Re: Painful but inevitable resignation

From: Eckard Blumschein (blumschein_at_et.uni-magdeburg.de)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:41:44 +0100

On 11/20/2004 2:55 AM, Jim Greenfield wrote:

> It seems to me, that the "now" is but a marker in time. It is an
> instant, and has no duration. Time, as in "a period of time", requires
> two such markers, with the duration lying between.
> 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.

You are quite right concerning the two points. However, be aware that
the now is not embedded within elapsed time but marks its beginning.
Therefore, elapsed time is simultaneously a distance (from origin) and a
position at a scale. This simplifies the parameters in case of integration.

>> >> 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)

If you do not agree with relativity, you should deal with the data
provided by ulcle Al in abundance.

>> 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)

Someone described reality as something that does not disappear if you
stops believing in it. I would like to claim that my notion of reality
is objective iff it is in principle observable and consistently backed
by the experience of many reliable people.

> The ubiquitous "c" which dominates maths in science, is at the heart
> of the matter (any problems).

As an electrical engineer I do not have any problem with c.

>> 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.

Perhaps, you did not grasp the essence of my suggestion.
Once you did so, you will not need referring to any person.
However, it is perhaps impossible to reach those who are firmly
believing in being always correct.