Has anyone heard any more about this guy

  • Thread starter Cosmo16
  • Start date
In summary, a conversation about Peter Lynds' philosophical ideas on time led to a discussion about whether or not his theories were backed by science. It was pointed out that his ideas were based more on philosophy than science, and there was a misconception that they were overturning established science. The conversation then shifted to a debate about the concept of a "block universe model" and its relation to time. Lastly, there was a mention of issues with the applets on a website and an attempt to fix them.
  • #1
Cosmo16
140
0
hey, just wondering if anyone had seen anything on this theory.
Link
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Cosmo16 said:
hey, just wondering if anyone had seen anything on this theory.
Link

Yes. Peter Lynds had some interesting philosophical ideas about time. Unfortunately neither Lynds nor the media which picked this up seemed to know the difference between philosophy and science, and its presented as overturning a lot of established science (which it doesn't). I've written more about this at http://www.chronon.org/Articles/ZenoLynds.html
 
  • #3
chronon said:
Yes. Peter Lynds had some interesting philosophical ideas about time. Unfortunately neither Lynds nor the media which picked this up seemed to know the difference between philosophy and science, and its presented as overturning a lot of established science (which it doesn't). I've written more about this at http://www.chronon.org/Articles/ZenoLynds.html
On your page you say "There seems to be a large body of opinion that Zeno's paradoxes are solved by Einstein's Special theory of relativity"--who says this? I have always seen people say that the solution to Zeno's paradox is just the fact that, in calculus, an infinite series can have a finite sum.

I think one major problem with Lynd's philosophical argument is this:
It might also be argued by analogy with the claim by some people that the so-called 'block universe model', i.e. a 4-dimensional model of physical reality, incorporating time as well as space, is static or unchanging. This claim however involves thecommon mistake of failing to recognize that unless there is another time dimension, it simply doesn't make sense to say that the block universe is static, for there is no 'external' time interval over which it remains the same.
"Unchanging" does not necessarily mean that a thing stays the same at multiple points in time, it can also just mean that the thing exists timelessly--for example, mathematical objects such as the real number line or the Mandelbrot set can be said to be unchanging, that doesn't imply there is a time dimension in the mathematical world. So why can't we say that spacetime is unchanging in the same sense that the real number line is unchanging?

By the way chronon, the java applets on your website all fail to load on my browser, do they work on yours or is there something wrong with them? I thought the idea of a http://www.chronon.org/Applets/bouncer.html was pretty neat...
 
  • #4
JesseM said:
On your page you say "There seems to be a large body of opinion that Zeno's paradoxes are solved by Einstein's Special theory of relativity"--who says this? I have always seen people say that the solution to Zeno's paradox is just the fact that, in calculus, an infinite series can have a finite sum.
Well now you come to mention it, maybe the support for this idea isn't so large. However, I do remember searching around quite a few newsgroups and forums when I wrote it, and this seemed a fairly common response. e.g.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?s...200001@ppp-spk-382.icehouse.net&output=gplain

JesseM said:
By the way chronon, the java applets on your website all fail to load on my browser,
Thanks for telling me about that, it seems that different browsers look for the code in different places, and I've attempted to deal with this now.
 
  • #5
chronon said:
Thanks for telling me about that, it seems that different browsers look for the code in different places, and I've attempted to deal with this now.
Most of them work for me now, but the http://www.chronon.org/Applets/view4.html still doesn't.
 
  • #6
thanks for the info chronon
 

1. Who is "this guy" that people are talking about?

It is not specified who exactly "this guy" refers to in this question. It could be any person that has been mentioned or discussed in a conversation or news article.

2. What is the context of the discussion about "this guy"?

The context of the discussion about "this guy" could vary depending on the situation. It could be related to their actions, achievements, or any other relevant topic.

3. Has there been any new information or updates about "this guy"?

Without knowing who "this guy" is, it is impossible to determine if there has been any new information or updates about them. It is important to specify the person in question in order to answer this question accurately.

4. Why is "this guy" being talked about?

It is not specified why "this guy" is being talked about. The reason could vary depending on the person's identity and the context of the conversation.

5. Where can I find more information about "this guy"?

If "this guy" is a public figure or has been mentioned in the news, more information about them can be found through a simple internet search. Otherwise, it would be helpful to specify who "this guy" is in order to find more information about them.

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
349
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
523
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
506
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
290
Back
Top