On the Non-Existence of 'time' [was Re: SciAm article [was Happy Groundhog Day!]]

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Feb 8 01:44:02 EST 2005


"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote in message news:36pr8dF55hs2jU2 at individual.net...
| kenneth collins wrote:
|
| > "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > news:B%NNd.167849$w62.141776 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > | [...]
| >
| > || The "magnetic moments" of 'atoms'
| > || are 'just' the same energy-gradient-
| > || differential stuff.
| > ||
| > || Kepler's 'constant' swept-areas?
| > || Same-old, same-old.
| > ||
| > || 'gravity' too.
| >
| > The "dis-integration" of 'atoms', in what's
| > been referred to as "radioactive decay",
| > is 'just' energy being "metered-out" be-
| > cause, as the Universe expands, the en-
| > ergy-"pressure" of this energy-gradient
| > decreases, so the energy that is 'trapped'
| > within the 'atoms' that happen to locally
| > 'experience' such universal energy supply
| > 'pressure' decreases' can no longer be
| > 'contained' within them, so energy goes,
| > from them, into the universal energy sup-
| > ply. It's this continuous-outporing of en-
| > ergy from 'atoms' that empowers every-
| > thing, and which is what's described by
| > 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].
|
| Crank physics.

That's a =Serious= charge, Sir.

| The real physics of the nature of radioactive decay is well understood.

Yeah, sure. So 'was' Ptolemaic Astronomy.

The existing Erroneous 'explanation'has
'just' been beaten into Students' heads
so coercively that 'no one' dares to think
any different.

This has everything to do with the way
nervous systems process information,
having gon uncomprehended, and no-
thing to do with physical reality.

| The latter theoretical structures also supply numbers that match observations.

Yeah, while invoking "randomness".

=Anything= can be curve-fit through
invocations of "randomness".

The problem is that, in doing so, the
'solution', itself, blocks all further pro-
gress -- 'cause it's Wrong, and one
can't 'travel' from "Wrong" to Truth,
without, first, 'traveling' through Un-
wrong.

| Anyone can come up with a 'thoeory' that only involves vague description and
| some catchy words.

Especially when they invoke "ran-
domness" :-]

Let's see the maths.

I'm in New England. Where are
you?

k. p. collins







More information about the Neur-sci mailing list