Twilight Utilities wrote:

I'm not sure the doppler shift rebuttal is necessarily correct. I have to
think about it some more.

In any case I wouldn't call the chap a crank. He maybe incorrect but who
among us has not erred? Was Newton a crank because he concluded that light
increased in speed when it passed through a refractive media? Lynds' work
does not pass the standard test of a crank. Judgment errors are not purely
the mark of a crank, they are in fact part and parcel of just being human.

For myself, I slowed to a crawl on this one because:
1) John Wheeler accepts it
2) Hawking has so far withheld judgment
3) A sufficient number of respected referees have passed it.
4) It's not immediately obvious to me

If he is a "crank" he is in a rare group that has passed these tests.

I was curious enough to download:
<http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:AP2Udx6uxwkJ:philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001197/02/Zeno%27s_Paradoxes_-_A_Timely_Solution.pdf+%22Peter+Lynds%22+paper&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>

All I could make of it is, that like Zeno, he creates a premise that
'could' lead to a paradox.

Without bases, he states( page 6):
------
Regardless of how small and accurate the value is made
however, it
cannot indicate a precise static instant in time at which a
value would theoretically be precisely
determined, because there is not a precise static instant in
time underlying a dynamical physical
process. If there were, the relative position of a body in
relative motion or a specific physical
magnitude, although precisely determined at such a precise static
instant, it would also by way of
logical necessity be frozen static at that precise static instant.
Furthermore, events and all physical
magnitudes would remain frozen static, as such a precise static
instant in time would remain frozen
static at the same precise static instant: motion would not be possible.
------

Well, duh. If you don't have a 'time interval', you don't have motion.
But to extend this mental concept to reality is better left in a court
of law. (In a court of law your objective is to lure the jury into your
mindset.) Just because he creates this paradox in his mind does not mean
it has validity.

As pointed out by the other poster, just because he takes the instance
of a point and says that point doesn't have the quality of slope,
doesn't make it so. A point can clearly have the quality of slope in
calculus. And again, what we do in our heads can not possibly dictate to
nature, a reality. (Unless you are willing to get metaphysical.) So,
there should be no mystery that a moving object can have a precise
location at a given instant and have a precise relative velocity. (QM aside)

As for the matter of Wheeler and Hawking. I could find no reference on
the web. My opinion thus far is that they have either never heard of
Lynds or don't think his concepts are worth dignifying.

Best, Dan.

however, it cannot indicate a precise static instant in time at >which a value would theoretically be precisely
determined, because there is not a precise static instant in
time underlying a dynamical physical process.

Yes, it is his point. He tries to demonstrate that by reductio ad
absurdum. But he fails there.