| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2003 07:33:35 PM |
| Object: |
Re: OT: Einstein II? |
In article <pan.2003.08.03.14.14.43.844240@eac.org>,
says...
Must be, heh, time...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
No, I'm not following it yet myself. But it's impressing some major folks.
Hawking appears stumped.
Every so often, somebody unexpected comes out of the blue...
It's ok. I can see why some people have dismissed it. For example, he
says with respect to instantaneous velocity,
"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the
time interval, or how slowly an object moves ... it can't have a
determined relative position at any time, ... Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
But that doesn't quite seem to be the point. The point is that if we
marked off a point on the race track and a runner moves toward this point
then there exists some time X at which the most forward part of the
runner should reach this mark. We don't even have to know what time that
is exactly, or how that exact time was determined. Short of stopping or
turning around and leaving the race track there must be an exact first
time at which the runner reaches the border of the mark we set. Before
this time the runner was not there and after this time the runner is
beyond it by some amount. Of course I'm concealing certain assumptions
about a continuous interval, etc, but I don't see him addressing those
either.
Some of the other ideas the guy expresses sound suspiciously Kantian.
But he talks about a wide range of issues, so maybe he does have some
kind of insight.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
03 Aug 2003 09:55:21 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.199757b9ab3ace99989f8a@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <pan.2003.08.03.14.14.43.844240@eac.org>,
says...
Must be, heh, time...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
No, I'm not following it yet myself. But it's impressing some major
folks.
Hawking appears stumped.
Every so often, somebody unexpected comes out of the blue...
It's ok. I can see why some people have dismissed it. For example, he
says with respect to instantaneous velocity,
"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the
time interval, or how slowly an object moves ... it can't have a
determined relative position at any time, ... Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
But that doesn't quite seem to be the point. The point is that if we
marked off a point on the race track and a runner moves toward this point
then there exists some time X at which the most forward part of the
runner should reach this mark. We don't even have to know what time that
is exactly, or how that exact time was determined. Short of stopping or
turning around and leaving the race track there must be an exact first
time at which the runner reaches the border of the mark we set. Before
this time the runner was not there and after this time the runner is
beyond it by some amount. Of course I'm concealing certain assumptions
about a continuous interval, etc, but I don't see him addressing those
either.
Some of the other ideas the guy expresses sound suspiciously Kantian.
But he talks about a wide range of issues, so maybe he does have some
kind of insight.
But the universe just doesn't *work* that way. There is *not* necessary for
their to be a time X when the runner reaches the mark. He can be on one
side of the mark, then, quite simply, be on the other side. He doesn't have
to actually pass through the mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 12:00:54 AM |
|
|
In article <tWjXa.42193$cF.16061@rwcrnsc53>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.199757b9ab3ace99989f8a@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <pan.2003.08.03.14.14.43.844240@eac.org>,
says...
Must be, heh, time...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
No, I'm not following it yet myself. But it's impressing some major
folks.
Hawking appears stumped.
Every so often, somebody unexpected comes out of the blue...
It's ok. I can see why some people have dismissed it. For example, he
says with respect to instantaneous velocity,
"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the
time interval, or how slowly an object moves ... it can't have a
determined relative position at any time, ... Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
But that doesn't quite seem to be the point. The point is that if we
marked off a point on the race track and a runner moves toward this point
then there exists some time X at which the most forward part of the
runner should reach this mark. We don't even have to know what time that
is exactly, or how that exact time was determined. Short of stopping or
turning around and leaving the race track there must be an exact first
time at which the runner reaches the border of the mark we set. Before
this time the runner was not there and after this time the runner is
beyond it by some amount. Of course I'm concealing certain assumptions
about a continuous interval, etc, but I don't see him addressing those
either.
Some of the other ideas the guy expresses sound suspiciously Kantian.
But he talks about a wide range of issues, so maybe he does have some
kind of insight.
But the universe just doesn't *work* that way. There is *not* necessary for
their to be a time X when the runner reaches the mark. He can be on one
side of the mark, then, quite simply, be on the other side. He doesn't have
to actually pass through the mark.
