October 01, 2003

This must be to appeal to the crystal cohort in California. This guy will stop at nothing to appeal to every constituency he thinks he has! I mean, he's already claimed Jewish background too. What next? He's part black? Native American? Cuts the heads off live chickens in his basement and prays to their guts?

"This guy will stop at nothing" -- is that a macro which the republicans send out?

So once Clark gets his butt handed to him he can go back and look at the stupid things he said. Sounds fair to me. By the way - Hired- if you know Clark at all you know it's not a macro it's the truth.

WEST POINT?????THIS CAD REMINDS ME MORE OF CALIFORNIA'S SPACE CADET GOVERNOR BROWN THAN A GENERAL.

WEST POINT?????THIS CAD REMINDS ME MORE OF CALIFORNIA'S SPACE CADET GOVERNOR BROWN THAN A GENERAL.

And why would you think the two are mutually exclusive? Julius Caesar did drag. General Patton believed in reincarnation. Hell there's probably a general or two who think God's a cookie.

(Extended middle finger to Kathy Shaidle)

I don't take any fault with Clark for suggesting this, since science is supposed to be about raising questions and meeting goals previously thought unobtainable.

But I do think that with all the major questions in the race that Wesley Clark hasn't declared his position on, it's kind of comical that we do now know where he stands on the issue of time travel.

"I still believe in e=mc2, but I can’t believe that in all of human history, we’ll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go,’ said Clark. ‘I happen to believe that mankind can do it...I’ve argued with physicists about it, I’ve argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It’s my only faith-based initiative.’....

Horsefeathers totally loses any credibility on this one by leaving out the first part of the above sentance, then stating that Wesley Clark "didn't accept Einstein's formulation of the relationship between space and time".

The editing out of the first part shows deliberate obfuscation and misdirection.

Where does General Clark state he believes that time travel will be possible? He doesn't. It is being implied from the notion that faster than light speed travel is possible. If you travel FTL, you should also go back in time. However, Clark doesn't say we will travel faster than light. He says we will travel beyond the speed of light.

There are a number of sound theories on how we might one day be able to travel beyond the speed of light with out physically moving at a velocity faster than the speed of light.

http://www.courseworkbank.co.uk/coursework/physics_interstellar_travel_610/

The above link provides a brief overview of some of the alternative methods being offered to theoretically support travel between two points in space that would take less than the amount of time for light to make the journey.

Clark's comment did not endorse actually breaking the speed of light limit. Thus, he is not challanging Einstien, nor is he implying time travel.

Absurdist spin like we see on this sight just give Scepticism a bad name.

That first sentence is even worse than the rest: he BELIEVES in E=mc2! Einstein would be horrified to find his hypothesis an object of faith, rather than scientific scrutiny. The scientific attitude is not one of "belief". The scientific method does not require nor expect "belief". Faith is the realm of religion. Clark is so out of his depth that he makes a fool of himself; I was being kind when I omitted that part of his remarks.

be·lieve
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v. intr.

1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

In this context, religious faith is not the proper definition for the word believe. You are playing semantic games to justify your omission and as a feint away from the fact that you deliberately mischaracterized his view on the acceptance of Einstein and E=MC².

The musings of Puthoff and Alcubierre are examples of how theoretically one could move "from here to there" in less time than the transit of light. Are they theoretically sound? Yes. Are they practical? For the forseable future, no.

However, since Clark was stating his optimism that at some point during the future existance of mankind such a feat may be obtainable, he's only guilty of understanding that mankind has the propensity to achieve what previous generations would have found laughably unobtainable and hope that mankind will survive as a species long enough to have any shot at making today's theories practical.

Here is a link to a NASA website detailing the problems of interstellar travel and the theoretical possibilities that may oneday allow for FTL travel (Note: FTL travel in this context usually refers not to actual velocity through space, although some theories do consider theoretical conditions where in our currently understood concept of the speed of light may not be constant).

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm

Please remember that we are this year celebrating the 100th aniversary of first manned flight of a heavier than air craft. Scientists and media were so sceptical of this possibility at the time of the first flight by the Wright Brothers at Kittyhawk, N.C. in 1903, that the feat was not generally accepted as legitimate by many until years after the fact.

Not only is this cautionary of overzealous scepticism, but the anniversary reminds us of how much progress we have made in 100 years.

Viable theories for what would effectively be FTL travel exist and they do fit with in the understood laws of Physics.

Some of these theories are very recent and we should not preclude the possibility that others will find alternative theories in the future, some of which may prove more practical than current theories or be based on future discoveries in science.

I'd be happy to leave it to anyone reading Clark's entire statement to decide which of the dictionary meanings of "believe" he is employing. I suppose the joking phrase "faith based initiative", wherein he acknowledges what he said by connecting it mockingly to the President's well known religious initiative, is also devoid of reference to religious faith.

"I suppose the joking phrase 'faith based initiative', wherein he acknowledges what he said by connecting it mockingly to the President's well known religious initiative, is also devoid of reference to religious faith."

Actually, if one were to remove the implied sarcasm from your above remark, you would be hitting the nail right on the head. Clark has turned the phrase to draw a contrast the kind of "faith" he is refering to, vs. religious faith. Clark may be willing to embrace concepts on the cutting edge of scientific thinking, but religion would not dictate his policies.

I'll spare everyone comment on how Millennialist Christian beliefs seems to be directly effecting presidential policies in many areas under the current President. Debate on matters of religion would seem to be inconsonant with a website dedicated to sceptical thought.

Clark only states his belief on a matter of cutting edge science. Contrary to your implications, he niether rejects Einstien's view of time-space (in fact, he explicitly accepts E=MC²), nor does he directly embrace time travel. Nor does he directly or indirectly reject "the limits imposed by modern physics".

Your initial comment is entirely spin and extreme spin at that. Usually, when one employs spin on another person's comments, they take some care at least make some accurate characterizations in their interpretation. This makes the bogus assertions easier to swallow.

To repeat myself, I'm comfortable letting the readers of Clark's full comments decide and hope you are too. They can also decide whether your own increasingly passionate assertions make rational sense or are "faith based".

Twisting the night away...

This is probably the only story debunking the Wesley Clark time travel tale. Of note: Wired changed the story once it began to circulate. Why? They knew they had mislead their readers.
http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A2235

If you read Clark's comments and don't seek to twist them to suit your own immediate political agenda, you will realize that he has the commonsense of historical precedent on his side. If our species survives, it is inevitable that we will figure out a way to "go beyond the speed of light to go wherever we want to go," since he is setting the timeframe for accomplishing this as "all of human history." We are already experimenting with quantum teleportation (www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation); where will we be in the year 20,003?

Whatever his religious beliefs (Catholic by way of Southern Baptist and rabbinical Judaism, I believe), the "faith" stated here is in human ingenuity, imagination, and scientific discipline. As regards technology, betting against that kind of faith has always been the loser's position.