Re: Painful but inevitable resignation

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: 21 Nov 2004 23:34:17 -0800

srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0411200533.1572d05@posting.google.com>...
> 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.

Good
>
> > Time, as in "a period of time", requires two such markers, with
> > the duration lying between.
>
> That's what I refer to as "duration".

...or period
>
> > 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.

tick
>
> > >
> > > >> 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.

another tick
>
> > > 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.

...I'm on a roll!
>
> > 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.

yep
>
> > > 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.

:-( Doppler can be (and often is) misunderstood. Whenever a change
of frequency is observed, DHR's claim that as c is constant, the
change is due to a change of wavelength, NOT a change in c. This
unwarranted assumption is at the heart of the circular logic on which
Relativity is based.
Consider: if c alters due to source dependency, and wavelength stays
the same, a Doppler effect will STILL be seen, but under present
(wrong) assumption about light speed), the result is wrongly
attributed (although still correct)
>
> > > 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.

Hooray!
>
> > 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.

But there are none of these "observers" slinking about, on who all
seem to have to rely as to what is happening.
>
> > > >
> > > 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.

Carry on, and good luck!

Jim G
c'=c+v

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time dilation needs Absolute Space?
    ... the time dilation result is that of transverse Doppler. ... > Now it so happens by some strange coincidence that transverse Doppler ... for a duration of 1 second, ... but the blink frequency will remain constant: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Painful but inevitable resignation
    ... >> This marks out the difference in our opinions. ... > instant, and has no duration. ... > case of the far reaches of the universe, this delay is in the 13 ... Only orthodox views can be taught in formal institutions. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Automatically calculate work effort and duration
    ... By the way, the numbers work out for the 100th task in my previous example to take well over 1 billion times the age of the universe, assuming the universe is 16 billion years old. ... I have a level-of-effort (LOE) model in ... estimating tool that is getting too cumbersome esp around resource planning ... > any other fixed ratio) of the duration of the task that preceeds it. ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
  • Re: "All of an Instant"
    ... conflict between time travellers in a universe whose history is ... duration of the conflict outside it is not obvious. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • "All of an Instant" (was: On Topic Thursday: The Eternal Conflict)
    ... conflict between time travellers in a universe whose history is ... duration of the conflict outside it is not obvious. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)