As a physicist, I would like to comment. (edit: though I see Cohen has beat me to the punch by already referencing Raymond). I saw an excellent lecture just last year by a Berkeley physicist on "super-luminal wave propagation," and he's done experiments in his laboratory showing that, indeed, information can travel faster than the traditional 3X10^8 meters per second. As he states on his website, their super-luminal demonstration does not "violate causality," so you can't go back in time, even at the most extreme case. His work is very legitimate and well-regarded and heavily funded. So he's not a quack. The idea is that the leading edge of a wave can spread out faster than the center of the wave itself moves forward. Oddly, we can actually detect this and exploit it for information. I could also refer you to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, by which information is apparently transmitted between two particles across great distances *immediately*. This is already being explored for encryption devices. This so-called "spooky action at a distance" has been demonstrated multiple times at every-increasing distances. Einstein originally proposed it as a way to discredit quantum mechanics, saying "if quantum is valid, then you would have this stupid immediate effect." Sadly for Einstein, the effect was verified! So, overall, I think Clark would be wise to stay clear of physics (though why anyone minds if he mentions it in passing, or is interested, I'm not sure). That said, he is actually on the money here. More and more physicists believe we may someday be able to transmit something of tangible interest and application (probably not a person) faster than the speed of light. SPECULATION UPHELD.
In other news, B-Bob demonstrated how to bring the propagation of a thread to a complete stop. Look at these post times. They are so regular until I dropped some science. I. Am. Thread. Death.
I bow to you, King of Thread Death, and I will burn something on the sacrificial altar in your honor this evening. More than likely it will be a Marlboro.
I suck at science. I started off majoring in engineering. That lasted 1 whole semester. I have zero substantive comments to add when it comes to science. I probably would feel more comfortable around the Fab Five than a group of scientists.
"Puny mortal! Hear me! The Marlboro will be ACCEPTED as sacrifice. King Thread Death is merciful! That is all!"
CASE CLOSED The only definitive way to squelch arguments and end discussions in threads. btw -- B-Bob, do you teach at Berkeley? While we're at it, where does MacBeth teach/study? Queens? McGill?
"Fool! Of course you will drink wine! Wine is MANDATORY! ... and NO, I do not teach at Berkeley. But I can ENJOY talks from many physicists in the Bay Area! That is all!"
The thread kicked the bucket when people thought I was arguing science, when in reality I'm arguing what is the point of spending the billions of dollars its going to take to fund the transfer of an umbrella to Jupiter in less than a second when we have other things to focus on now. I think thats about where the thread died.
BB, even a self professed know it all like myself gets real quiet when it comes to passages like this from one of those websites: Ah yes, the Bogoliubov relation.
KingCheetah to King Thread Death...over. This is King Thread Death go ahead...over. B-Bob has got his head stuck in the cloud chamber again...over. Great next he'll be spouting off about lifters and B-2 bombers - please handle situation with caution...KTD out. Affirmative will attempt to remove stuttering Bob from cloud chamber... KC out.
So let me get this straight. We have currently, and have in the past had Presidents who believe in a supreme invisible being who created all of us so that we might act out a living morality play to honour him...and I and many others have no problem with that. This and other Presidents have even cited thei God as the basis and justification for many of their actions, and still many, including myself, don't object. And now we have a Presidential candidate hypothesizing on the future reaches of science, and in an age where we have split the atom, cloned sheep, and gone to the Moon pro-Bus people theorize that this is worth ridicule!?!? This is getting so weak it's barely worth responding to...
Because he never says that he plans on spending billions of dollars to do such a thing. The first thing he says is "We need a vision of how we're going to move humanity ahead, and then we need to harness science to do it. . ." This is obviously a general statement of making advances in technology for the betterment of mankind. The traveling faster than the speed of light bit is Clark saying that he personally doesn't think it's impossible. The "faith based initiative" line is what makes it a joke and not part of his policy plans as you assert. Now, how are we supposed to even bother taking you seriously when you title this puppy "Clark wants to travel through time, great," when he never mentions A) time travel and B)spending billions on time travel. You also peppered your posts with stuff like "Brave New Worldesque" and compared him to the crazy general from Dr. Strangelove. I've read Brave New World and I don't see Clark mentioning anything about setting up that kind of society. Clark never said anything close to what you are asserting therefore your premise is false and your argument is unsound. CASE CLOSED OR SOMETHING
I ask you this Oski, where does Clark stand on any major issue. Go to his campaign website and all you will see is Bush Cut taxes for rich, Bush bad. Its the same old hogwash. Also, in the article, he speaks of having to rededicate ourselves to science and technology. Are you kidding? We already are dedicated to science and technology. The University of Washington alone recieves close to 800,000,000 dollars a year from federal grants to do research in technology. Every major University in the country recieves similar funding. Its ludicrous to think that we are not already dedicated to these causes. What is a shame, is that if you look at the amount of money being given for any center that promotes a strict liberal arts based education, one that examines our country's beggining, focusing on our founding by guys like Hamilton and Jefferson, rather than sending kids away from school with an education in Sojourner Truth and Zora Neal Hurston. Those people are great, but we need to put a primacy on learning what this country was founded on, or it will vanish. Do you know that all(except those in Arkansas) major state universities do not even have one basic requirement for an American History Class? Clark is all for the New American Patriotism, taking humanity to new levels, I ask where else can humanity go, shouldn't we make a brief return to the principles of the founding (and don't give me the slavery argument because that wasn't a principle of the founding)? Technology can get better, but humanity is the same as it ever was... Clark will prove to be more of a demagogue than you think if you give him time
twhy77, Wes Clark has a Masters Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. I would say that indicates a broad range of interest. I have no idea where you get the "demagogue" idea. By the way, I'm not sure what circles you travel in, but there are many with a keen interest in the humanities who also have a keen interest in science, technology and speculating about the future. And having a mind open to new ideas.
Deckard- I never said science and tech were bad, or even that Gen. Clark is against them... He's saying that we need to rededicate ourselves to something we are already very much dedicated too, when there are other things that we need to rededicate ourselves too, like the principles of the founding. He uses a lot of progressive jargon like, new patriotism, and where we are going to go with the future.... well, America won't be around long if we start deviating from the original idea.... it seems like he is using the same buzz words of the Clinton era, which I personally was never a fan of, just a lot of political nonsense.
How much of that funding has been cut since the 1950s (when most of the research WAS done by universities and put into the public domain or licensed for a reasonable fee)? We have turned the research over to the private corporations who will not turn it over to the public domain and will milk every dollar they can out of it. There is a reason we USED to have one of the premier higher education systems in the world, because we funded it. It becomes pretty hard to fund things like education when the rich see their taxes go down by over 60% in 30 years. But this is the section I wanted to highlight: You don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you? Every college I know about requires 2 semesters in Am. History (1 for before 1866 and 1 for after 1866) in addition to a semester on federal government and one on state government. I work at a community college that requires all of those classes for an Associate's degree.
