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
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
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: 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: Nebullis
I have always wondered about this and I think it is addressed in this article. How can I ever touch anything if the closer I get the denominator of the fraction of the distance between my finger and the object keeps getting bigger. In other words my finger is a half inch away from the object. Then it is 1/4 inch then 1/8 then 1/16 etc... for infinity since numbers are infinite...or are they?
24 posted on
07/31/2003 7:53:13 AM PDT by
Drawsing
To: Nebullis
Bump
27 posted on
07/31/2003 7:55:58 AM PDT by
Fiddlstix
(Tag Lines Repaired While You Wait! Reasonable Prices! Fast Service!)
To: Nebullis
I tried to find the article but it looks like its not on the net yet. I found this,
"Boosts in an Arbitrary Direction and Maximal Causal Velocities in a Deformed Minkowski Space".
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson