MaxCathedral Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Most of the following is culled from http://www.space.com, my favorite science page. This one of course being my second favorite. It appears that a 27 year old untrained theorist named Lynd has said some amazing things about time. I have heavily edited from the article. Goals never reached The most famous paradox invented by Zeno, the Greek philosopher, is called "Achilles and the tortoise." A tortoise gets a 10-meter head start in a race against Achilles. Zeno says the tortoise can never be passed. His logic: When Achilles has run 10 meters, the tortoise will have moved a meter; Achilles goes another meter, and the tortoise crawls 10 more centimeters. The race continues in this ever-more boring and incremental fashion. A related paradox, called the dichotomy, argues that you can never reach a goal. First you'll have to travel half the distance, then half that distance, and so on. You might as well stay home. Reality is different, of course -- goals are reached and tortoises often lose. But philosophers and physicists have not been able to explain the paradoxes away. Lynds claims the paradoxes result from an incorrect physical assumption from long ago. From ancient times to the present, philosophers and physicists have assumed that objects in motion have determined positions at any instant in time. It's not true, Lynds says. "I'm surprised this hasn't been realized before," Lynds said, calling many aspects of his theory very simple. No flow of time One implication of Lynds' work is a really hard to wrap a mind around. If he's right that there are no instants in time related to physical processes, then there is no such thing as a flow of time, because such a flow inherently requires progression through definite instants -- exactly what Lynds forbids. So are we all frozen in time and space? Impossible, he says. "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity." Again, you'll recall, Lynds does not allow this. Perhaps you smell another paradox on the horizon. However, Lynds reasons that the lack of instants is what allows Nature to have time that we can, in turn, watch go by on our clocks. Confused? You are not alone. It will likely be some time before Lynds' ideas are shaken out by his new, lofty peers and determined to be revolutionary, interesting or just plain wrongheaded. Max: In short Lynd is against the idea " that time can be thought of in physical, definable quantities. In essence, scientists have long assumed that motion can be considered in frozen moments, or instants, even as time flows on." "There isn't a precise instant underlying an object's motion," he said. "And as its position is constantly changing over time -- and as such, never determined -- it also doesn't have a determined position at any time" Understand? Waiter, check please? Time does not exist.....I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intelligence Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 First off. Math as we have made it encompass is man-made. Applying the "halves" of math to reality is HUMAN ERROR. Much of math is universal - this is a stupid illogical application of math that (obviously) is wrong in reality. One can use halves and never get the reality answer, or one can use addition and multiplcation and get the reality answer. What this person is saying is that time does not have continuous values. It's idiotic for ANYONE here to even try to prove or disprove this. Time is merely a function of space. If space is discrete, then it's likely time is as well. But this person has provided an age old concept (this is nothing new) with no evidence that I see. And ultimately, who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 I think he did submit a peer-reviewed article somehwere, I'll see if I can dig it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 It is published here, but August's articles aren't up yet: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0894-9875/contents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxCathedral Posted August 13, 2003 Author Share Posted August 13, 2003 Intelligence, you constantly surprise me.... First...math is not a man made structure. One plus one equals two. If there were no humans on the planet that that would still be true. This lack on your part to grasp abstract thought as shown by your crude remarks concerning religion fascinates me. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" Act 1, Scene 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intelligence Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Max - you are incorrect. It's funny how you try to insult people while yourself looking so illinformed and helpless. SOME of math is universal. SOME is not. Humans have added to the universal math with INCORRECT math. You sir are stinking of incorrect math. Thus the stupid halves problem. Yet further proof that religious people cannot possibly comprehend anything in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 That's enough. [edit] Recommended: A book that helps distinguish learning maths and understanding maths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I think what we have here is a case of Einsteins Gulf - the gulf separating our abstract model of the universe from the physical reality itself. in order to model the universe it is essential for us to rely on a mathematical structure (unless someone discovers something better than maths). However this does leave with it various artefacts which may or may not exist in the physical world. the "half" has been brought up.... one can mathematically imagine "half" a fundamental particle, or even half a particle like a proton, but no such thing actually exists. when considering the mathematics of a situation we must always be careful to also consider the physical principles that underly the model, blind faith in the maths alone is likely to lead to error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Time in its most basic concept is merely an arbirary but constant unit of measurement used to quantify Change. It is also that which stops everything form occuring at once. the key is in the 1`st line, since we use a distinct quantifiable unit called the second. then we make time between events finite. it will take you 10 second to reach your goal, the creature will take100 seconds. If on the other hand we were use the sliding scale of time between 0 and it`s reciprocal infinity, without a starting point, then your dichotmy would apply, because on