That's why I said that I was making an implicit assumption about a
continuous interval. However, if we instead want to treat the interval
as discrete parts, presumably the mark is made on one or more of these
discrete pieces of matter. There should at least be a closest point to
which the person approached the mark with an associated time and a
nearest point at which the person moved beyond the mark.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 02:34:34 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1997966ff41c1e91989f8e@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <tWjXa.42193$cF.16061@rwcrnsc53>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.199757b9ab3ace99989f8a@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <pan.2003.08.03.14.14.43.844240@eac.org>,
iskanipa-y@hoo.com
says...
Must be, heh, time...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
No, I'm not following it yet myself. But it's impressing some major
folks.
Hawking appears stumped.
Every so often, somebody unexpected comes out of the blue...
It's ok. I can see why some people have dismissed it. For example,
he
says with respect to instantaneous velocity,
"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the
time interval, or how slowly an object moves ... it can't have a
determined relative position at any time, ... Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
But that doesn't quite seem to be the point. The point is that if we
marked off a point on the race track and a runner moves toward this
point
then there exists some time X at which the most forward part of the
runner should reach this mark. We don't even have to know what time
that
is exactly, or how that exact time was determined. Short of stopping
or
turning around and leaving the race track there must be an exact first
time at which the runner reaches the border of the mark we set.
Before
this time the runner was not there and after this time the runner is
beyond it by some amount. Of course I'm concealing certain
assumptions
about a continuous interval, etc, but I don't see him addressing those
either.
Some of the other ideas the guy expresses sound suspiciously Kantian.
But he talks about a wide range of issues, so maybe he does have some
kind of insight.
But the universe just doesn't *work* that way. There is *not* necessary
for
their to be a time X when the runner reaches the mark. He can be on one
side of the mark, then, quite simply, be on the other side. He doesn't
have
to actually pass through the mark.
That's why I said that I was making an implicit assumption about a
continuous interval.
I *am* talking about a continuous interval.
However, if we instead want to treat the interval
as discrete parts, presumably the mark is made on one or more of these
discrete pieces of matter. There should at least be a closest point to
which the person approached the mark with an associated time and a
nearest point at which the person moved beyond the mark.
There's no need for a "discrete interval", I'm just talking about the
run-of-the-mill quantum mechanical description of the way a particle moves
on a continuous interval. Like an electron or something. Imagine just a
probability ampitude propogating forward and making a measurement of
position causes the wave function to collapse and you observe a position
somewhere in the packet. My point is, that this standard description
provided by quantum mechanics doesn't have Zeno's paradox because the object
is never *at* the finish line. In fact, there is an infinitly small
probability of measuring the object and having it's wave packet collapse at
*exactly* the finish line. His whole paper doesn't fit with the way we
*know* particles behave quantum mechanically.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 09:39:25 AM |
|
|
In article <e0oXa.61226$YN5.47684@sccrnsc01>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1997966ff41c1e91989f8e@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <tWjXa.42193$cF.16061@rwcrnsc53>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.199757b9ab3ace99989f8a@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <pan.2003.08.03.14.14.43.844240@eac.org>,
iskanipa-y@hoo.com
says...
Must be, heh, time...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
No, I'm not following it yet myself. But it's impressing some major
folks.
Hawking appears stumped.
Every so often, somebody unexpected comes out of the blue...
It's ok. I can see why some people have dismissed it. For example,
he
says with respect to instantaneous velocity,
"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the
time interval, or how slowly an object moves ... it can't have a
determined relative position at any time, ... Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
But that doesn't quite seem to be the point. The point is that if we
marked off a point on the race track and a runner moves toward this
point
then there exists some time X at which the most forward part of the
runner should reach this mark. We don't even have to know what time
that
is exactly, or how that exact time was determined. Short of stopping
or
turning around and leaving the race track there must be an exact first
time at which the runner reaches the border of the mark we set.
Before
this time the runner was not there and after this time the runner is
beyond it by some amount. Of course I'm concealing certain
assumptions
about a continuous interval, etc, but I don't see him addressing those
either.
Some of the other ideas the guy expresses sound suspiciously Kantian.
But he talks about a wide range of issues, so maybe he does have some
kind of insight.
