i sense great jealousy in you. it's like you believe you should be there, and you're not, so you lash out at actual scientist, only to fill that void you have. it's obvious and pathetic.
how can one be a PhD theoretical physicist, and not be a applied physicist and/or engineer. that's comical. being a PhD theoretical physicists makes you an applied physicist and an engineer.
Imagination is perhaps one of, if not our greatest gift and asset, but knowing the difference between what we imagine and what we know, is the difference between sanity/reality and delusion.
that's the reality.how is that comical ? i haven't met an actual theoretical physicist that's not an engineer or an applied physicists. we do it all, as a team. you can not work as a theoretical physicist with out being able to do the others. only actual PhD holders or scientist themselves knows this. that's partly how i know who is actually clueless and who is not,with little things like this. experience makes somethings obvious.
You made a statement as an absolute... Meaning that based on your statement all theoretical physicists, also work in experimental labs etc., in attempts to prove the theoretical work or in some why contribute directly to some engineering that brings some theorized aspect of reality, to reality in some practical manner. I don't have a PhD in physics and spent most of my working career making money in mostly unrelated areas of the economy, but I have spoken directly with more than one physicist, who will remain nameless as I am sure they would not want to be included by name in these discussions, one of which contributed directly to muon research at Stanford and another who I am unsure ever even set foot in a physics lab other than as a student, grad student or professor. Statements like yours above, are almost always false! Unless your intended meaning was not clearly established.
Yeah, scientists are not geniuses. Theoretical physicists sometimes get well removed from applications. On the plus side, there is usually a clear line from their work to applications, even if they can't connect it themselves. Theoretical physics is theoretical: the work often can't be tested when it is developed.
ok, yes true, i understand. not all physicist. i'm also speaking from my experience. every physicist that is involved, is an engineer and an applied physicist. we can not do the work if we are not. it's that simple.
not true, we develop, we build, we test. it's that simple. it's called a team of physicist. where i'm working, there's no engineer holders or applied physicist, we are all theoretical physicist. but yes, it is true that somethings can not be tested from development, but we can try to build something to test, if not, make models. there's really no line that divides the three, even mathematics. only experience. nothing more. ask an actual public scientist, ask them how they received that career, i bet they will say," because i said i can do that. "
No theories are science's best estimation as to how the Universe works, and gain in certainty over time. The BB, SR, GR, Evolution, Abiogenesis for example are often taken as near fact. Theorists as you say literally dream up ideas and speculative scenarios that at the very least align with, or are consistent with the laws of physics and GR. Over time, as our tools and technological capabilities improve, we may or may not see those dreams become reality. Examples of that are of course a long sort after observationally validated TOE and perhaps the ability to warp space and time, and to control and implement the energies associated with Kerr BH's, so facilitating time travel at the macro level.
The procedures described only demonstrate an interruption of memory, which is necesary for recording "time". People in comas do not have any sense of elapsed time.
Yes, that’s right Trippy, Godel used Einstein’s field equations to show a rotating universe, where the past is always there, you don’t time travel to it, you travel to it in a space direction, hence in that sense, there is no time. And hence the book’s title. I have come to the conclusion Farsight is a favoured love child of the gods mods. Every time I see Farsight’s frozen turkey, I think of Farsight Mr Bean with a frozen turkey stuck over his head.
And some people are to strapped to what they see as "intuitive" in nature, completely disregarding the possibilities of long term suspended animation, or time dilation scenarios, to see them as realistic time travel of sorts. Being considered by some is that our first interstellar voyages maybe crewed by people in suspended animation, where time for them is either stopped or slowed. They travel thousands of Earth years and wake aging only a few years. That's a form of time travel in my book, and more importantly in the opinions of most professional experts that have been contacted and referenced here.
Oh please. As Nimbus said: And as I said in the very post you quoted: Try again, try harder. Godel "killed time" because if Godel was right and we were in a rotating universe that had a Godel metric then rather than being something 'special and something 'seperate' to spatial directions, Past and future were merely directions in space like up and down, left and right, in front and behind. Hence he had indeed 'killed time'. Maybe you should read your own source and stop cherry picking it?
The irony is, according to Farsight's source, Hawking came up with the chronology protection conjecture because he didn't like how easy the Godel metric makes time travel.
Isn't it a wonderful age that we live in: An example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of Einsteins Field Equations of Gravitation, Kurt Godel, Reviews of Modern Physics Volume 21, Number 3.↑
No you don't. Every time you see the turkey, you think of paddoboy. And then you think of his time machine: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
\ Everytime I think or hear of you Farsight, I immediately think of a https://www.google.com/search?q=picture of a goose&espv=2&biw=853&bih=415&tbm=isch&imgil=6UzqAsc5OGP9FM%3A%3BF0shU3CbBEBD
Farsight, while it is likely true that those who respond to your crap, including myself, add to the moderation problem.., I have a direct question for you, where in the above quoted post is there any reference to science? If you can't point to anything relevant, stop....