an immeasurable
advantage over your newfound ‘contemporaries.’ This type of stuff makes for great Hollywood productions.
What does it have to do with reality or with Science?
- The first question that traveling 'to' 1815 brings up is whether the traveler traveled to the past or to the
future. In order to settle this one we must absolutely define the words past and future. Otherwise the
statement is pure poppycock.
The mathematicians define the word future as:
- " In a linear conception of time, the future is the portion of the timeline that has
yet to occur, i.e. the place in space-time where lie all events that still have not
occurred. In this sense the future is opposed to the past (the set of moments
and events that have already occurred) and the present (the set of events that
are occurring now)." [15]
" 1. time that is to be or come hereafter. 2. something that will exist or happen in
time to come" [16]
- Pursuant to these definitions, it is now objective. The traveler that went 'back' to 1815, traveled to the future.
The year 1815 and all of the events he experiences from now on are happening chronologically after he left.
Unless the idiots of Mathematics change the definition of the words future and past, it follows strictly from
the current definitions that the traveler traveled to a time subsequent to departure. If the word future is
defined as ‘time yet to come’, it appears that we can travel to the past only by traversing the future.
Indeed, I don't read in any history books that a time traveler visited Napoleon. Therefore, if this ever
'happened,' it 'happened' subsequent to the present. For a 'time traveler' from the 21st Century to be next
to Napoleon is a phenomenon that has yet to happen. The fact that you swept the floor does not erase from
history the fact that it was dirty a minute ago. Cleanliness is a new event that happened chronologically
subsequent to messy. Not even God can erase a consummated event, even if He wiped it from everybody's
memory:
- " Even God cannot change the past" Agathon
The atom that was there at a particular location with respect to all others is recorded forever in the mind of
Father Universe! In Science, you cannot undo a location.
Of course, Einstein's idiots had to invent more ridiculous definitions in order to accommodate their theories and
confuse you even further with respect to time:
- " The past is the set of events that can send light signals to the observer, the
future the events to which the observer can send light signals." [17]
The idiots of Mathematics spend their time sending signals to and receiving signals from events. That's how
they entertain the possibility that they can change the past.
Unfortunately for them, events don't emit signals. Usually, it is not running that emits light, but rather the
boy. In Science, it is not the event 'crash' that emits signals. It is the object 'car' which can emit signals.
The stupid idiots of Mathematics have never mastered the basics: language. They should make it a point
of taking a beginners course in English and in Logic at least once in their worthless lives. Einstein's idiots
are people who, like Peter Damian, believe that God can in fact restore the virginity of a woman!
5.0 Experimental proof of time travel
In 1971, Hafele and Keating bought tickets at your expense for a few atomic clocks (Fig. 1). They ran an
experiment in which they took the clocks for an airplane ride, first eastward, then westward, and compared
the readings against controls on the ground. They realized that the clocks in the air ran at a different rate
than the clocks on the ground. Gullible idiots with little grey matter in their brains claim that this experiment
proves that Special Relativity's time dilation is a reality. The insinuation is, and many people take the
experiment to have proven, that time travel is possible.
Bill Van Winkle
| Man, I sure hope all that time travel stuff is real. Sure beats taking Viagra! |
| Fig. 1 Believe it or not! A bunch of dummies bought airplane tickets for their clocks |
- Main module: How can relativists stretch time?
Pages in this module:
- 2. Pastor Al says that both of you didn't shake hands at the same time
3. Pastor Al’s ‘water sprinkler’ theory of light
4. Pastor Al's atomic clock is out of order
5. Pastor Al says that his twin brother is half his age
- 6. This page: Pastor Al says that he can travel through nothing
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008