But the universe just doesn't *work* that way. There is *not* necessary
for
their to be a time X when the runner reaches the mark. He can be on one
side of the mark, then, quite simply, be on the other side. He doesn't
have
to actually pass through the mark.
That's why I said that I was making an implicit assumption about a
continuous interval.
I *am* talking about a continuous interval.
However, if we instead want to treat the interval
as discrete parts, presumably the mark is made on one or more of these
discrete pieces of matter. There should at least be a closest point to
which the person approached the mark with an associated time and a
nearest point at which the person moved beyond the mark.
There's no need for a "discrete interval", I'm just talking about the
run-of-the-mill quantum mechanical description of the way a particle moves
on a continuous interval.
That's fine, but I was also just talking about run of the mill
mathematical calculations. When you solve some equation of motion it
tells you that at time t a particle is going to be at a specific place.
Many of those equations make assumptions about the functions being
continuous or at least step-wise continuous. Now the reality may be that
we cannot be certain that a particle will be in an exact place, but only
assign some probability to this event. That's fine too. As long as the
particle is in some neighborhood at any given time in it's motion we can
assign it a rough position corresponding to observed motion. Motion is,
after all, apparent change in position over time. One would imagine that
at an given time a particle must be somewhere and that we could not
observe motion at all unless at various sequential points in time we did
observe the particle at positions closer and closer to some goal or mark.
Even if it jumps over the mark I'm describing in its motion, there still
should be some last instant in a given time period at which it was
observed in front of the mark and then an instant at which it is observed
to be beyond the mark. Science is stuck with observations, even if our
measurements can't be perfect. Our conceptual models may help, but we
still have to explain why we observe motion.
Like an electron or something. Imagine just a
probability ampitude propogating forward and making a measurement of
position causes the wave function to collapse and you observe a position
somewhere in the packet. My point is, that this standard description
provided by quantum mechanics doesn't have Zeno's paradox because the object
is never *at* the finish line. In fact, there is an infinitly small
probability of measuring the object and having it's wave packet collapse at
*exactly* the finish line. His whole paper doesn't fit with the way we
*know* particles behave quantum mechanically.
Yeah, well, that paper seems to suggest that a particle in motion isn't
ever anywhere along the observed interval of it's motion. It's not clear
why any motion is observed at all, in this case, though he pays lip
service to the view that your mind generates the illusion of motion.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 03:08:27 PM |
|
|
In article <XQxXa.44590$Oz4.12706@rwcrnsc54>, says...
That paper seems to suggest that the author doesn't understand his own
*****, much less the rest of physics. He reminds me of some the the
armchair philosophers we get posting to this group every once in a while.
I'm not sure how else you would do philosophy :). I mean I guess you
don't technically need an armchair. But it doesn't really involve a lot
of hands on stuff. Just a lot of sitting around on your ***** reading and
thinking.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 06:52:27 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19986b259b851cda989f95@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <XQxXa.44590$Oz4.12706@rwcrnsc54>, says...
That paper seems to suggest that the author doesn't understand his own
*****, much less the rest of physics. He reminds me of some the the
armchair philosophers we get posting to this group every once in a
while.
I'm not sure how else you would do philosophy :). I mean I guess you
don't technically need an armchair. But it doesn't really involve a lot
of hands on stuff. Just a lot of sitting around on your ***** reading and
thinking.
True. Philosophy is about as worthless as theology. It's embarrasing that
they still teach that useless ***** in college.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smackn Rat" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 09:08:04 PM |
|
|
"Nakas" <> wrote in message
news:XkCXa.45624$Oz4.12004@rwcrnsc54...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19986b259b851cda989f95@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <XQxXa.44590$Oz4.12706@rwcrnsc54>, says...
That paper seems to suggest that the author doesn't understand his own
*****, much less the rest of physics. He reminds me of some the
the
armchair philosophers we get posting to this group every once in a
while.
I'm not sure how else you would do philosophy :). I mean I guess you
don't technically need an armchair. But it doesn't really involve a lot
of hands on stuff. Just a lot of sitting around on your ***** reading and
thinking.
