Skip to comments.
Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
Eurekalert ^
| July 31, 2003
| Brooke Jones
Posted on 07/31/2003 7:13:14 AM PDT by Nebullis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-203 next last
1
posted on
07/31/2003 7:13:15 AM PDT
by
Nebullis
To: Doctor Stochastic; Junior; js1138; BMCDA; CobaltBlue; ThinkPlease; PatrickHenry; ...
Hmm... interesting.
2
posted on
07/31/2003 7:14:32 AM PDT
by
Nebullis
To: Nebullis
3
posted on
07/31/2003 7:19:44 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Nebullis
4
posted on
07/31/2003 7:20:42 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: js1138
Same subject, different write-up?
5
posted on
07/31/2003 7:21:20 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Nebullis
Wow.
Time to roll a tusker.
To: Nebullis
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.
;^)
7
posted on
07/31/2003 7:24:12 AM PDT
by
logos
To: Nebullis
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.
8
posted on
07/31/2003 7:24:45 AM PDT
by
Capriole
(Foi vainquera)
To: 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.
9
posted on
07/31/2003 7:25:22 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Nebullis
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.
10
posted on
07/31/2003 7:30:03 AM PDT
by
alnitak
("That kid's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver" - Foghorn Leghorn)
To: msdrby
science ping
11
posted on
07/31/2003 7:32:26 AM PDT
by
Prof Engineer
(I won't FReep at work, I won't FReep at work, I won't FReep at work, I won't FReep at work)
To: alnitak
No, this is Hugh...
12
posted on
07/31/2003 7:38:07 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Nebullis
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.
To: 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. Something will come of this, even if this paper is wrong, because it is a novel way of thinking about these things.
14
posted on
07/31/2003 7:38:39 AM PDT
by
Nebullis
To: Nebullis
Beautiful.
Thanks for posting.
To: logos
MY FRIEND! Imagine us meeting on a thread such as this after so long a time.........
16
posted on
07/31/2003 7:42:09 AM PDT
by
WVNan
To: VadeRetro
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.
17
posted on
07/31/2003 7:44:36 AM PDT
by
Nebullis
To: logos
So, what does this do to the "outside of space and time" idea?
18
posted on
07/31/2003 7:45:28 AM PDT
by
Nebullis
To: RadioAstronomer
Here ya go Mike. Chew on this for awhile.
19
posted on
07/31/2003 7:47:04 AM PDT
by
WVNan
To: Nebullis
Bump for pondering in the privacy of my chambers later.
20
posted on
07/31/2003 7:47:40 AM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(>>>>>Liberals Suk. Liberalism Sukz.<<<<<)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-203 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson