If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Guardian)   Man believed to have discovered new theory of time despite having no training in physics is probably incorrect   (education.guardian.co.uk) divider line 140
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

19207 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2003 at 6:45 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-08-17 12:38:12 AM
When I was in fourth grade, I too came up with a new theory of time. I decided that time had a speed, and the faster you go, the slower time would go by. If you could get your speed up high enough, you would be going faster than the speed of time, and would therefore go back in time. All hail 10 year old me as a freaking genius. I challenge this guy to a 12 round cage match of crackpot time theorizing.

(Actually, I was KIND OF right. Big emphasis on the "kind of." And please note that at that time, I had never been educated about the theory of relativity or time dilation effects.)
 
2003-08-17 06:55:20 AM
Zeno's problem is good, for how few men existed back then... to last 2500 years.

How a man can travel a circle and never touch every point... There's some points a man doesn't want to hit. And there's some points he can imagine, because they're so close between the point he traveled. I can argue it's possible to go full circle, but the circle is always changing... So a point you remembered when you were young is actually at a different point in current times.

I don't know why anyone would want to go back in time, since we already know what happened back then. If you want to see how things were for people, read history books, and try and understand the culture of the time. If you want to see how things were for a specific person, that shiat's personal, and copying every single thing a person does isn't right either.
 
2003-08-17 06:56:29 AM
In the beginning, there was nothing. So God created light, and there was still nothing, only now you could see it.

/rimshot
 
2003-08-17 07:00:54 AM
I have taken almost 4 years of physics now... and I have come to the conclusion Douglas Adams said it best with..

"Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesnt necessarily do it in chronological order,though."
 
2003-08-17 07:06:08 AM
lemmie be the first to whine about this being a repeat from last week
 
2003-08-17 07:06:10 AM
thought this was that timecube guy. false alarm.

/agrees with thistlechaser, Adams did put it best. Ah, a pleasure i'll never have again is reading the Hitchhikers series for the first time.
 
2003-08-17 07:08:44 AM
ubermensch

its not a repeat, see you dont understand, heres travelled through time and done it all again........ god dont u listen!
 
2003-08-17 07:13:38 AM
Since his tard theory was not published in a legit journal, he has all the credibility of the asshat ufo cult that claims to be shiatting out cloned babies like Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
 
2003-08-17 07:17:41 AM
42
 
2003-08-17 07:20:10 AM
I second 42. But I multiply it by 10.
 
2003-08-17 07:22:57 AM
I am dumbfounded at the responses that this is getting.

If something goes against the currently 'accepted' norm in science, there's always a cadre of scientists against it, and the news outlets always pick it up. However, the mudslinging really should end; this isn't a (currently) mathematically-provable thing . . . as they say in the article, with a mathematic model helping to support this piece we may find it has more heft. However, there will always be scientists that slam it down as hog-wash and second rate science, even if it were to be shown as a functioning model. I mean, there are still 'scientists' that believe the earth is flat, right?
 
2003-08-17 07:24:30 AM
I mean, there are still 'scientists' that believe the earth is flat, right?

Wrong.
 
2003-08-17 07:25:21 AM
Loonook

The black helicopters are on their way
 
2003-08-17 07:28:00 AM
Earth is square.

/not really a scientist but I play one on TV
 
2003-08-17 07:28:49 AM
I have an idea where his theory came from:



ffffffft. Cough cough. Like dude, if somthing is moving, it isn't ever really at any one point, cause like dude, it's MOVING! Don't ya get it?

Quit bogarting, asshat!
 
2003-08-17 07:32:01 AM
scientists are worse than politicians. unless something came straight from their own mind they'll never actually believe it. Im not saying this guy is right...Im just saying that all scientists are wrong.
 
2003-08-17 07:38:32 AM
Time is a human idea
 
2003-08-17 07:39:04 AM
Dear TheOriginalEd,

Please know something about the mechanics of scientific publishing and/or the field of physics before forming your half-ass opinions and/or posting them.

Thanks,

Limbic
 
2003-08-17 07:44:36 AM
Time rides my ass. That's the law.
 