True. Philosophy is about as worthless as theology. It's embarrasing
that
they still teach that useless ***** in college.
Really? Interesting.. Care to explain this view?
--SR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 10:57:59 PM |
|
|
"Smack'n Rat" <smacknrat@-nospam-toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:8kEXa.385768$jp.11077253@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Nakas" < > wrote in message
news:XkCXa.45624$Oz4.12004@rwcrnsc54...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19986b259b851cda989f95@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <XQxXa.44590$Oz4.12706@rwcrnsc54>,
says...
That paper seems to suggest that the author doesn't understand his
own
*****, much less the rest of physics. He reminds me of some the
the
armchair philosophers we get posting to this group every once in a
while.
I'm not sure how else you would do philosophy :). I mean I guess you
don't technically need an armchair. But it doesn't really involve a
lot
of hands on stuff. Just a lot of sitting around on your ***** reading
and
thinking.
True. Philosophy is about as worthless as theology. It's embarrasing
that
they still teach that useless ***** in college.
Really? Interesting.. Care to explain this view?
--SR
Sure, I feel it's just obsolete. Philosophy emphasizes drawing conclusions
about the universe using pure reason. However, experience teaches us that
our reasoning very often turns out to be wrong. That's why science
emphasizes checking results with observations. As a result science has been
infinitely more productive than philosophy.
The reason I feel philosophy is akin to theology is because both deal with
things that cannot be proven true to false. Because of this it's a haven
for people who want to push ideological agendas without being challenged on
it.
Also, I think it's silly that we still put philosophers like Descartes and
Hume up on a pedestal. What good has any of their stuff done? What's so
great about "I think therefore I am"? He proves that he exists... how
useless! That's about as significant as proving that ***** stinks. Plus the
proof he gives is just laughable. The only reason people think this phrase
is so brilliant is because everyone else seems to think it is. I just don't
see any clothes on these emperors. I've seen better ideas get flamed on
this newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
05 Aug 2003 11:16:29 AM |
|
|
In article <bXFXa.47361$Vt6.17979@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
says...
"Smack'n Rat" <smacknrat@-nospam-toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:8kEXa.385768$jp.11077253@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Nakas" < > wrote in message
news:XkCXa.45624$Oz4.12004@rwcrnsc54...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19986b259b851cda989f95@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <XQxXa.44590$Oz4.12706@rwcrnsc54>,
says...
That paper seems to suggest that the author doesn't understand his
own
*****, much less the rest of physics. He reminds me of some the
the
armchair philosophers we get posting to this group every once in a
while.
I'm not sure how else you would do philosophy :). I mean I guess you
don't technically need an armchair. But it doesn't really involve a
lot
of hands on stuff. Just a lot of sitting around on your ***** reading
and
thinking.
True. Philosophy is about as worthless as theology. It's embarrasing
that
they still teach that useless ***** in college.
Really? Interesting.. Care to explain this view?
--SR
Sure, I feel it's just obsolete. Philosophy emphasizes drawing conclusions
about the universe using pure reason. However, experience teaches us that
our reasoning very often turns out to be wrong. That's why science
emphasizes checking results with observations. As a result science has been
infinitely more productive than philosophy.
Many people would suggest that scientific progress was in large part
assisted by philosophical outlooks, like empirical philosophy,
naturalism, materialism, humanism, etc. Science itself makes statements
that are philosophical, rather than empirical. It's theory of knowledge
is not itself a piece of science. It's philosophy. Back in the day
scientists used to be called "Natural philosophers".
The reason I feel philosophy is akin to theology is because both deal with
things that cannot be proven true to false.
There are many philosophical schools of thought that specifically address
these problems. Kant's _Prolegomena to any future metaphysics_ also
specifically addresses the problem of philosophers constructing systems
which can't be proven true or false.
Because of this it's a haven
for people who want to push ideological agendas without being challenged on
it.
It's not clear that all things in philosophy can never be proven true or
false. One can construct philosophical theories of mind, ethics, etc
which may be testable at some point in the real world.
Also, I think it's silly that we still put philosophers like Descartes and
Hume up on a pedestal.
