Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Theater of Absurd Ideas in Big Sur Reality.

"When you're lying awake ... for you dream you are crossing The Channel and tossing about in a ..." (Iolanthe).

Stage direction at end below. Leon Schwartzky, hiding from Wahhabis and Serb Death Squads, is inside big trash bin stage right like in Beckett's End Game and Waiting for Godot.

On Dec 22, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Dec 22, 2004, at 2:43 PM, wrote:

J: Right but trite. Why bring this up?

Z: OK, so you agree so far?

J: Hard to say because your words are too vague.

Z: You said. "right but trite". Now you say it's "too vague" to know.

J: That's quantum mechanics. Depends how your state of vagueness/ambiguities collapses. I made a probabilistic statement. You are not in a sharp eigenstate of clear meaning the way I filter/parse your strings.

Z: So are you saying that there is no unique geodetic line that is locally orthogonal to any given geodesic running through a given point on a curved manifold?

J: No, I am saying that most of time your English is unintelligible because you are talking about mathematical ideas without the relevant math formalism that resolves the Laputian ambiguities of your frequent Malapropisms. Then, when on those rare occasions you ask a question I think I understand, it is usually trite and when I give you the correct answer you take evasive action like a pilot in Saddam's Air Force trying, unsuccessfully mind you, to avoid my missile.

Some math here should be possible to see exactly what you mean.

Z: Some math here is definitely possible. Actual, even.

J: Too bad you don't know how to do the math.

Z: We'll see.

J: So you have said now for 3 years!

J: One sure sign of a crackpot is thinking one can improve on Einstein within the domain of validity of classical GR where you are in.

Z: Not if I am proposing an alternative model for the existing GR formalism that *preserves this empirical accuracy*.

J: Delusions of grandeur.

Z: So your spaghetti logic here is worse than "crackpot" -- it's knee-jerk "doggydoomatic"!

J: I agree with John Baez on that particular.

Z: Did John Baez really say something so clueless?

J: Would I lie about that?

Z: I suspect he was talking about *actual modifications* to the formal-empirical theory leading to *different empirical predictions* -- which is NOT what I am advocating here. If it is based on a mathematical theorem, a tensor/non-tensor decomposition of the LC connection is not really a modification of the GR formalism, any more than 4 = 1 + 3 is a modification of arithmetic.

J: I told you, the ONLY 3rd rank tensor you can get from guv is the nonmetricity tensor guv;w = 0 in zero torsion 1916 GR, which is the subject.

The geodesic choice is simply guv,l(P) = 0, which together with the equivalence principle EEP says

guv(P') ~ nuv + (1/2)guv,w,l(P)(P'-P)^w(P'-P)^l

Z: But you are talking about a CS whose spatial origin follows the observer.

J: That's the ONLY KIND PERMITTED IN GR Professor Genius! Either LIF or LNIF. It's only when {LC} Curl of {LC} = 0 in the region that you can make any kind of global frame like you want. You CAN do it in Newton's gravity, and you can sort of do it in Einstein's special relativity, but you CAN'T DO IT IN EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY. Your starting point is cluelessly ludicrous. You are asking a VERY STUPID COMPLETELY UNINTERESTING FOOLISH BOGUS ILL-POSED ILLEGITIMATE QUESTION that does not even deserve any attempt at an answer because it would only be "garbage out". Your Question is NOT THE QUESTION, it belongs in the Trash Bin along with "How many Angels can dance on the boil on Stephen Schwartz's nose?" (Disembodied voice stage right: "What's that about my nose?).

"Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, Contributing Editor

ho says that Wahabbi-type, "wadical" Muslims can't be "widiculous"? And idiotic. And even funny. Not just deadly. Let's look at the lighter side of this demonic seventh century "weligious" system ... and if you're wondering where the title of this column came from, we will unabashedly admit that this whole page layout is a play on a famous line uttered on more than one occasion by Elmer Fudd to Bugs Bunny in an equally famous and long-"wunning" series of cartoon motion picture shorts. Not being able to "pwonounce" his "R's" correctly, Elmer would yell in "fwustwation" at Bugs:

"You wascally wabbit!"

So when it came time to name this column, well now, we couldn't "wesist" the alliteration, now could we? Unless we indicate otherwise, all stories originally appeared in Arutz-Sheva and were reported by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz."

No comments: