for the science fanatics

[Architorture]

[/url]http://wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html[url]

thought this was an interesting article just b/c they main character in the article seemed to pose such a simple question and yet it has thrown the world of physics into a firestorm...

what if this guys theory can hold water...what does it mean to debase calculus as a means of observing and reconstructing and understand our reality?

obvsiously, our everyday lives weren't really changed that much when einstien came in and said that newton's observations only described a small part of our physical world, and i imagine if somehow this theory that there is no 'instants' in time catches it won't have much affect on day to day activities... but it also adds to the fact that there is alot more to this reality that is entirely beyond our grasp...

"the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine"[/url]

[Richard Haut]

fascinating link - I look forward to reading his book.

however, as you say, it is not our lives - I hesitate to divide time into chunks by saying our daily lives - which will be affected, but I can imagine the scientists and mathematicians getting really irritated.

the problem is that science and mathematics are concerned with the recording and explaining of time - the ticking of a clock does not mean that the individual second of the tick has any reality other than the passing of the perceived moment. In other words, all recording and noting of time are approximations. Will the recording of time cease to be important ? Try boiling an egg or meeting up with a friend.

will Lynds theories have any serious implications for physics an mathematics ? Only time will tell ....

the search reminds me of the old story of a traveller in Ireland asking a local the way to his destination - the local shakes his head and says: well, if I were you, I wouldnt start from here.

[Architorture]

yeah it seems like it simply suggests a series of paradoxes that really give no conclusion just pose more questions....

for whatever reason it reminds me of the saying about how you always find something you lost in the last place you look... it makes perfect sense, but not quite

[Kevin]

Sometimes I like to keep on looking after I've found something... the next thing found is almost always an unexpected surprise! And if not, at the least there's the satisfaction of undoing the adage...

[dgt]

Hey, anyone can have an idea. The truth lies in the scientific diffrence between accuracy and precision. An archer hits the bullseye with his first shot. He is accurate. He fires off five more shots and they all miss. He is not precise. If a theory answers questions, great. If it does not hold up to further theoretical or experimental analysis then it is not precise.

Richard was absolutely correct in his play on words. Although, it is a shame that some in the scientific community have lost site of thier roots in iconoclasts, rebels, free-thinkers, outcasts, and such to the point that contributions from outside the community are treated like pariahs.

It is about time this theory was put forward. It is only logical that since General and Special Relativity are theorized with a time axis, why not try them without one. Or better yet, it is about time that science had a shake-up from the 'outside' of its academic members only club.

Thanks for the link.

Regards,
dgt