PDA

View Full Version : Peter Lynds and Idea of Time?



kafkas_hat
2003-Aug-08, 11:58 PM
Several days ago, I came across the name Peter Lynds and the astounding(though somewhat hyperbolic) claim of being the "next Einstein." Upon reading the following article:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time...ory_030806.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html)

After reading I became extremely incredulous. While I only have an MA in Philosophy and Literature, I plan on returning to study Physics, and considered the basic notions by Lynds just that: basic. For the most part, it reminded me of my second semester Philosophy class apropos Zeno's paradox, and truly nothing more. However, quotes by Wheeler and Dr. Andrei Khrennikov referenced Einstein and a theory on par with the theory of relativity. Connections to Einstein's patent position and Lynds' humble beginnings were being added to the whole media extravaganza. Piqued and peturbed, I found the soon to be published paper in the Dutch physics journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" titled "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity" on the CERN server at the following link:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=622019

After reading the piece, which lacks math(other than basic number theory) and general proof, and considering the ideas of momentum, charge, and spin were neglected I really became confused. Didn't Einstein already talk about the relativity of time? Didn't we cover the issue of time as a somewhat psychological phenomenon in Virginia Woolf's "Ms. Dalloway," Proust's "Remembrance of Time Past," and certainly in T.S. Eliot's "Four Quartet's," let alone in the physics domain? Heinsenberg's uncertainty unequivocally consists of these ideas, if I remember correctly? Likewise I found myself saying, "does this man know calculus?" as several passages appeared to neglect any knowledge of the putative aspects of differentiation.

At this point I thought I was going crazy and missing the point, therefore I emailed Fraser who advised me to post the piece and links on this board. Hopefully those of you in the Physics community can reassure me I am not going completely insane, and the welter induced by this article has something to do with mass media, rather than my neophyte status in physics! Of course, I relish the possibilities for learning, and those more astute than I in this field can likely aid my knowledge thoroughly in merely discussing this point.

Christopher Orman

imported_Draco
2003-Aug-10, 02:00 PM
I think he is trying to contradict some famous people. Nothing wrong with him, but he appears to be seeking fame.
If i wanted to become known in the Science world, i would publish an article in a Science related magazine, explaining how Einstein' formula's are completely wrong. This would catch many people's eye! I'd be getting many letters of how i'm wrong or that i should explain myself again and publish another article. My fame would probably only last for a while, but that depends on how ludicrous my ideas would get.
If everyone was walking across a bridge, and somebody decided to jump off it. People would ask that person why? Peter Lynds is the guy jumping off.

Just my opinion, i would have liked to express myself more clearly, but its quite late, night.

Dennis
2003-Aug-12, 04:05 PM
This man is a conceptual thinker as Einstien was. Knowing calculus is not a prerequisite to having a fundamental understanding of the laws of nature. Common sense is. Or, at times, un-common sense. I think the difficulty, or problem, academic professionals are having is that he isn't correctly speaking "their" language. He probably doesn't know calculus. Personally, I chose to understand what is being said as opposed to how. If you don't, you tend to miss the point.
-shrug-

kafkas_hat
2003-Aug-12, 04:37 PM
Dennis:
I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't see Lynds as a conceptual thinker. His idea has been discussed in academia. If he knew Calculus or momentum theory(or uncertainty principle), I personally believe he would not have written this piece. He discusses time and the lack of "instants" of time. This issue sounds commensurate with the notion of no "frame of reference." But he then insists that if an instant in time did exist, it would lead to a static situation. I don't think it would(other mathematicians and physicists agree based on what I have read). Derivation in Calculus, which explores the issues of movement, adduces this point. Likewise, the moving entity would be "relatively static," but it would already have inherent statistical qualities, such as charge and momentum.

Lynds tries to point to how time is merely a psychological entity, a flawed framework. No physicist would contend otherwise(as the flaw of measurement exposes). However, Lynds has attacked the pillars of the community, throwing acrid statements at Hawking, for example, when he can't "speak" in their language. Einstein could. Einstein didn't merely offer up the theory of relativity with no knowledge of past and present in physics(pun intended considering the issue of time!---sorry St. Augustine refuses to leave my mind!). Einstein didn't say Galileo saw "everything wrong," because Einstein knew better. Light's speed changed everything, but Galileo couldn't have known that. You can see the majority of Einstein's documents online at http://www.alberteinstein.info/ , which proves the point. There are many misnomers about Einstein, but him being merely a conceptual thinker who "attacked" the tried and true(when in reality he attacked the notion of "luminiferous ether," a issue many physicsts had obviated anyway---though many still could not figure out how light moved, which is where Einstein's brilliance comes into play) shouldn't be employed in relation to Lynds. I see no connection because I see no experiments. I see no adequate mathematical proofs. I see no journals pointing to a time dilemma needing a solution. Instead, I see a issue with time which cannot be completely and theoretically solved, in which time must be excepted as purely psychological or purely transmutable. Whichever you chose, a flaw exists and that flaw must be rationalized.

The same probably goes for reality and Kant's notion of a noumenal existence. I could write pages on this topic, with Popper, Schoepenhauer and others as benchmarks. But I would be missing the point if I refused to accept the manners in which physcists have already circumvented the conundrum.

As an aside, the MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/index.htm) has courses and materials(for FREE!) on these subjects.

JCS
2003-Aug-12, 10:47 PM
The physics community needs to be careful not to dismiss Peter Lynds ideas too quickly. We all remember Monty Hall's 3-door fiasco of which many high powered PHD types publicly ridiculed Marilyn Vos Savant only to eat some very unpleasant crow later on.

gandalf17
2003-Aug-12, 11:21 PM
From The Globe And Mail (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20030801/UTIMEN/national/) website (emphasis is mine):

"In a press release accompanying yesterday's publication of an article in the journal Foundations of Physics Letters, Mr. Lynds quotes Princeton University physicist John Wheeler, a collaborator of Albert Einstein."

So, he wrote a press release to mark the publication of his article. As happens so often, it was copied almost verbatim by most news organizations, who are all too gullible for something like a classic David and Goliath story...

He probably wrote to John Wheeler who wrote a nice letter back, which now gives many people the impression he endorses Lynds' ideas. Andrei Khrennikov has his own theory on discrete time, and so would tend to be more open to ideas of this nature.

Well, he gave me some ideas! ;)

Jeffrey

seraphic deviltry
2003-Aug-13, 12:03 AM
I see a lot of criticism of Lynds' work, yet very little discussion on exactly /where/ the flaws are. A reference to the concept of dx/dt seems to have been made earlier, but there was no elaboration.