this scale there are no reference markers, and we can always divide by 2 or multiply by 2 and still be in the same position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Planck units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intelligence Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Like I says. Jakiri - Do you even know what a Planck unit is? Or was that dictionary.com's word of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 intelligence, why do you constantly feel the need to be obnoxious? and lower yourself to the level of an UNintelligent GRUNT? this isn`t the 1`st thread I`ve observed where your behaviour is such... what`s it all about dude? there`s a saying and it`s my own saying, " You can dim someone elses bulb, but it doesn`t make yours any brighter" think about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 i think i've said this before on some other thread, but the way i see it of coarse time exists. An object moves from point A to point B, it takes a certain amount of time for this change to occur. Time is an inevitable property of space. I agree with intelligence that some of our endevours in more complex forms of math can be incorrect, or at least not really applicable to real life (though i guess a lot is too, but the line can be fine) "Yet further proof that religious people cannot possibly comprehend anything in reality." perhaps Max was wrong in subtle attempts to insult you, but no more wrong than you. Proof cannont be prooven. Even science is about faith, so allow people to their own beliefs. I do not try to offer proof to how my religious beliefs are possible, thats ridiculous because that would not be faith. Now science is about a different thing of attempting to proove, but you must always take a leap of faith in choosing what data to use in your conclusions. So do as you do and do not preach, it does not work (is my advice). There is a scientific theory, i believe it is involved with the theory of chaos, some people have told me i was wrong, but i know i saw it in an article on the subject, it is : sometimes seeming random data is actually caused by a perfectly ordered function, i'm not sure if this could also be said that a seeming ordered function is actually random---- but anyhow i use this as another testament to reason why must question everything : perhaps all of our scientific beliefs are ignorant assumptions we make because there are factors about the functions that we cannot see detect or comprehend. It would be foolish to put complete faith in this as well, but i think we aught to accept it as a possibiltiy, and a reason not to preach anything as being proovable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Originally posted by Intelligence Jakiri - Do you even know what a Planck unit is? They resolve Zeno's paradox. ps. http://www.oed.com is superior, but requires a subscription. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intelligence Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Exactly. You looked a random word up in the dictionary. Planck Units have 100% NOTHING to do with this column. As far as whoever mentioned being obnoxious. If you find the truth obnoxious you're in for a life of NAUSEA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 I see someone didn't read the original post. And please be civil. Originally posted by MaxCathedral Reality is different, of course -- goals are reached and tortoises often lose. But philosophers and physicists have not been able to explain the paradoxes away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intelligence Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Praise Jesus, Amen. Ooops, forgot I'm an Atheist. Sorry I am often an angry person, it comes from living in a world with FEELERS and not THINKERS. My apoligies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Originally posted by Intelligence Sorry I am often an angry person, it comes from living in a world with FEELERS and not THINKERS. You don't see this as somewhat contradictory? As anger is a feeling, and one not particularly conducive to rational thought, surely that places you in the former category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intelligence Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Oh God. You just don't get it. It's like everyone here loves to try to pick the shit out of everything. No it's not contradictory. I don't let my feelings bother my attempts to think critically. Come on man, quit nit-picking. Next you'll attack spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Here's a link in case anyone wants to read the space.com article. The actual paper doesn't look like it will be online for a few months http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Originally posted by Intelligence Oh God. You just don't get it. It's like everyone here loves to try to pick the shit out of everything. No it's not contradictory. I don't let my feelings bother my attempts to think critically. Ahhh...you're one of those who believe their thinking is not influenced by their feelings . Come on man, quit nit-picking. Next you'll attack spelling. Not here I won't. I do that only when I get paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Originally posted by YT2095 there`s a saying and it`s my own saying, " You can dim someone elses bulb, but it doesn`t make yours any brighter" think about it! amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebeldog Posted September 3, 2003 Share Posted September 3, 2003 There is nothing new in this thought experiment. Fire an arrow at a target 50 meters away and then go and retrieve the arrow. Step back to the towards the point where the arrow was fired at half of the total distance every time. ie- 50m-25m-12.5m-6.25m. This would result in the point where the arrow was fire never being reached as moving by half the distance every time will never take you to the goal, thus making motion impossible. This is of course rubbish. This experiment has people confusing very large numbers with infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Yes, it's called Xeno's Paradox, and has already been resolved, to my satisfaction at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Intelligence was a whiney little brat wasnt he? I never read this thread before. You could have changed his name to something far more insulting but I suppose 'stupid ****ing halfwit' would be immature and look bad on behalf of the mods and admins. Still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now