Well, Descartes was a dumbass when it came to theology. But he was a
mathematician too and did a lot to develop analytic geometry. Also, his
followers, perhaps more so than the master himself, did a lot to advance
a simplified and more empirical view of science. Hume was mainly
effective as a skeptic. He helped, as Gould put it, to remove certain
intellectual rubbish which was distracting and polluting the minds of the
people of his day. Not that all his stuff was so great. Hume did not
like many philosophers either and worked as an historian and royal
librarian. At one point he recommended that all books on metaphysics be
"consigned to the flames" :). You'd like him, prolly ;).
What good has any of their stuff done? What's so
great about "I think therefore I am"?
Nothing. That's pretty lame really and a total rip off of Augustine.
But in theory he is trying to encourage people to look for foundational
points in knowledge.
He proves that he exists... how
useless! That's about as significant as proving that ***** stinks. Plus the
proof he gives is just laughable.
People who study philosophy seldom have to agree with every author they
study. Most philosophy classes spend their time tearing down the
majority of ideas that these writers proposed. Not that I'm a philosophy
major or anything. I've taken some classes though. It's not too bad
until you get a seminar class with 70 people from the English department
and all kinds of other people trying to discuss Nietzsche. Talk about
drowning in nonsense.
The only reason people think this phrase
is so brilliant is because everyone else seems to think it is. I just don't
see any clothes on these emperors.
Descartes' foundationalism, as expressed in the cogito for example, has
been pretty well discredited. Most people were at least dubious of the
assumptions necessary for his "proof", which seems to beg the question
rather than anything else. Some people still think it might be something
we do know with certainty, which is what descartes was after, even though
descartes justification for it is bunk.
I've seen better ideas get flamed on
this newsgroup.
We have the advantage of many hundreds of years of intellectual and
philosophical progress.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 11:21:57 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1998da0e9ddc83e5989f98@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <XkCXa.45624$Oz4.12004@rwcrnsc54>, says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19986b259b851cda989f95@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <XQxXa.44590$Oz4.12706@rwcrnsc54>,
says...
That paper seems to suggest that the author doesn't understand his
own
*****, much less the rest of physics. He reminds me of some the
the
armchair philosophers we get posting to this group every once in a
while.
I'm not sure how else you would do philosophy :). I mean I guess you
don't technically need an armchair. But it doesn't really involve a
lot
of hands on stuff. Just a lot of sitting around on your ***** reading
and
thinking.
True. Philosophy is about as worthless as theology. It's embarrasing
that
they still teach that useless ***** in college.
Oh, it's not quite that bad. I think that a little philosophy can be a
good thing, especially for cranky engineers and physicists :).
I have my Issac Asimov collection for that.
After all, you did say earlier in this thread, "If you want to say
something something, write an equation. If you want to say nothing,
write a paragraph."
Now if you said that to philosophy majors they would have probably
immediately tried to jump your ***** by claiming that because you didn't
write an equation to express that statement, and instead wrote a
paragraph that, by your own standard, your own rule must mean nothing :).
Of course in order to critique the consistency of your rule they would
have to be careful to only express themselves only in mathematical and
symbolic logic form, or they would fall victim to the same criticism. :)
I kinda hate it when the philosophy guys play their little word games,
and they do play them a lot. But it might serve some useful purpose if
it gets people to clarify what they mean in more precise ways :).
let S = but(equals(think( I, opinion(expressed(you)) ), correct), hate( I,
write(like(reference(S))) ^ when(interval(now, forever)))); S = true
So maybe someone should lighten up a bit. How can you be an atheist and
not be interested in philosophy or theology at all?
Simple, I think neither have anything to offer. Instead I study physics and
psychology.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cesar Sirvent" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 10:09:18 AM |
|
|
See http://www.thequantummachine.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 01:50:02 PM |
|
|
"Cesar Sirvent" <info@thequantummachine.com> wrote in message
news:2410d7e.0308040709.774fc548@posting.google.com...
See http://www.thequantummachine.com
I read it... or tried to. A confusing paper is usually the result of a
confused mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 07:23:54 PM |
|
|
"Kevin Anthoney" <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f2eb594$0$11385$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
Nakas wrote:
"Cesar Sirvent" <info@thequantummachine.com> wrote in message
news:2410d7e.0308040709.774fc548@posting.google.com...