So, I ask: would someone please tell me why his paper is inaccurate?

Mark Szlazak
2003-Aug-13, 12:18 AM
Peter Lynds presents us with a pair of articles which make it seem obvious that a point or instance of time has no meaning or existence and this is contrary to whats implicit in much physics new and old ... dispite claims to the contrary. I didn't like Lynds writting style, he could have saids things in a much less redundent and simpler way.

Media comparisons of Lynds to Einstein aren't apt. Lynds doesn't plagiarize the work of others like Albert did for SR and GR. Lynds cites some references to past work of others but the history is thousands of years older for this solution (e.g. Buddhist middle-way philosophy). Lynds paper seems logically coherent unlike Alberts which were all circular arguments. Lynds maybe a genius. Albert Einsten who was really a political toy, carreer plagiarist/theif, sycophant, adulterer, incestuous, and pedophile, was definitely not a genius. They do have in common the use of the media to hype themselves but the bull**** about Albert is in a league by itself.

Jason
2003-Aug-13, 09:16 AM
Anybody see Legally Blond 2?

Jason
2003-Aug-13, 09:17 AM
Anybody see Legally Blond 2? Timeless.....

John HoaxHunter
2003-Aug-13, 11:46 AM
Peter Lynds is not a fake, but it seems he is not a new Einstein

See his letter to a Spaniard site:

[url]http://ciencia.astroseti.org/astrofisica/lyndsfake.php[/urd]

Regards

Johny Spasticfingers
2003-Aug-13, 11:50 AM
Sorry

http://ciencia.astroseti.org/astrofisica/lyndsfake.php

Regards

Mark Szlazak
2003-Aug-13, 03:48 PM
Lynds isn't a fake and I wasn't kidding about Albert Einstein.

Check out this site for more on this juicy scandal mostly about Einsteins professional life and SR. The next book will be more on GR.

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/einstein.htm

The physics community knew about this then and have let the myth go on and the Einstein industry to flourish. I'm waiting to see if the sh*t will hit the fan on this. The fairly recent release personal writings by his estate give more on his pathologically abnormal character.

Fraser
2003-Aug-13, 05:13 PM
I don't have the physics or math background to adequately poke holes in Lynds' theory. Since it's all theoretical, it's really hard to look at the numbers and recognize how they fit life. A true test of a theory is how well it explains the real world, or predicts how the real world will act in a certain circumstance.

I usually get an email a week from someone who thinks they've cracked the code on how the Universe works. They've usually got a website, and sometimes they've even written a book about how they've analyzed the data from various research and come up with a new model for everything. That's fine, we can all have our theories.

But the question is, what experiments can be done to prove your theory? Einstein's theories were considered genius because they predicted phenomena that people could duplicate through experimentation. Relativity predicted that gravity will bend light; and now astronomers use gravity lenses all the time to help look at distant objects.

So, if I were Lynds, I'd get busy figuring out experiments which could help prove my theory is more correct than other models of time.

Guest
2003-Aug-13, 06:13 PM
We should all try to use the “Scientific Method” when tackling a problem!

Nothing will withstand the test of a good theory better than use of the scientific method when determining it’s validity.

Fraser is absolutely correct in his statement…

After “Theories” are tested…

…Then they become “Fact”…

Fraser
2003-Aug-13, 06:22 PM
Well, they become better theories. There are no facts. :-)

Interesting side-note, this page is at the top of the list when people search Google for the term, "Peter Lynds". If this is you, keep in mind that this is a multi-page discussion. Click here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=468) to go to the beginning of the thread.

And please, join the forum and take part in the discussion. We want to know what you have to say about this. Do you think Lynds is the next Einstein or a complete fraud? Has he been caught up by a network of news organizations looking to generate controversy?

SinisterMinister
2003-Aug-13, 08:33 PM
There are no facts because there is no true referential for "fact." Most people rely on "imperical" evidence and suggest that this is "fact." But one finds that the foundation for evidence rests with materialism. And material, by it's very nature is subject to change. So how can you use materialism to establish solid referentials when the very core of those referentials are subjected to the terms of nature, consistent and undeniable change.

The illusion of reality & time comes from all of our ideas, which, when looked upon as a whole system balance out with each other. A serious of small ideas, all agreeing with each other build this immense system which seems to function as a whole reality.

Furthermore, people were laughing at or crucifying scientific pioneers at there time. So I suppose nothing has changed as far as that is concerned. For example, we can laugh at the establishment in Galileo's time, but the truth is that "we" are the establishment now. Can we shed our paradigms?

Marcel LeBel
2003-Aug-14, 01:57 AM
Peter Lynds is going in the right direction. The problem I believe is that
he doesn't know yet where it is going, which leaves him open to mistakes.
I came to the same conclusion (no moment in time) by a different route. The Sun is at 8 minutes ( universe with speed limit)
from me and is NOT part of the moment I call now. The Moon is half a second away from me. There is time between the front and back bumper of my car. There is time between molecules, atoms and between sub-atomic particles. See where this is going? An actual moment in time, defined as a set of points at the same moment, is actually an infinitesimal point! This moment in time is too small to contain a planet, a person or for that matter the standard metre. This is what space-time really mean; space doesn't exist. Space is a tool we use to navigate and position ourselves in our reality. Conclusion: space and static dimensions do not exist. Objects as something existing entirely at one moment do not exist; there is a time difference between any two points of an object. Here you see why in an article stating the non existence of a moment in time one cannot use the concept of "frame of reference", which an extension of a moment in time, in the body of the proof.

This basically describes the relationship between our perception and everything our science and equations.. say the universe is like. Now, I don't see anything wrong about that. This distinction may well be the explanation of the different approaches that are classical and quantum mechanics. Better, it will lead to a substance and cause that explain how the universe works by itself without us watching. You didn't think an equation actually made things move? Things were falling long before Newton and Einstein. .?? This is the first step of a theory for the understanding of everything; not the description of everything, because we are, as seen above, very much biased. WE already have plenty equations describing how gravitation works, but all fail to say logically why it works.

At any rate, this is coming and it is THE final frontier. You may want to fight it, but if I can, I will be part of it.

Marcel,

Jackson
2003-Aug-14, 04:45 AM
If he really was a genius, he would have been able to express himself a lot clearer and reduce his point to some cute little analogy or thought experiment.

