Umm I don't know. It really does not say anything about his theory, atleast not that I got out of it. Either it is too vague (there are no instants in time??) or it is just too complex. It just does not give any details, which would really help a reader get an idea as to whether this has any merit or not.
That was interesting. A little heavy but interesting.
Basically he says that "Time" is not a valid mesurement for motion because you, to put it simply, can not mesure time.
And maybe to put it into some thing a little more general. It could be looked at in the same way the many of the people here of the forums consider a great many things. That being time is only relative to ones perspective.
I'd like to see an article that has a bit more info about the theory and a bit less info about the guy himself. This article explains very little!
Ha found it...I had to do some digging but here it is..
The paper written by the man himself.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001197/
I haven't read it yet, so I will post more later.
Zeno's paradox disappears when one actually engages the brain and realizes that when the tortoise move a meter Zone move ten. In other words by the time the T has moved 12 meters Zeno's moved 20.
This paradox exists only when one fails to take into account relative motion.
The article gives no details of the theory. The only actual information is the reference to Zeno's paradox that everyone knows, or should know, is a fallacy in perceiving relative motion.
I'll be anxiously waiting for further details and articles by Mr. Lynds.
2cents & L&L
jouni
Jilola,
Yes the physical world dismisses the theory rather quickly, however the theory itself is some what sound and has never truely been explained.
However, after reading the article by Lynds I think I can sum things up a little better than I did before.
First off, yes time is only relative to ones own perspective. Further an object in motion can not be frozen in any one instance of time. No matter how small the frame of time the object in question travels some distance in that time frame.
So in essance time itself can never be static. It can not be seperated in to static increaments and arranged in order.
Does that make sence to everyone?
Please, people, don't confuse location with speed.
Zeno's paradox only exists when you do that.
2cents & L&lL
Jouni
Your correct there Jouni.
Time has nothing really to do with location, it has more to do with distance between locations.
For all that he writes humorous fantasies, Terry Pratchett seemed to show an increadible grasp on the concepts of time in his book Thief of Time. I could not fault any of his ideas, no matter how he presented them.
I've always found the best way to understand theories on time is to directly link time with space.
James.
quote:
First off, yes time is only relative to ones own perspective. Further an object in motion can not be frozen in any one instance of time. No matter how small the frame of time the object in question travels some distance in that time frame.
So in essance time itself can never be static. It can not be seperated in to static increaments and arranged in order.
Does that make sence to everyone?
That makes sense to me.
u know, i wish i could tell u somthing on that real bad. but that would be a promise. btu when a person figures out wut the very fabric of time is made of, then they can manipulate time. i dout anyone has that kinese. but it is posible.
.
I believe that the word 'time' is like the Chinese word 'Qi' It's not something that can really be explained, we just know what it is. This, I believe, is just showing one of the flaws of having a system to explain the reality of things. When we can't explain it through our system, then what do we do?
How does one describe the color yellow to a blind person? Yellow is yellow to us, and can't really be described unless you're saying it's NOT any of the other colors. By doing this, however, you're using the relativity of the other colors to explain yellow, which really doesn't solve anything, because then you have to explain the other colors the same way.
Time is like a river that can fork spontaneously during any point of its journey (the forking representing possibility, of course). Nobody can predict where it's going to go, they can only predict the possibilities.
Because it is possible to travel back in time; just like a file cabinet, it is possible to affect the order in which things happen in time (or which things are in what order in the file cabinet).
Everything in the Universe moves, which implies that everything in the Universe has energy. Energy is more or less the hub of everything, because without it, nothing would exist. Without energy, atoms would collapse in on themselves and become forever small, each subparticle shrinking out of existence. In the end, the only thing that is left is emptiness. There is very little tangible matter in the Universe, which is interesting, because we pay so much attention to it and not to all the vast space we live in.
Well, I can't seem to stop being distracted so I think I'll come back to this train of thought later. Bye for now.
A new theory is surfacing that tries to explain what exactly time is. We know how to measure time, but what exactly it is, like this new theory, is something that's not so easily grasped.
If anybody gets it and could explain it in a little more detail, I'd appreciate it. Space.com never goes into much detail, anyway.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html