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

Dirk Bruere at Neopax dirk at neopax.com
Tue Feb 8 11:56:33 EST 2005


kenneth collins wrote:

> "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?

The real England.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list