Jackson

Terry
2003-Aug-14, 11:53 AM
I will not purport to understand all the ramifications and implications of whether time is a constant or whether it is dynamic. I do, however, agree that the possibility exists (has to exist for time travel to be possible (re:Einstein's theory of relativity)) for time to have both a defined existence and a natural reversable flow. Einstein said that time was relative to the moment and the observer (in relation to light). How would you explain time in a place where neither one exists? A black hole for instance. Light can not escape and it is so infinitely dense, all matter becomes as one and as nothing. Maybe the Buddhists have it right. Maybe there is no spoon.

peter birch
2003-Aug-14, 02:03 PM
I don't suppose this is a new thought, but it has often seemed to me that everyone talks about time as though it actually existed independently. It seems more likely to me that it does not - it is a way of measuring change, either in the thing being measured, or the observer. Consider an object which never changes (presumably infinitely cold) and which never moves (relative to an observer or absolutely) then time has no meaning. It will be the same 1 second from now or 1 year from now. And in fact that notion of 1 second or 1 year is only meaningful to the observer, since it is the observer which/who changes, not the object. If the observer were also similarly static, then time would again have no meaning. Thus the possibility of time travel into the future is simply the notion of reducing the speed of one's change relative to one's surroundings, and the possibility of time travel into the past is impossible since it would mean a single method of reversing every change to the point one wished to visit.

Discussing the properties of time itself is kind of meaningless, it seems to me, but then I am a bear of very little brain.

Alastair McGowan
2003-Aug-14, 03:13 PM
I've always understood that time is a mathematical function, in the same way so is consciousness a mathematical function of brain factors. Yes, Lynds is challenging theory but is he really challenging the kinds of things we think time might be? alastairmcgowan@btopenworld.com

Guest
2003-Aug-14, 03:50 PM
I critique Lynds at
http://www.lexnet.bravepages.com/ZENO.html

Personally I think his reasoning is faulty. He may be reaching the right results but I do not think he is reaching them using correct methods.

eric.allen.engleSPAMBLOCKATjustice.com

The Cajun
2003-Aug-14, 04:56 PM
Lynds is right. You have to remember the definition of time as the amount of change in a system, e.g. the hands of a clock. For change to take place something has to be compared. The starting position of the system (the hands of the clock) has to be noted, but a starting position demands that time be stopped, that an instant in time exists. An instant in time does not have duration, it has no start and stop points, so it cannot be accurately determined.

star-tled
2003-Aug-14, 07:43 PM
I joined this forum because it encourages the free discussion of ideas. It is a great opportunity to have other people reflect their perceptions back to the group so that one can find better ways to express the thoughts one has on a subject or revise them with the additional perspectives and knowledge offered. What could be more stimulating?

That said I think personal attacks on individuals not involved in the forum or on members in the group is a barrier to the free expression and discussion of ideas. That is not part of scientific enquiry. Fear is the greatest barrier to progress.

Mr Lynd's ideas, as far as I understand them to this point, have their reflection in other theories put forward by scientists like David Peat (chaos theory) in his book "Synchronicity" and Fritjof Capra in "The Tao of Physics". Mr Peat, especially, explores the issue of dimensions that are beyond time that have yet to be described adequately.

I think that we assign a great deal of importance to time because, as humans, we are forced to deal with our materiality. If we had no mass - just sentience - would time matter? That's how I perceived the description of a singularity. "We" created the concrete concept of time to establish a method to describe how our bodies move through space. "We" require a beginning and end for that purpose. To me that is somewhat the same relationship of ideas as Newton's physics compared to Quantum physics. Maybe that could be a point of exploration. Does time (become) matter? Pun intended. Or is there only time when there is matter aka the tree falling in the forest.

Zander
2003-Aug-15, 03:30 AM
First of all, I would like to say KUDOS to this young man. :D How many 27 year olds even have world issues or the universe on their mind. A professor once explained to me that the best way to learn was through " discovery ". This young person has learned something that has added value to his life.

Now, what did this young man discover? That is what remains to be seen. From
my "Soap Box" :lol: I agree with most on this, that although the idea may be conceptual it must be proved mathmatically. Even some of our greatest scientists and mathmaticians would agree with that.

So, perhaps this young man might take some advice from his elders and finish his (College Education) and stop putting the cart before the horse.


until next time

thelonewolf37
2003-Aug-15, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by fraser@Aug 13 2003, 06:22 PM
Do you think Lynds is the next Einstein or a complete fraud? Has he been caught up by a network of news organizations looking to generate controversy?
I haven't read Lynds' paper (and if I did, I probably wouldn't understand it enough to have a solid opinion), so I can't say if he is the next Einstein or a complete fraud. My guess is that he is neither. The media loves labels, and they love to create celebrities. The (probably) invented the term "baby boomer." Then they invented Generation X. Then came a new generation and they didn't know what else to call them, so they called them Generation Y. (Gee, I wonder what the NEXT generation will be called...?) The media loves labels because with one or two words they can feel like they are telling you a lot about something.

The media loves to ask, "Will this war become another Vietnam Quagmire? Is this the next Michael Jordan, the next Tiger Woods, the next Einstein?" If it is a slow news day, they have to come up with something to create a buzz. Once the first newspaper printed a story about the genius kid who may be "The Next Einstein" (because it was a slow news day and they had space to fill), every other paper had to join the pack of (news) hounds and write their story. (Hey, if he IS The Next Einstein, would YOU want to be the one newspaper that didn't print the story?) Then they get to write the story that says the guy is a fraud...

My guess is that if Lynds' really thinks he is the Next Einstein, it is at least partly because the media told him he is. Before that, he probably just thought of himself as a guy with a different perspective. The media made him a star, so he's a star.

Dan B
2003-Aug-15, 09:33 AM
I would like to begin by making the following points about the discussion so far:

1. It is great to see such a philosophical and scientific debate going on
2. All theories are important in our undertsanding of the universe - even those which are later discounted still further our understandings
3. Lynds should be appauled for his creative thinking.

having said all that i would like to make these comments aout the article itself.

1. yes, it is VERY difficult to read,
2. i find his ideas frightening to be honest, i am sure this is how many people felt at the turn of the last century, when the quantum picture of the universe was established.

Perhaps Peter Lynds article is the beginning of yet another remarkable turning point in the Knowledge Base of human-kind...but i doubt it!!

The basis for the article is that something cannot be measured at an exact instant of time. Entirely correct it would seem. But if I believe in one thing it is that mathematics is the most basic form of anything. no matter what your reference frame, no matter what the laws of physics are in the particular mulitverse you find yourself in, maths is always the same.

IN maths we CAN measure any function, or quanitiy of any body at ANY INSTANT by taking the limit as dt->0. Fot those not mathematically inclined all this means is that we measure something over a period of time, then again for a smaller interval and continue until the interval approaches zero. this value is the instaneous value of the function or quantity. it is a mathematical construct which is the basis of calculus.

