dubious

Wilson da Silva:


He doesn't have a model. If you read the actual article, you'll
notice what he published were some philosophical ideas. Those don't
appear to be all that novel.

hayek

by Peter Lynds - a

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s920462.htm

He makes the same mistake as Barbour : he starts
from the Uncertainty principles and then moves to
define motion. I worked the other way around :
first define where motion comes from, inertia, and
then accept that it fails at uncertainty.

Motion, in their view, becomes a Schrodinger Cat
like leaping. If you do not watch the arrow then
it can leap, and motion is not continuous.

The real ones watching the arrow are the masses of
the universe, and they scrutinously will subject
the arrow to Newtons Inertia, and Einsteins
inertial mass increase at high speeds. But for the
individual small particles at small distances,
they do not bother.

Hayek.

dubious

Wilson da Silva:


He doesn't have a model. If you read the actual article, you'll
notice what he published were some philosophical ideas. Those don't
appear to be all that novel.

bill vajk

Which one can only impute after the fact.

maporat

---------
yes
but thats our fault as human beings.
besides, that fault is actually meaninless and harmless
IOW
i cant see the great loss of damage due to the fact
that we can realise events only after their ocurance.
on the other hand we are ;compensated' by our ability
to *predict* events
nature itself as far as i unserstand cannot predict
its future a few steps ahead
it can onlt commit the last order that it got from
its motivators.
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------

fishfry

Full of mathematical and logical errors too.

hayek

by Peter Lynds - a

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s920462.htm

He makes the same mistake as Barbour : he starts
from the Uncertainty principles and then moves to
define motion. I worked the other way around :
first define where motion comes from, inertia, and
then accept that it fails at uncertainty.

Motion, in their view, becomes a Schrodinger Cat
like leaping. If you do not watch the arrow then
it can leap, and motion is not continuous.

The real ones watching the arrow are the masses of
the universe, and they scrutinously will subject
the arrow to Newtons Inertia, and Einsteins
inertial mass increase at high speeds. But for the
individual small particles at small distances,
they do not bother.

Hayek.

jacques lavau

Just hot air, no theory at all...
--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/

hayek

The current paradigm : "time is what you read on a
clock and a clock is a device that you read time
on" does not even qualify as hot air. It is much less.

Hayek.

jacques lavau

The current paradigm : "time is what you read on a
clock and a clock is a device that you read time
on" does not even qualify as hot air. It is much less.

Hayek.
End of quotation.

Well ? And your point is ?

A useful reference :
Roger Penrose. On the nature of Quantum Geometry. pp 333 - 354, in Magic without
Magic : J. A. Wheeler, edited by J. R. Klander, Freeman 1972.


Lavau
--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/