Slashdot Mirror

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

All this conversation stemming from an article written by the same author that says g0d has hidden the secrets of A.I. in the bible?! http://www.rebelscience.org/Seven/bible.html

anyone else realize this guy is trying to get people from the "everything is relative" thinking, to the "everything is absolute" thinking?

http://www.rebelscience.org/Seven/bible.html

Just to discredit him, he believes in ID.
I still enjoyed seeing his perspective.

wow, I mean.. wow.. slashdot you have just hit rock bottom, I can almost hear the clink of the shells dropping into the shotgun barrels of physicists all across the world. now let's debate some of this lunatic's more mainstream articles such as: Artificial Intelligence From the Bible, featuring such classic passages as:

"I will argue that the messages to the seven churches of Asia are a metaphorical description of the organization and operation of the brain. I will further argue that the golden lampstand (Jewish menorah) symbolizes a seven-node sequence in brain memory."

It's simply on another page of the website. http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/devil.htm

"Time does not dilate for the simple reason that time, by definition, cannot change. The slowing of clocks is more likely due to energy conservation principles that come into play when a huge number of particles are interacting locally."

"Again, clocks run slower, not because time dilates, but because their internal processes slow down due to energy conservation principles. "Time dilation" = process slowdown. There is no causal link between the two. They are equivalent."

Ah, this is the first time I have the honour to tell this to a /.er.

RTFA

I'm being unfair, since it was on an unlinked page on the same site

"Time does not dilate for the simple reason that time, by definition, cannot change. The slowing of clocks is more likely due to energy conservation principles that come into play when a huge number of particles are interacting locally." http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/devil.htm

Dear Rob

I'm sorry to have to tell you but you've been scammed by a well-known internet kook called Louis Savain into slashdotting his junk

If you google for "nothing moves in spacetime" and "rebelscience.org" you'll find lots of references to this particular paranoid schizophrenic (no, I'm not kidding)

He likes to spam sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity with his junk. One of his recent postings is fairly typical:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC),
glhan ...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article ,
>Traveler wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glhan ...@indiana.edu wrote:

>>Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.

>World lines don't move in spacetime. When people talk about the motion of
>a particle they refer to a succession of points on the worldline, not the
>worldline in its entirety.

Repeat after me: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME!
NOTTHIINGGG!!!!

What this means is that there is NO CHANGE in spacetime (that's why it
was called Einstein's block universe by Karl Popper) and spacetime is
a fictitious math construct with no counterpart in reality. Now, isn't
it a tad weird that your idol Einstein agreed with his friend Kurt
"lunatic" Godel when he announced in 1949 that the spacetime of GR
allows time travel to the past via time-like loops?

Now hold on a southern cotton picking second! Aren't Kurt Godel and
Albert Einstein revered by physicists as two of the smartest men that
ever lived? Yep. ahahaha... One then wonders how they can be so stupid
as to believe in motion in spacetime. ahahaha...

http://www./ rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm#Einstein

ahahaha...
>>> Or that your alien-induced lattice that exists nowhere is
>>>also an abstract model of your invention?

>>Nope. My lattice is not made of abstract crap but of real particles.
>>You crackpots call them virtual photons. ahahaha...

>You have a model that describes a lattice that is not made of abstract
>crap. You're like the screen writer who writes a line like "This isn't a
>movie, you know."

Maybe in your imagination but I know one thing: I am not an ass
kisser. I do my own thinking, than you very much. ahahaha... And
that's the way I like it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...

Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

I would suggest you remove the story

There is another article on his web site that is quite a bit more interesting on "Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It"

http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

I think this article is better reading and deserves another round on slashdot.

From http://www.rebelscience.org/Seven/bible.html:

(S)He writes:
"I started working on Animal (around 1995; see history) years before I formulated my biblical hypothesis. As I get more and more confident about the accuracy of my interpretation of the biblical metaphors, I will incorporate my findings into it. I hope to have it learn the game of chess on its own, including the rules of play. If my hypothesis is correct, there is no limit to how competent the program can be at playing chess. "

Do I really need to give a context? ;-)
(I hope I don't somehow offend any Christians out there- I've never heard of a denomination that believe's Jesus' real message was how to win at chess...)

That second link: http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Sp ace reminds me of Children of the Mind by Orson Scott Card. Yeah, that's right, I read all 4 of the Ender books all the way through, pbbbt

"Joke" foot on article: check.
Suspicious URLs:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.ht m
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Sp ace
Check.
Comments taking the article 100% seriously: check.

This must be Slashdot.

"Joke" foot on article: check.
Suspicious URLs:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.ht m
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Sp ace
Check.
Comments taking the article 100% seriously: check.

This must be Slashdot.

"There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else. Voodoo science is not about understanding nature but about working at being so incomprehensible or so arcane to one's fellow human beings as to be regarded as brilliant. The weapon of choice of a voodoo scientist is mathematics. The truth is that a scientist's understanding of a phenomenon is inversely proportional to the number of math equations he uses to describe it. Neither Newton's gravity equation nor the equations of General Relativity explain why things fall. But what better way is there to hide one's cluelessness while presenting a façade of erudition than to use obscure equations to erect an impregnable mountain of obfuscation? Voodoo science is guru science."

There you have it. Does your proof involve advanced mathematics? Can you explain your theory in short sentences and small words? If not, it is a certaintly you're a arrogant, vain, brainless crackpot who is more concerned with looking smart than anything else.

This guy must have been picked on by nuclear physicists and molecular biologists when he was a kid, 'cuz he has a major bug up his ass when it comes to, well, the entire scientific community. Welcome to the ranks of Alex Chiu and Timecube, Mr. Savian.

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /Crackpots/ on this server.
...

That's all there is to know about this article.

How come now one has mentioned Project COSA when it comes to writing, as you termed it, 'bulletproof code', a 'silverbullet'.

The founder of Project COSA intends to create just that, code that is guaranteed to be bug free. http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm

Time is abstract. A temporal dimension makes motion impossible. Why? Because (surprise) nothing moves in time or spacetime as time is not a variable by definition. This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing ever happens" (Conjectures and Refutations). See Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime for more info.

This is Star-Trek physics crackpottery, in my opinion. No better than time travel and the like. What would be more in keeping with actual physics while being equally astonishing, would be instantaneous travel from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intermediate positions. This is possible because space (distance) is an illusion of perception. This is already corroborated in experiments with quantum tunneling. In certain circumstances, particles are observed going through barriers in a way that defy classical physics. Interestingly, they seem to do so at speeds greater than the speed of light. For more on nonspatiality, see this link: Nasty Little Truth About Space.

Quantum tunneling (long distance quantum jumps) is not to be confused with teleportation which just another example of Star-Trek physics nonsense. Imagine a world where you can travel from anywhere to anywhere instantly. Cheers!

However, after so long you're gonna start getting rehashed methods

Here is a revolutionary new programming model that addresses the biggest problem in computing, software unreliability. No rehashed methods.

Project COSA:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm

The COSA model is a revolutionary new approach to software construction. It is based on the hypothesis that the reason that software is so unreliable is that it is algorithmic. Switch to a synchronous, signal-based model and the problem will disappear.