SO mathematically, there is absolutley nothing wrong with measuring something at an INSTANT in TIME. While physically we always measure "instaneous values" over very small time intervals as Lynds points out, this does not preclude instances of time exsisting.

and if i am wrong, i will take prde in telling my grandkinds that i was part of the geat "time debat" at the beginning of the 21st century - but that ain't gonna happen!!!

Eamon
2003-Aug-16, 12:22 AM
I have read Lynds' paper and the phrase that keeps coming to mind is "tempest in a teapot". I don't see the "newness" in what he has written.

It appears to me that there is no structural difference whatsoever between what Lynds has offered and Zeno. He just started from the absurd conclusion rather than ending with it.

The rest of the paper describes all of the theories that are supposedly disproved as a result. But having spontaneously accepted a contrary conclusion as true, it follows naturally that conclusions others have drawn from the non-contrary are then false. Nothing new here either.

Can anyone show me the new ideas?

Eamon

philip slater
2003-Aug-16, 04:01 AM
Hi Eamon.

You ask
Can anyone show me the new ideas?

That is some Brief.

Let us suppose that I tried to fulfil it up to the standard expected if I were to declare that I intended to use the method of scientific enquiry asked for by Fraser and others above and recommended by Karl Popper in his book possibly entitled logic der forschung or somesuch.

Just for starters I would have to read and break down into single units of argument his writings which I am informed are on the subject of the nature of time or at least the concept of time as currently generally or popularly understood within a certain consensus group.

I would then have to read all other pre-existing writings on the subject as defined by the person under scrutiny.

I could then consider whether a statement such as ‘this guy has a novel idea’ was an inherently disprovable statement or hypothesis.

If by a process of subtraction and comparison I was left with some statements in this newly discovered text not previously observed I could then perhaps be in a position to attempt an answer to your question quoted above.

Let us also suppose that I might imagine my life history as a string or thread curled up within a particular time bubble of finite dimension, curled up rather analogous to the missing dimensions over and above the four familiar ones of this way, that way, the other way and time.

I might also fancy the idea of imagining that one time bubble, after a finite momentary existence, might go pop and deposit or reincarnate my bit of history string into what I might get to think of as the next time bubble in a familiar sequence of concept cradles.

I would then have to think if my bit of string is long enough, allowing for the way it waves up and down and side to side, to reach between these nanochronons before the branes bang together again - or not.

Maybe you wouldn't mind if I just used normal intellectual integrity at the everyday level commonly used for discourses on political or religious aspects of cosmology in vogue at the ‘moment’ ?

That would give me the opportunity of using a cunning plan which might give me personally an indefinite number of quasi-infinite macrochronons to use for other things (I was thinking about two weeks in terms of the Earth going round the Sun, if that is what it does). What I do is, I leave the inhabitants of this thread to come to a consensus on whether it might be either useful or maybe even fun to read this popular possibly new fragment of text on the time topic. I will leave it up to you, welcome guest, to either post a post asking me to get on with the task you have set, or one letting me know that I can stand down and get on with some of the other things to which I could otherwise be attending.

Thanks in advance of the fast approaching future for helping me out with this one. Enjoy yourselves. Back soon I hope. Maybe.

Philip

stevemoss
2003-Aug-19, 03:48 PM
To be fair to Lynds' paper, consider that it would be very difficult to mathematically prove his concept given that much of what's taken for granted as far as math's ability to demonstrate falls apart in the face of his idea - math is dependent upon a level of precision (and a conceptual misunderstanding about our ability to be precise) that his paper suggests we simply cannot have.

Earlier, someone mentioned that if Lynds knew Calculus or momentum theory, he'd have never written his paper. Perhaps that's exactly the point!

The Lynds Super-Uncertainty Principle is as much philosophy as science. Precision is based upon perception, and perception is relative (therefore suspect).

Although complex mathematic equations and theories have so far been able to successfully model the perceived behavior of universe... it's all about perception.

If a fundamental perception used while developing a system was even slightly wrong, then no matter how precisely the results of that system might seem to match, they'd still be still wrong. Remember that it was only the little boy in the crowd who pointed out the simple truth about the Emperor's New Clothes.

rocketa
2003-Aug-19, 04:56 PM
Not to subtract nor add to the possible validity of Lynds hypothesis:

There will be great waving of arms and gnashing of teeth on the part of the established scientific heirarchy upon the presentation of the next real advance in understanding the universe.

imported_Voyager
2003-Aug-23, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Jason@Aug 13 2003, 09:17 AM
Anybody see Legally Blond 2? Timeless.....
I didn't but it sounds like it's a good movie. :lol:

Turgent
2003-Aug-23, 10:10 AM
Peter Lynds is not a hoax.

The physicist Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel laureate in particle physics and considered the most great physicists since Einstein said, in a recent TV-interview, that Lynds’ ideas “was very interesting” and that some of the ideas of the new theory “were investigated by itself” before Lynds!

Lynds is doing impressive advances in theoretical physics without an academic background in physics. In fact, it was to university only for six months and achieved an understanding of quantum physics and relativity comparable to that of Gell-Mann. Lynds also has done a criticism to the Stephen Hawking theory of imaginary time. It is unnecessary said.

Other of the fascinated by Lynds theories is the recognized John Wheeler, a physicist who actually worked with Einstein.

Without any doubt, the young professor Peter Lynds is the new genius of XXI century.

Staypuffed
2003-Aug-28, 11:38 AM
Peter Lynds seems to have provoked everyone into a frenzy by being identified with Einstein. Let's settle that now. The initial comparison appears annonymously on a message board by a scientist reviewing the Lynds piece, stating that, like Einstein's paper:"[the] validity [of Lynd'spaper] is not destroyed by the [circular reasoning] from which it is derived." It is a measure of style not a measure of genius.

With regards to fraser's post on experimental verification it should be remembered that Einstein's special theory was not experimentally checkable. And in order to produce the General theory, he needed help with the technicalities themselves. So maybe some kind and enterprising physical scientist should look at helping Lynds formulate his own Generalised theory of discontinuity. I suspect it would require a little re-thinking about the traditional use of mathematics (how can you have units if you can't have intervals?), but no-one ever said this stuff would be easy, did they?

And before you point at me and say 'why don't you do it then?', I should simply tellyou a little secret: I'm mostly an idiot. :rolleyes:

kafkas_hat
2003-Aug-29, 03:03 PM
If anyone has the opportunity, they should read Leo Sartori's "Understanding Relativity." Several writers have referred to Einstein(okay, he may have been an egregious plagiarist!---a fact Sartori's wonderfully opines) and Special Relativity as unprovable. There have been experiments, and the majority of the features have been proven. There are still issues(given c) which can merely be adumbrated, but particle accelerators are slowly adducing these points.