See http://www.thequantummachine.com
I read it... or tried to. A confusing paper is usually the result of a
confused mind.
IMO, it's no more confused than the paper it's rebutting.
I meant Lynd's paper was confused, I didn't even see the rebuttal. I think
the rebuttal is fine. It's funny how the rebuttal described Lynd's idea
more clearly than Lynd himself did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 12:30:21 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.199757b9ab3ace99989f8a@news.cis.dfn.de>...
In article <pan.2003.08.03.14.14.43.844240@eac.org>,
says...
Must be, heh, time...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
No, I'm not following it yet myself. But it's impressing some major folks.
Hawking appears stumped.
Every so often, somebody unexpected comes out of the blue...
It's ok. I can see why some people have dismissed it. For example, he
says with respect to instantaneous velocity,
"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the
time interval, or how slowly an object moves ... it can't have a
determined relative position at any time, ... Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
The man is ignoring his high school calculous. Everything happens
with-in limits.
You cannot measure anything instantaneously. By the time you register
your measurement, that, that you measured, is somewhere else. It's
like trying to tell someone exactly what time it is.
Time is change. No change, no time. If our universe was quick
frozen, by an outsider, for a thousand years, and then started up
again, no time would have passed for anything in relation to each
other in our universe.
But that doesn't quite seem to be the point. The point is that if we
marked off a point on the race track and a runner moves toward this point
then there exists some time X at which the most forward part of the
runner should reach this mark. We don't even have to know what time that
is exactly, or how that exact time was determined. Short of stopping or
turning around and leaving the race track there must be an exact first
time at which the runner reaches the border of the mark we set. Before
this time the runner was not there and after this time the runner is
beyond it by some amount. Of course I'm concealing certain assumptions
about a continuous interval, etc, but I don't see him addressing those
either.
Some of the other ideas the guy expresses sound suspiciously Kantian.
But he talks about a wide range of issues, so maybe he does have some
kind of insight.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Einstein II? |
04 Aug 2003 09:59:07 AM |
|
|
In article <54de13e7.0308032130.1fecb5e1@posting.google.com>, hey-
joe@swbell.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.199757b9ab3ace99989f8a@news.cis.dfn.de>...
In article <pan.2003.08.03.14.14.43.844240@eac.org>,
says...
Must be, heh, time...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php
No, I'm not following it yet myself. But it's impressing some major folks.
Hawking appears stumped.
Every so often, somebody unexpected comes out of the blue...
It's ok. I can see why some people have dismissed it. For example, he
says with respect to instantaneous velocity,
"With some thought it should become clear that no matter how small the
time interval, or how slowly an object moves ... it can't have a
determined relative position at any time, ... Indeed, if it did, it
couldn't be in motion."
The man is ignoring his high school calculous.
Agreed.
Everything happens
with-in limits.
Yep.
You cannot measure anything instantaneously. By the time you register
your measurement, that, that you measured, is somewhere else.
If you want to measure where a particle is on a continuous interval at
time X and you know it takes you time t to do this measurement then you
just start your measurement at time X-t :). Of course there is some
problem of achieving certainty in measurement. But I'm just saying that
I disagree with this guy's assertion that an object in motion is never
at any one place at any one time. The object has to be somewhere at any
given time, doesn't it? We might not know exactly where it is and just
assign it to some region with a certain probability. That that doesn't
mean the particle isn't anywhere, has his suggestion would have it.
It's
like trying to tell someone exactly what time it is.
Time is change. No change, no time.
The problem here is that it may not be possible for there to be space
without time. We only infer the existence of space by observing changes
such as motion. That's why people like Einstein started to conclude that
space and time were sides of the same coin.
If our universe was quick frozen, by an outsider, for a thousand years, and then started up
again, no time would have passed for anything in relation to each
other in our universe.
But if we buy the assumption that we could quick freeze the universe then
wouldn't this show that things were at a definite position at the moment
that they were frozen. Just curious. I'm not trying to be argumentative
as such. I'm just mulling stuff over like everyone else.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