2003-08-17 07:47:11 AM
If something goes against the currently 'accepted' norm in science, there's always a cadre of scientists against it

Well, the word "cadre" sounds kind of conspiritorial, but yes, that is how it is supposed to work. We even have a term for this. It is called "peer review". Other scientists evaluate the theory being postulated or the study that was done or whatever and see if they can replicate it, does it contradict known science, etc. This is a good thing. That way asshats like the Raelians or those Cold Fusion stooges from a few years back aren't wasting people's time and energy with nonsense.

It is one thing to have a theory and have it rejected by the peer review process, then continue to try and support it. Some of these folks may even be right. But to BYPASS the review process as these frauds have done is almost always a sign of trouble. The media never learns of course, because they aren't scientists and don't understand much about scientific method, etc.

The public contributes to the problem becuase they too are ignorant of these things and often view scientists as either the "mad" stereotype, or as some kind of objective source of information. The fact is that scientists (and those who claim scientific knowledge) are humans and exhibit all the weaknesses of the breed.

It is instructional that L. Ron Hubbard never bothered to even submit "Dianetics" to any kind of mental health journal, but instead chose to publish his crackpot theories in the pulp fiction magazine "Astounding Science Fiction". Speaking of astounding, scientists have a saying: "Astounding claims require astounding proof". Sounds like a good system to me.

After all, Shockley et al used this exact same method to develop the transistor that is the basis of the thing you are typing on right now. Unless you believe that the government found that technology in the Roswell UFO wreckage, in which case wtf are you doing on FARK when you could be calling up George Nouri!
 
2003-08-17 07:48:23 AM
Having read the paper (it's not too long), I have to conclude that his theory is too obvious to be worth publishing.
 
2003-08-17 07:54:01 AM
I don't have time for this.

.<
 
2003-08-17 07:57:07 AM
You know , these guys can argue all farking day long about this issue , if his theory is sound or not , if the math holds up , etc....

But I think a more valid question is this:

When will they make a time machine , and can I use to go back in time to put right what once went wrong with a hologram pal?
 
2003-08-17 07:58:01 AM
See! The peer review process is already starting! Where did you get your Physics degree from, Doomy?

Actually, you are going to get peer reviewed, whether you submit it or not, but You are far more likely to be taken seriously if you do the world the courtesy of going through the proper channels first. After that, it is up to you. Of course once you have been shot down by everybody with your asshat theory, it is harder to get the teevee cameras to come...
 
2003-08-17 07:58:45 AM
It does sound to simple to be published... But it also could have been explained in alot less than 7 pages. Hell, a good sized paragraph would've gotten the idea across. And I also agree that it probably originated from a bong session. This sounds like a common sense idea that came from a bunch of high-school freshman with too much free time. :)

PsychoAU
 
2003-08-17 08:04:29 AM
This theory is incredibly obvious. While I was learning about quantem mechanics and such I just thought about how I wouldn't have to do this pain-in-the-ass work if the common theory of time was "fark having a common theory of time, time can't be explained with numbers, time has no measurements and is too dubious to be measured." Maybe I should write that down on a napkin, with no "scientific" or mathematical basis like this guy, and I can be called a genius by reporters who are desperately looking for a genius from my country because the country really hasn't had any geniuses at all.
 
2003-08-17 08:17:19 AM
beerbaron : Helsinki, where everyone else got it no?
 
2003-08-17 08:23:20 AM
What happened to your eye, Flea?
 
2003-08-17 08:25:11 AM
If Lynd is saying time merely an accident of motion, then Aristotle already suggested that.
 
2003-08-17 08:30:15 AM
Yeah, screw this time thing, I wanna know about Flea's eye.
 
2003-08-17 08:30:45 AM
Sounds suspeciously like an uncertainty principal I heard about many moons ago.
 
2003-08-17 08:31:16 AM
Fortunately my theory on the ability of b00bies to occupy way too much of any man's time has been proven correct over and over and over again.
 
2003-08-17 08:37:01 AM
What am I wasting all this time getting a PhD in physics for, when all I really needed was a few good bong hits to get published in Foundations of Physics Letters. shiat. Like eleven years of my life, wasted on (relative) sobriety, study, and research.
 
2003-08-17 08:40:16 AM
This is physics, it's not maths, there are no absolute proofs.

So right and wrong it doesn't even come down to the best theory, it's simple the most accepted theory at the current time.

Give it 100 years and we we look back at our current theories and wonder how we could've been that stupid.