Someone brought up Calculus, and the issue of limits, while another expunged the issue by contending, "Maybe that's the point(regarding not knowing calculus)." But here exists the conundrum. To explicate the world at large, we as human beings ostensibly classify things. As the philosopher Jacques Derrida told me "We make cause and effect." EVERYTHING becomes a fabrication of our world(see Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" an idea elucidated and elaborated upon by Schopenhauer.) Michel Foucault in "The Order of Things"(see his exegesis of the Port Royale grammar system) discusses how humanity has always sought for a way to ossify our existence; to crystallize and solidfy it in lists and other means. Nomenclature was Foucault's primary argument. For Noam Chomsky, in his post-structural lustre, it ended up being the structure of a sentence. The way all culture's treat verbs, nouns, etc. in explicit and well defined ways.

You could get rid of all of it, because it doesn't really say anything. Just an agglomeration of arbitrary sets and symbols. You could get obviate of cause and effect, taking the most nihilist extention of this idea of showing the otiose qualities of calculus and math, but where do end up? As Bryan Magee once told me, "At what point does that wall in front of you not exist? At what point are you going to quit and say, 'I KNOW these systems don't denote anything, that even though I want say that wall doesn't exist, but it does?'"

I could continue ad nosium. The point being, as Heisenberg argued(and Godel deeply mined---in fact Lynds argument reminds me of Godel's work), mathematics and all systems have flaws based on our quest for grounding. There are points where we can only conceive of a particle's residence; we can never discreetly know, however. These separations from the "world"(from Kant's noumenal) are an inherent part of our existence.

Time, as considered by Henri Bergson, is merely a personal construct; one which we force as fact. We place limits and use Calculus to analyze our world. We accept it because it WORKS respective to our worldly comprehension(NOT because it is!). There in lies the distinction. Lynds' argument may result in a infinitesmal rephrasing of Calculus, but would hardly bring down the "heinous pompous throne of alabaster sitting physicists" because they already know of this. If they don't, then I would be somewhat dissappointed. I do know Hawking still has this "River of Time" construct, so Lynds could be merely exploring this contentious point(as an aside, many physicists don't accept imaginary time or the river of time theory. Guth discusses the commencement of time at the bang where movement commences. Likewise I would think of this as how we "perceive" time's beginning, as Guth contends, with the exact motives and moments being ambiguous---as they dubiously should be.).

Lastly, I completely respect Gell-Mann. If he believes Lynds has discovered something shattering, or he has the potential to, then I should accept reticence. Likewise, Cesar Sirvent's analysis I don't trust and hope others avoid his rambling accounts(though he does mention Calculus limits, ironically). I simply believe we have heard these ideas before. I know from my studies in Literature and Philosophy, this idea has been widely accepted(the literary present I imagine arguably underscores this idea, metaphorically speaking). Which doesn't make Lynds a hoax, just reiterating an idea which has become a common component of literary theory(then again, Einstein probably falls into a similar category. He merely took the Lorentz transformation and the notion of relativity and made it more philosophically lucid).

Lastly, I would argue Lynds' argument makes life easier for physicists, allowing them to accept space-time with more ease; to make the analysis more palpable. Without a river of time, the possibilities become more intriguing...

philip slater
2003-Aug-30, 08:11 PM
Hello kafkas_hat.

I would like at this time to just pick up on a couple of points in your post above, Aug 29 2003, 03:03 PM.

In para. 2 you state ‘...... (see Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" an idea elucidated and elaborated upon by Schopenhauer.)’

It is not immediately clear to which idea of Kant you are referring or whether you class the entire 'Critique' as a single idea that could be later developed by others.

It would be helpful if you could narrow down the reference somewhat.

If everyone following this thread is asked to go away and read the entire Critique before being able to post anything new there could be a bit of a quiet patch from now on.

Even when they return from their studies they may have differences of opinion resulting, if they are not really capable readers of German, from differences in translation and which edition the translator has used to put into whatever may be their native tongue. (If wanting to read it in English the version "Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith (pub. Macmillan) might be as good as any, but do take a second opinion on that. The text followed by Kemp Smith is that of the 2nd edition of 1787, but translations of all passages from the first edition which have been changed or omitted in the second are also included.)


The second point refers to your mention of Bryan Magee. You quote him as follows: "At what point does that wall in front of you not exist? At what point are you going to quit and say, 'I KNOW these systems don't denote anything, that even though I want say that wall doesn't exist, but it does?'"

That raises a number of further questions worthy of serious discussion such as for example does the system of organised thought named science exist? Or could it? Or should it?

For the moment I will just give you another quotation from Magee: "There is no philosopher writing in English who can match Karl Popper in range or in the quality of his work ... Politics, science, art... in fact few broad areas of human thought remain unillumined by Popper's work."

One suggestion, which I hope may be helpful. I believe that your work of explaining the idea that is the subject of this thread might gain in clarity and power to convince if you were to take the time, whilst everyone else is reading Kant, to dip into the works of Popper if you have not yet done so. You might particularly enjoy "Logic der Forschung".

After a period of immersion in Popper's thinking regarding scientific enquiry you might wish to either revise or expand your para. 1 above in which you refer to a theory as being proven.

More later, I expect.


Philip

Staypuffed
2003-Sep-01, 01:12 AM
Hello Kafkas_hat and Philip Slater both,

I should like to propose that kafkas_hat has inadvertantly nailed the key to our discusion in his reference (para. 6) to Einstein. Is not 'philosophical lucidity' the paramount key to understanding? Where Philip mentions Popper, should we not also mention Kuhn alongside, who tells us that the progress of science lies not in the proofs that a theory can support, but in the deeper schematic/paradigmatic understanding that underpins the theory - these are, apparently , what makes for interesting change. In this case, Einstein, 'plagarising' the Lorenz transformations (which he did not, by the way, he arrives at them through a different route. See Miller, A.I. 1981) and incorporating it with the notion of relativity achieves the essential feature of scientific development precisely by achieving such philosophical (or should we say ontological) lucidity.

So how does that contrast with Lynds? From what I can see, Lynds is attempting his own schematic shift. The problem is, as many people observe, the non-intermittency of time is not a new idea. But surely this is obvious from the existence of time intervals. We are all familiar with the implied creation of opposites - as soon as we comment on the absolute nature of space, the opposite (relative space) is immediately understood. Where we talk of a quantum packet of energy we understand, by evident contrast, the continuous 'flow' of a light wave.

