Re: Dear Greenfield collection

From: Eckard Blumschein (blumschein_at_et.uni-magdeburg.de)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:16:15 +0100

On 11/27/2004 8:54 AM, Guenther von Knakspott wrote:
>
>> May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
>> observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
>> future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
>> definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
>> would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
>>
>> I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
>> judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.

> Say Blumschein, does your model of time include the present? or did
> you leave away the 0 for the conveniece of your crippled mind?

Your insulting style is unacceptable.
Nonetheless, I consider your question worth to be answered because it
reflects widespread confusion concerning the present in physics as well
as Buridan's donkey.

Let me declare first: My notion of time is less affected from
set-theoretic flaws than the usual event-related one.

What about the notion present, I do not consider it a physically
relevant one. 'Today' includes near past as well as near future.
Referring to zero, you presumably restricted to the idea of the naked
minimum of neutrality. This reveals your metamathematical position as a
believer in godgiven numbers. I am rather a person without any
preference for a pre-fabricated theoretical position. Having clear
criteria which are at variance with Hilbert's set-theory, I was pointed
to John L. Bell whose text on Infinitesimals and the Continuum comes
very close to my own reasoning. I imagine the neutral zero of IR like a
number of zero relevance. There is no chance to distinguish it from +0
and -0. So I would a little bit modify the "tertia non datur" into
"tertia non valet".

Eckard Blumschein

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> say that the net force is nonzero whenever any force is acting on ... but it states that forces can combine to provide a zero net ... and yet there is no energy expended. ... >> You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> say that the net force is nonzero whenever any force is acting on ... but it states that forces can combine to provide a zero net ... and yet there is no energy expended. ... >> You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> energy expended means zero force. ... the cart will move down the aisle with a constant ... You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ... the Encarta blurb is NOT in contradiction with what I said. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> energy expended means zero force. ... the cart will move down the aisle with a constant ... You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ... the Encarta blurb is NOT in contradiction with what I said. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Topics in Zero Point Energy Metric Engineering Warp, Wormhole & WMD
    ... The motion of the Earth through the aether is undetectable, i.e. zero ... It is fully consistent with the GR formalism itself, ... therefore strict universal physical equivalence of gravitational and ... physics today is that the centers of masses of extended test particles ...
    (sci.astro)