In conclusion, who the fark cares? Let the white coats have their little holy wars, while we deal with the important shiat - like boobies.
 
2003-08-17 08:40:17 AM
... Did anyone actually read his theory? It's like 7 pages of me talking about how the sky is blue, water is a liquid, and George Bush is a friggin idiot.

Either the guy is a moron, or it's a hoax.
 
2003-08-17 08:49:11 AM
does anyone know what time it is?
 
2003-08-17 08:50:54 AM
Everything has its time!
herr heidegger
 
2003-08-17 08:59:54 AM
From the article:
"His big idea, put simply, is that time cannot be thought of in physical, definable quantities. To the uninitiated that may seem obvious, but to some physicists it's heresy. Current thinking in quantum mechanics relies on time being made up of tiny, discrete packages - just like light and energy."

From lucid_one:
"So right and wrong it doesn't even come down to the best theory, it's simple the most accepted theory at the current time."

Then this guy's theory IS "right". Sounds just like common sense to me.

Unless someone can show me an understandable explanation to why time should be click-based instead of analog, i'm gonna regard the quantum mechanics theory as a result of too much time indoors. Those labrats really need to go out and get laid.
 
2003-08-17 09:11:59 AM
I don't know why anyone would want to go back in time, since we already know what happened back then.

I guess I would try to point out that we really DON'T know what happened at many times in the past, either because of faulty records, a total lack or records, or heavily skewed and biased records. And don't forget the whole time period before recorded human history.

Sure, you say to read a history book and don't get me wrong, I love to learn about history from books. But they don't tell the whole story, and furthermore they can never truly describe the conditions of an event. Just picture an event like the fall of the Berlin wall which happened recently in a historical sense, and how different it would be if there was no television to show it actually happening. You could never get the same experience from reading a book about it.
 
2003-08-17 09:12:00 AM
"such philosophical musings are of little use without a solid mathematical model to support them, which Lynds does not supply"

That pretty much sums it up. Philosophical ranting is not physics unless you can make predictions. This guy is a nutjob.
 
2003-08-17 09:13:04 AM
Because I'm in a particular picky mood right now, I'd like to point out that theories are not discovered, they are formulated.
 
2003-08-17 09:13:11 AM
I am not a physicist by trade. Yet, as I look at his premise I find an obvious flaw...He states that no precise interval of time can be theoretically determined because time is continuous... Wrong! Has he ever heard of the concept of "limits"?
Any physicists out there that can tell me whether I'm thinking in the right direction?
 
2003-08-17 09:16:19 AM
Actually it's not as "obvious" as the original poster might think; many of the most important theories in physics often arise from non-physicists. And early models of theories often don't have supporting mathematics. Otherwise we wouldn't still be looking for a UTE.

That said, whether Lynd's work holds up over...ahem, time--only time will tell.
 
2003-08-17 09:24:02 AM
my eye? -- the goggles, they do nothing.

.<

(it's a farting flea, duh.)
 
2003-08-17 09:25:02 AM
mushpuppy
That said, whether Lynd's work holds up over...ahem, time--only time will tell.

The thing is, it won't hold up. Zeno's paradox is faulty (as is this derivative "proof") because it subdivides time into equal-length chunks (good), then suggests that there are an infinite many of them (bad). In reality, each time slice must be smaller than the previous one. As a few of the other posters have mentioned already, this is where the concept of limits arises.
 
2003-08-17 09:26:04 AM
Bah. Swap my "good" and "bad" comments above, and it makes much more sense.

No biscuit for me.
 
2003-08-17 09:30:55 AM
 
2003-08-17 09:32:42 AM
It's amazing how close minded scientists are, especially ones who somehow believe in quantum mechanics... Speaking of which, when is the big bang theory going to be abandoned? Oh wait, never, why, because it's way to big to be abandoned, that's why.

Chaos theory my friends, chaos. Entropy will destroy us all and cause me to change my major to interior design, hooray!
 
2003-08-17 09:37:46 AM
"BOR-ING !!!!!!"


/Homer
 
2003-08-17 09:39:28 AM
It's probably a good thing that some of the older stuffy "scientists" get a breeze up their skirts whether or not the guy is right. They get the tendency to to automatically discard any ideas that didn't come from their circles thus, potentially overlooking something brillant.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report