But in the past we have accepted it as intuitive that the interval time fits into our picture of the world. If Lynds can bring such philosophical lucidity to the opposite idea (and I realise that I use the terms 'lucid' and 'intuitive' in the face of modern quantum-possibly a naive optomism on my part) then surely we must accept the heraldry of a new schema, if not the schema itself. I would like the sceptics to respond to this and explain: leaving aside experiemntal proof, how does the theory itself hang together?

Inertia
2003-Sep-07, 03:48 AM
He has a new site at http://www.peterlynds.net.nz (http://www.peterlynds.net.nz) Note the link to his other paper on Zeno's paradoxes alone and the new one on time and consciousness....I know quite a lot about the topic, and I think its very obvious that he's right...I'm deeply impresssed

TDHawkes
2003-Sep-10, 08:08 PM
Continuous Flow Dynamics – The Next Phase!


“Time enters mechanics as a measure of interval.”

“..there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process.”

Peter Lynds, “Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminancy vs. Discontinuity,” to be published in Foundations of Physics Letters.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=622019


Mathematics and much of human thought, including language (words), is composed of established “processes” structuring the interaction between discrete “packets” of “something,” be that some kind of quantity or some kind of information, in order to communicate and make sense of experience.

This limits our ability to understand or communicate aspects of experience which don’t lend themselves to being quantified or encapsulated in a fixed form -- things like time.

Mr. Lynds’ work on time, which is generating such interest and controversy in the world of physics, has been criticized because it supplies no mathematical model to support its contentions. This is because our present mathematics has no adequate means for describing the continuous flow of energy, information, and matter which permits the Universe to exist.

Indeed, it maybe that our nervous systems have only in the last generation or two evolved to the point that we are capable of assimilating and organizing the massive amounts of information flowing continuously into our bodies from our environment, such that we can at last begin to conceptualize and organize our thoughts around what may be one of the central attributes of Nature – the Dynamics of Continuous Flow.

Our ancestors were so unsure of the flow of event and time that they actually believed if certain rituals were not performed at certain times of year that life itself would cease -- the sun would no longer rise, the rains would cease to fall, livestock and women would fail to bear offspring. They encapsulated their understanding and their experience into stories, rituals and beliefs which allowed them to feel anchored in the midst of constant change. In fact, if you examine most of the prayers and supplications of recent major religions (since about 2000 BCE) you will find that the God they postulate and petition is one who is changeless, static, and provides simple formulas for action which will permit life to continue felicitously.

All our philosophies and sciences were born within this conceptual framework postulating a static Universe composed of discrete elements interacting in precise, unchanging ways. But this was clearly just a stage in the evolution of our understanding – witness the rise of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and relativity theory.

So, we have been moving into an entirely different mode of perception for quite some time now. With the aid of supercomputers, we can move even further beyond the last vestiges of old conceptual frameworks rooted in the notion of “staticness.”

Simply put, we need a mathematics, a language, and a philosophy whose structures do not arise from fear of or resistance to change – a mathematics, language and philosophy which does not encapsulate Dynamic Continuous Flow into discrete moments, objects, or processes but indicates direction, intensity, duration, interactions, and contents of Flow.

Mathematics evolves as our understanding evolves. We have seen many new mathematics arise throughout history —Euclidean geometry, calculus and its many variations, and recently fractal mathematics. We see that language evolves continuously. We do not speak the same language our direct ancestors spoke. In fact, English speakers in this 21st century, can no longer easily comprehend what we now call “Old” English, so many things have changed.

We are involved in Flow at all times, and have always been. What we need now is to seriously probe Mr. Lynd’s tentative notions, rise to the challenge he offers and create a mathematics that will adequately describe the continuous Flow of the Universe. Then we can interface new technologies with this Flow, do things, go to places our ancestors could only dream of.

c. 2003 TDHawkes

philip slater
2003-Sep-14, 09:30 AM
It seems to me that a number of very interesting ideas, concepts, insights, observations and perceptions are being floated, aired, expressed or alluded to along the continuum of this thread.

Maybe some of these have just sprung fully formed into a human cranium somewhere. Maybe some of them have been mulled over for a period of time equivalent to the half-life of an average human being if there be any such. Maybe they have formed themselves in the interactive space between individual or group minds.

This, therefore, maybe might be as good a timeplace as any to ask the following questions of anyone and everyone who may be out there, and also to ask that they might be treated as requests for answers.

What, in your view, if you have had the time to study them, are Peter Lynds’ key concepts regarding his perception of the general attributes of the time concept?

How do these differ from previously held mental perceptions of the framework within which it is possible for things to happen?

Are these new insights going to help the humans to help Earth-developed species and intelligences devise, develop and spread to new ecological niches throughout the solar system and beyond, if no other local or general entity or entities have any objection.

Also, possibly the most difficult, can you answer these questions within the durational dimensions of an average post on UT forums, and could you please attempt to do so?

Philip

Inertia
2003-Oct-09, 01:36 AM
Philip, you might want to check out http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/notes (particularly 1 and 9) - Also perhaps http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...c-gwi072703.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/icc-gwi072703.php)

Chook
2003-Oct-10, 12:53 AM
Excuse me - but I alway thought that TIME was something like "rate of change" (no TIME no change/movement/thought even) and simply used for purposes of prediction - having in itself no significance; like "fast" or "hot".

CHOOK

Matthew
2003-Oct-10, 09:08 AM
But time is relative. Somone on Earth will experience slightly less time than someone orbiting the Earth in the ISS. There isn't enough of a difference to worry about, but there is a difference!

Maximum
2003-Oct-10, 02:52 PM
What is this life so full of care, we have no time to stand and stare?

People keep saying that in this 'modern' world we have no time to do this that or the other.

"There is no time to do anything."

Is it this the reason why nobody has yet had the time to try to write here a short and simple summary of what is Peter Lynds. view of time, what is new about it and how it changes things like how we look at the world, the universe and our place in time and space.

Or is it that we all, thanks to his theorising on the subject, have now come to realise that we don't understand the concept at all, or maybe that there is just no such thing as time?

Matthew
2003-Oct-11, 06:23 AM
And if there is no time, then most of current physics is wrong. A lot of physics formula need 'time' in them to work. Are they wrong?

Haglund
2003-Oct-11, 09:10 AM
Time as a concept is obsolete. It's a concept of the past... :-)

Matthew
2003-Oct-12, 04:12 AM
Parker, what do you mean?

