[J.F.K.]

Meh, time. All the important stuff happens outside it, anyway.

[ZylonBane]

It should be noted that a lot of the "science" the Greeks came up with was, like Zeno's paradox, pure garbage. In that era actual physical experimentation was considered gauche. The idea was that, since nature is based on logic, you should be able figure it out by just sitting around thinking up theories.

This didn't do too much damage to theology and philosophy, but it saddled the physical sciences with all sorts of crap that lives on in our cultural consciousness to this day.

[Stryke 9]

I'm surprised people still hold Zeno's "paradox" as one, anyway. I mean, it's compound density in measurements. Nothing particularly mysterious there, we've known about it forever. Hell, half of, whatsisname, Calculus or Algebra (slept through both) involves asymptotic exponentials and the like anyway.

[Dark_4ce]

But alas, this guys theory, although he claims it solves of paradoxes, fails to solve the most important one. "Which one came first? The chicken or the egg?"

[Stryke 9]

Since Time is toroidal, both simultaneously came first, last, and in the middle. And, by the same token, never existed in the first place. There is no chicken.

[Dark_4ce]

Whoah... Never thought of it that way...

[Levyathan]

If my biology teacher is right, the egg.

[Grey Wolf]

If you think about it, is there really any difference between time running straight forward, time branching off infinitely, or time not actually existing at all to a person who is observing it within that theory?
In situation 1, which has a single, unbroken temporal reality, the person would observe time moving forward, and he would be correct.
In situation 2, with the fractal temporal reality, it would appear to the observer that time was moving forward, since he would have no way to observe the other realities.
And in situation 3, in which time does not really exist, and in which each moment is its own separate universe, the person would still believe that time was going forward.
Since we lack any way of viewing alternate temporal realities, we cannot prove the way time flows any better than the Greeks could.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by ZylonBane
It should be noted that a lot of the "science" the Greeks came up with was, like Zeno's paradox, pure garbage. In that era actual physical experimentation was considered gauche. The idea was that, since nature is based on logic, you should be able figure it out by just sitting around thinking up theories.

I always wondered about that, but never heard it said so succinctly. Though you're right, I think that generally people don't give the Greeks enough credit for the intelligence they had back then (even if their physical sciences came out ridiculous). Gives an illusionary sense of human progress, I think.

[ZylonBane]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
I'm surprised people still hold Zeno's "paradox" as one, anyway.

I'm afraid I must now disabuse you of the notion that most people have a working knowledge of the mathematics required to disprove Zeno's paradox.

[CP5670]

That Zeno situation is phrased in a way that makes it seem like a paradox but it is actually quite obvious where the seeming inconsistency comes from. Not only is the distance travelled by Achilles and the tortoise cut into a tenth every time you record their progress, but so is the time taken for each increment to occur. So as both the time taken and the distance travelled by the two go to zero, we get a 0/0 style limit which can of course be a finite quantity.

We can say that Achilles is at position 10T from the starting point while the tortoise is at T+10, but T is actually a function of a different variable, say U, something like T = 10/9 (1 - 10^-U), where U takes integer values. They will obviously meet at T = 10/9; the value of U for which this occurs is ¥ but that's perfectly okay, since U is just an independent variable being used to place increments in the time and does not denote the elapsed time itself. As I said, the confusion comes from the way the problem is worded since most people tend to think that T itself is the independent variable.

What exactly is that guy's idea though? That article does not say much about the actual theory...

[Ace]

Originally posted by Thorn
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html

still trying to wrap my brain around this one...

Well it has been determined through experiments that time is not broken into a planck intreval.

If time cannot be measured by quanta, then via Occam's razor the simplest solution to the answer is that there is nothing to have the quanta of. In essence, time does not exist.

Since we think with a dialogue based on time, (biochemical patterns in the brain are effected by stimuli) it is natural to assume that previous information or future information within the universe exists.

I do not believe that Lynd himself is a 'genius' but he is a good excuse to allow for physicists who want to challenge traditional assumptions to have a field day. Something that is difficult to due because of the nature of science. Moreso, even "enlightened scientists" have a hard problem working beyond human nature.

Anyway, there is an odd correlation between Zeno's paradox and the way that light operates as a constant, don't you think?

Just as space and time as one object allows for a solution to Zeno's paradox, there is certainly something missing from relativity

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by CP5670
That Zeno situation is phrased in a way that makes it seem like a paradox but it is actually quite obvious where the seeming inconsistency comes from. Not only is the distance travelled by Achilles and the tortoise cut into a tenth every time you record their progress, but so is the time taken for each increment to occur. So as both the time taken and the distance travelled by the two go to zero, we get a 0/0 style limit which can of course be a finite quantity.

We can say that Achilles is at position 10T from the starting point while the tortoise is at T+10, but T is actually a function of a different variable, say U, something like T = 10/9 (1 - 10^-U), where U takes integer values. They will obviously meet at T = 10/9; the value of U for which this occurs is ¥ but that's perfectly okay, since U is just an independent variable being used to place increments in the time and does not denote the elapsed time itself. As I said, the confusion comes from the way the problem is worded since most people tend to think that T itself is the independent variable.

What exactly is that guy's idea though? That article does not say much about the actual theory...

Huh - just what I said, only in Equationish instead of English!

[Dark_4ce]

Well... If time does not exist... Then you can't measure speed. Because speed is the time it took to go a specific distance right? So, according to the theory, I'll just go outside and drive about 240km/h on a 40 road, and explain to the cops, that will finally shoot my wheels out, that according to the new laws of physics, I wasn't going any speed, because there is no time. As well as that I wasn't there cause there is no today. So I can safely say that I was at home at the time of overspeeding...

Or....

*brain shuts down.*

...

*drool*