Ground-breaking work in understanding of time

Eurekalert ^ | July 31, 2003 | Brooke Jones

[Nebullis]

Hmm... interesting.

[js1138]

Is this a dupe?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/955624/posts

[Consort]

Amateur mathematician's time theories published at last

[js1138]

Same subject, different write-up?

[RockChucker]

Wow.

Time to roll a tusker.

[logos]

The only time you or I, or anyone else, has available to us is now...oops, I mean now...no, now... Oh, the heck with it.

There is no past nor future, only now, and now is fleeting, indeed.

;^)

[Capriole]

being sniggered at by local physicists when he originally approached them with the work, and once aware it had been accepted for publication, one informing the journal of the author's lack of formal qualification in an attempt to have them reject it.

I can't honestly say I'm surprised; this sort of petty stupid thing is so sadly common among people who are supposed to be looking for the truth.

[js1138]

I'm pretty certain that anyone getting past John Wheeler cannot be called a kook, even if the work turns out to be rubbish.

[alnitak]

Lynds' solution to all of the paradoxes lay in the realisation of the absence of an instant in time underlying a bodies motion and that its position was constantly changing over time and never determined. He comments, "With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the time interval, or how slowly an object moves during that interval, it is still in motion and it's position is constantly changing, so it can't have a determined relative position at any time, whether during a interval, however small, or at an instant. Indeed, if it did, it couldn't be in motion."

Most people believe there are a succession of moments and that objects in motion have determined positions. [This second quote, from the Prof, refers to quantization of time and space.]

To a layman like me, Lynds seems to be saying that time and space aren't quantized. In other words, quantum theory is blown out of the water????!!!?? That would be hugh.

[Prof Engineer]

science ping

[js1138]

No, this is Hugh...

[VadeRetro]

When approached about Lynds' arguments against his theory, Hawking failed to respond.

Choking, perhaps.

Looking at the snippets of Lynds's writing in this article, and the anecdote of his "hurry up and get it" interaction with Grigson, I'd guess one problem he's going to have is a tendency to not explain himself very well.

[Nebullis]

I'm pretty certain that anyone getting past John Wheeler cannot be called a kook, even if the work turns out to be rubbish.

Something will come of this, even if this paper is wrong, because it is a novel way of thinking about these things.

[headsonpikes]

Beautiful.

Thanks for posting.

[WVNan]

MY FRIEND! Imagine us meeting on a thread such as this after so long a time.........

[Nebullis]

I'd guess one problem he's going to have is a tendency to not explain himself very well.

I think there's always been a camp that believes we think in verbal constructs and if it can't be clearly stated, it isn't cleary thought, and a camp that believes we think in imagery and if the imagery is complex it is difficult to translate into verbal constructs. I suspect the math is be more explanatory.

[Nebullis]

So, what does this do to the "outside of space and time" idea?

[WVNan]

Here ya go Mike. Chew on this for awhile.

[DoctorMichael]

Bump for pondering in the privacy of my chambers later.