Haglund
2003-Oct-12, 08:30 AM
Was just trying to be funny, by saying that time is not real, a concept of the past (would there be a "past" without time)

I'm a Fan of Genisuses
2003-Oct-16, 10:18 PM
I reviewed what Lynds has to say, and I am impressed by his courage. He has done what I myself could not, which is to express how I feel. My name is CRL Scholar. I am afraid to even say my real name because I don't want it connected with my theories. In any case, I will at least clarify the difference between Lynds and Einstien. Lynds is a phylospher and Einstien is a scientist. There, that should do it.

But does that make Einstien right? Not about time, but about other things, yes. Lynds is wrong too. Time is defined in relativity to the amount of space an object can move going at a constant velocity. That was not defined by Einstien but by Newton. Einstien won a round with Newton only on the atomic level. He did what Newton could not, which is define the relationship between Energy and Matter. Perhabs overly zealous on the adrenalin from this win, he even dared to question what time was. But on that issue he lost to Newton. The issue with young physists these days is that they don't know their history. There are honorable mentions like Prince Louise-Victor Pierre Raymond De Broglie and Niels Bohr, who did a hell of a lot more work in correcting Newton than Einstien ever did. But anyone who believes that just because Einstien won a round it made him smarter than Newton is off his crock. Newton is the MAN in physics. Einstien opened up Pandora's box and allowed the world a second chance.

Earlier, someone asked what is wrong with Lynds statements. First, let me clear that up. The paradox he mentioned excludes velocity. It relies not on time but on the misconception that Achilles will run at a constant velocity. The idea here is Achilles is human. The time we want to know is at what time will he past the Turtle. In this case it is undefined. What Newton did to get time was he took out all conditions and made the body isolated and in motion under an pre-existing force. If Achilles was thrown in a vaccum, then we can estimate the time before he passes the Turtle. The problem with the Paradox is everyone has Achilles defeated because of his bad heel. But suppose Achilles realizes their doubt, and goes for broke. With this new found enthusiasm, he may get a second wind as a boxer suddenly does after accidently hurting an opponent coming in for the kill. This is called the Killer&#39;s Instinct. If Achilles gets a rush of adrenaline and is not hindered by his heel, the race is his. This is no paradox. It&#39;s bull****. The second problem, the dichotomy, is more like looking for pi than looking for time. The time at which pi terminates is undefined. Pi is now set at nearly 750 billion digits, and still growing.... whew&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; But it has nothing to do with time, which in the case of the goal is already defined. How? Well, going at a set speed towards a goal, you define the time as the quantity of instances past before you arrive at that goal. So if the captain says we will be arriving in Japan at such and such a time provided that nothing strange happenes, generally, he&#39;s right, give or take a few minutes. The problem of this Paradox is, it is not a Paradox. The idea stated says you can not arrive at a goal because the distance to cover decreases in halfs. But if it is decreasing, eventually it must reach 0. You can argue it never does all you want, but not only does it, we can predict when. It reaches 0 when the distance is 0. And when is that? Well, you can calculate it with Newton&#39;s laws. The problem that Einstien has with Newton is Newton left T for time undefined. He needs a quantity for time. He doesn&#39;t come up with one, but instead uses Babylonian measurements of 60 minutes to the hour instead. It has been the standards for how we measure time for ages. Why would he stop then. The instrument for measuring time is the hourglass close to his time, before the Germans gave us clocks, and then dared to make them smaller via Rolex watches, and before the Japanese gave us digital clocks, and dared to make them smaller into digital watches. Application is more important than the thoeries, cuz that&#39;s where the money&#39;s at. But we know the Babylonian measurements are a system of faith, which Newton clings to. The smallest measurement for time is an instance which is set at 0. And event occurs in a flash or an instance implies before you can record the time it took. Time begins at 0.0000(infinity) + 1, which would be the smallest possible unit. And that&#39;s where the Paradox is: How can we have infinity plus a number? Einstien needed to say time started at the creation of the universe. He made the speed of light the fastest speed and defined an instance at the time it takes a proton traveling at a constant C to move a volume of space equal to it&#39;s own volume. So in a distance of 10 light volumes of space, light would have traveled at a time equal to T=d/C; divide that number by 10, and that&#39;s the smallest unit of time. Guess what? We don&#39;t know what that would be. We don&#39;t know the exact volume of light, and we don&#39;t even except light is the smallest unit of mass much less the fastest. On his win over Newton, Einstien turned GOD and decided to hand down phylosophical judgements on a concept he couldn&#39;t possibly dissolve. He should have left time the way Newton did, as faith. We now use a calendar to more meet our needs and we change the 30 in every month to a range between 28-31, but the Babs even added an extra-month every so-called leap year to keep the nights and days straight since unfortunately the Earth travels in a strange orbit and is not always in the same place away from the Sun during the year. Yippe&#33; That&#39;s why we have four seasons&#33; But there is no need to question seconds and minutes. That&#39;s a fools question, like questioning why does the universe exist, which is impossible to question for Humans without relying on phylosophy which means having faith in nothing. At least have faith in something we use every day and every minute: Time. When you are old and grey, you will then ask how did you get from a baby to an old geser, when time goes by, you can even measure how long its been since you were on the planet. Why? Just accept it by faith. Just know that it does and except it. Pi is a constant and when rounded off to 3 digits will always be 3.14. Why? Who cares&#33; It&#39;s digits never end. Why? We can keep dividing it because we can make infinitely smaller triangles to put into it. What is infinity? When pi terminates, we may have that answer. But don&#39;t bother to ask. And Lydns is moving backwords if he wants to now question Einstien. Einstien may not have been able to prove light is the best measure of time and that traveling faster than it will allow us to escape the realities of time and space, but at least he proved rigth on E=MC^2 (and even lived to see it demonstrated) before he went and dared to question Newton. Lynds will have to at least prove some Paradoxes in present physics, and some do exist which pushed Einstien into a period of isolation as he attempted to unify his beliefs with the many new observations in Quantum physics. But he couldn&#39;t even get past magnetic forces and gravity (Newton didn&#39;t even dare mention it in depth. Gravity is a force, and there are many Kinds.... END&#33; But he unlike Einstien came up with TONs of them with the corresponding mathematics).... so there is a place to start looking Lynds :) He, like Newton, is celebrated not for being the best physists, because Physics came after Newton, and Quantum Physics came after Einstien, but for opening the doors to these new fields of study and providing us with a direction and ideas to start proving or disproving as a way of making new experiements and documenting new observations. Please note that CERN is attempting to go one level lower to particle or rather high speed particle physics. There findings if they have an anti-particle system, may give us an anti-light, then an anti-time idea, and then we may have to consider an anti-big-bang theory, or rather, reverse big-bang... I wonder if darkness will spread over the world like that Never-Ending story idea :< I love that movie.

