Re: Painful but inevitable resignation
From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: Mel Lep: "Re: Help ID this cover illustration: Distribution of single electron, early 90's"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: The New Science"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 20 Nov 2004 05:33:25 -0800
greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0411191755.7e53b3cf@posting.google.com>...
> Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<419DCCD3.7030001@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
> > On 11/18/2004 7:18 PM, Andr? Michaud wrote:
> >
> > "To some extent, everybody knows what time does mean."
> >
> >
> > > Agreement here also. But in my view, a distinction must be made between
> > > subjective and objective time flow.
> >
> > This marks out the difference in our opinions.
>
> It seems to me, that the "now" is but a marker in time. It is an
> instant, and has no duration.
This is the very conclusion that my analysis led me to quite a while
ago.
> Time, as in "a period of time", requires two such markers, with
> the duration lying between.
That's what I refer to as "duration".
> This is equivalent to a point on a line, having a position, but no
> length. To measure or observe a distance, two such points are needed
> also.
Yes.
> >
> > >> No, I see my "now" simply my individual (relative) border of reality.
> > >
> > > Isn't it the same for everyone? But couldn't it be even more than that?
>
> It is the same for everybody! They may not be aware of it, due to the
> delay in information passing between them. (finite speed of light)
Exactly.
> > Tortuously speaking, the now of my left feet is not absolutely identical
> > to the now of my right ear. In that respect I share the relativists
> > point of view. The reason for me to think so is simple: If we accept
> > observation as the only reasonable criterion of reality, then this
> > relates to the observing unity, not to the physiology or psychology of
> > observation. I believe that there is an objective relationship
> > underlying observation. You might call my belief a model. This
> > background behind observation is, of course, more than just observation
> > itself.
>
> I suggest that all "nows" are marked out simultaneously throughout the
> universe.
That was precisely my conclusion.
> Whether different points throughout that universe are aware of it
> (your ear and foot) is simply due to that information delay. In the
> case of the far reaches of the universe, this delay is in the 13
> billion year range, apparently, and causes some confusion.
Total agreement.
> > While I agree that the term reality denotes a model, I nonetheless
> > consider this model like nothing else than what we are calling the
> > objective reality because it has proven successful in any case so far
> > and will perhaps continue to do so.
>
> How to tell "objective" reality? Scince collects data from deep space,
> and then subjects that data to ASSUMPTIONS, especially that c is
> unvariable. From that they build a model which is claimed to be
> objective, and a true picture of the universe, but if it has a built
> in bias?? (that light is NOT always c)
This issue seems to have been pretty much ascertained. There remains
little doubt about the constancy of the speed of light. Too many
processes would not work properly if c was not constant, starting with
radar Doppler ranging.
> > I am just suggesting to abandon the admittedly deeply rooted believe
> > that time is something godgiven extending without any limit even over
> > not yet existing reality.
> >
> > > It depends on what you call "science". I have a view that if "science"
> > > disagrees with physical reality, then science is inadequate and needs
> > > be reviewed.
> >
> > >> I argue that the tacit assumption of pre-existing time is to blame for
> > >> this contradiction.
> > >
> > > I personally think that contradictions lies in confusing subjective
> > > personal models of reality with objective physical reality itself.
> >
> > If this was true, Einstein as well as v. Weizsaecker did not express
> > resignation.
>
> The ubiquitous "c" which dominates maths in science, is at the heart
> of the matter (any problems).
> Do things not happen in the dark? Does time not pass in the abscence
> of light?
Absolutely.
> Does a blind man live forever, or not at all?
> How did science get so confused, just because an atom has a preferred
> speed for ejecting a photon?
Even in the deepest night, at ambient temperature, electrons are excited
and de-excited in surrounding materials and emit photons. The numbers
however simply are below the sensitivity threshold of our eyes.
So, this is not a real problem.
> > >
> > May I ask you for being so fair to pass on my message to your students
> > in case you consider it serious but do not share it, just like one more
> > opinion?
>
> I suggest that it is so politically incorrect within science
> institutions to criticise AE, that any teaching to students along
> these lines will lead to a very short teaching tenure.
You are absolutely right. That route is barred by peer pressure to
conform. Only orthodox views can be taught in formal institutions.
All strays are quickly chastized to conform or they are out. For
the same reason, no paper not stemming from totally orthodox
foundations has been allowed into formal print since SR, GR and
QM set the "acceptable" orthodox foundation.
Other means must be resorted to to spread coherent ideas that are
not mainstream. That's what I do.
André Michaud
- Next message: Mel Lep: "Re: Help ID this cover illustration: Distribution of single electron, early 90's"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: The New Science"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