I think all this Greek Phylosophy and Greek Physics are going to get us into trouble. But it&#39;s not surprising since the Greeks were bad Mathematicians. In fact, I believe the Christian Bible had pi = 3. Now we know the Babylonians had a much better approximation nearly 1500 years prior...if you except Greek cronology--aka the Catholic cronolgy to coiencide with the bible, strickly enforced by the Church during the Renissance--and if not, almost 2500 years before. But wait&#33; 2500BC??? That&#39;s the exact time of Greek antiquity. How did the Babylonians get it? Mathematics, which the Greeks were never good at. As for India, a man by the name of Ramunaji gave the best Human produced way to find pi....which for some reason is not avialable in most mathematics books. Can anyone say Greek Pride? Except if they exisited 5000 years before, how could all their phylosophy now be so well recalled... even conversations between individuals. First let me just say even Newton begged that a comprehensive cronology of the dating of the universe be done in according to science, but the church had a hard time allowing it. Even Galilieo himself, who died under his attempts to question the church due to the simple statement of the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa, dated the beginning of the univerese in accordance with the New Testemant, at some 4400 BC. Only Newton was willing to say that that is obviously impossible. For his time, what Newton was thinking was definitely inciteful. As for Einstien, I give him credit for being smarter than he should have been, ergo, a genius by those standards, which is how we measure Genius. Newton, when measure by that standard is far ahead of him, because his concepts were revolutionary when you consider he had to think them up with very little to work with and not as much factual observations made as what came after he opened the western world to physical secrets of the orients. He invented a new MATH&#33; Now that&#39;s a genius. If you want to know what Einstien shouldn&#39;t have known but did, that&#39;s easy to explain. Also, I don&#39;t except his redefinition of time, but then again I can&#39;t disprove it since I can&#39;t really redefine it. If you&#39;re interested in me explaining not only his genius but what conditions of the time allowed it to flourish to the heights it did, that I can explain too, but I won&#39;t unless asked since my explination is already too long.

Lynds&#33; Good on you mate&#33; Don&#39;t let the man get you down. Just keep on thinking. If it weren&#39;t for WWII, Einstien would have never had the conditions under which to turn his theories into applications. Oh, he got the last application wrong... and yes, he did try to prove it in application. If you doubt his Genius, tell it to the millions of Japanese who died under his E=MC^2 theory. He may not have been the first to come up with an approximation, some had it at E=3/4MC. But he was the first to apply it ;)

Inertia
2003-Nov-02, 12:36 PM
i admire his courage as well. here&#39;s a very interesting recent interview he did

http://ciencia.astroseti.org/astrofisica/e.../entrelynds.php (http://ciencia.astroseti.org/astrofisica/entrelynds.php)

i also think I put in the wrong link before. it should have been http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/notes.html

kafkas_hat
2003-Nov-03, 11:55 PM
Some comments about what I think has been a wonderful discussion:
1)I made a passing comment about Einstein and the Lorentz transformation. My point was not that Einstein "stole" the idea; he came up with the transformations through a more theoretically proper light. But that merely the reoccurring issue within academia of "stepping stones." The attempt to find a true origin and a true innovator becomes extremely arduous when you realize the answers probably have already rolled off of someone&#39;s tongue. As an aside, I completely disagree with the theory apropos Einstein and plagarism not only because of my previous statements, but my examinations of Ponicare&#39;s theories which never made the logical extension Einstein did.
2)Which brings me to Lynds. He discusses time and the erroneous notion of time in Physics as a "frozen entity," and instead sees it as continuous-discontinuous depending on the "subject." Nothing shocking here. Below are texts I used for an argument about time as merely a psychological function in my MA thesis:
a)Timaeus(the starting point---reveals Aristotle&#39;s attempt to make time a solid, hueristic definition of time--math based, and important in that respect.)
b)St. Augustine&#39;s "Confessions"(see X through XIII, I think&#33;---his notion of time is exactly what Lynds describes, though with more lucidity and many years ago)
c)Kierregaard&#39;s "Repetition"(time as psychological extended further)
d)Virginia Woolf&#39;s "Mrs. Dalloway"(the soldier&#39;s torn mental state and the theory of being "out of time" as a social pariah)
e)Nietzsche "On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life"(about time past, time present, and time future in a Nietzschean, dialectical form)
f)Henri Bergson "Matter and Memory"(a modern follow-up to St. Augustine&#39;s views and shows that the idea of time can be extended far beyond what Lynds espoused)
g)Jacques Derrida "Writing and Difference"(the cogito and connections to time are fundamentally important for modern theorists).
h)Faulkner "A Light in August"(extremely important literary example of Bergson&#39;s theories)
i)Proust&#39;s "Swann&#39;s Way"(the first page states "And as I would lay in bed, I would listen to the whistle of trains. At which point I would try to reckon the passage of time." Yes, a reference to Einstein&#39;s thought experiments and the whistles changing pitch which Proust mentions later references the Doppler effect. The well-known "eating of the madeline" flashback makes the point about time clear---everything becomes based on our mind.)

I think from these texts anyone can see the discussion of time historically and what Lynds intended. Maybe because I have been in this world, I didn&#39;t find Lynds work very important or groundbreaking. But it does offer a succinct examination of time as a psychological component, and the problem with the antiquated, solidified perspective which goes back to the "Timaeus" text.

So what do we do in Physics? What this means is as human beings we again come to the conclusion that we can never completely know reality. We always remain separated(my earlier Kantian reference glares its ugly head here), and the noumenal always untouchable. However, we make do. We accept mathematics and time because these constructs work most of the time. Through falsification, the realization that something is false(rather than proven true), what "works" will change.

I applaud Lynds for reminding everyone, especially those in the physics community of how the psychological plays an integral role in every study made(I think of the failure of measurement and various quantum issues, whether Bell&#39;s Theorem or Schrodinger&#39;s Wave theorem here). It does have reaching effects. If we achieve a Theory of Everything, will it ever be perfect? Can it be? Probably not. Something will likely slip through our grasp(Godel&#39;s number theory or Derrida&#39;s cogito for example). Mathematically it can explain the issues and the functions, but we remain separated not by the supposition being proven, but by the thing resting outside the number theory cycle which will some day prove the theory false in some way.

Thanks to everyone, Mr. Slater and the others, for forcing me to study physics and math theory more intently to clue myself in on all of their wonderful insights.