Re: passing time

1999-12-21 Thread Fritz Stumpges

My humble attempt to understand what Julian Barbour is saying in ... Never
Enough Time,  leads me to believe that some parts are not so difficult, and
some parts are like a cow trying to understand our world.  The essence, I
believe is simple and important:  There is no time.  There is no space.  All
there is, is stuff, and stuff happens (sanitized translation!) .  It happens
in what we perceive as space and time, but actually there is no ether and
now we find out there is no time.  So what?  The essence of space and time
remain; though they are no longer absolute, tangible realties.  It is no
more complex than 0 being a space holder between the actual whole numbers
1 and -1, thus representing the nothing that is there. There is no physical
stuff to measure in the nothing that is in-between things and there is no
absolute fabric or increment to time, just a relative accounting of passing
events.  We can measure time by the revolution of the earth around the sun
and subdivide it into daily rotation and fractions thereof.  We can use the
vibrations of excited cesium to stabilize a quartz counter with an output of
a mere 10 million counts per second.  The harder we try to define the
smallest, most accurate amount of time, the more it disappears. It seams to
end with time becoming a statistical probability of an occurrence.  All of
this has no more relevance to our normal world than relativity does to our
Newtonian world.  It just implies that there is no physical thread of
actual, absolute time.

The difficult task is to understand all of the imaginary realities possible,
once you have determined that space and time are relative.  It seems an
impossible task, with our limited understanding and perspective of
reality.  The theorists are as free as a Hollywood cinematographer, to
create any reality imaginable. This does not imply that they are
probabilities or even possibilities in the actual world we live in.  It is
no wonder that some become disoriented as to what is real in science and
in life.  Many farseeing geniuses have suffered this fate.  There can be a
great joy though, derived from fiction as it opens views of possibilities
and actual new realities in our apparently non-fiction lives.

Remember:

TIME is just God's way of keeping everything from happening all at once

and

DEATH is just nature's way of telling you to slow down.

Happy Holidays
Fritz Stumpges



Re: Solstice Perigee

1999-12-21 Thread Luke Coletti

Hello Troy,

You're welcome! Regarding the reporting of the upcoming full moon (and
associated clamor), a very good local paper, The San Jose Mercury, today
reported, see URL and snippet below, that the 1912 full moon was
actually a far brighter moon. I don't know, perhaps 0.2% is far
brighter but I wouldn't have thought so. I'm not sure whether its this
lunar lemming spin or the Old Farmer's Almanac hoax which is actually
more annoying. Perhaps it was the added So there! that did it... 

http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/moon21.htm

As for Crazy Horse and the 1866 date, the editors of Sky  Telescope
magazine did some research and found that 1912 was actually a far
brighter moon than in 1866 or 1999. The magazine looked at actual moon
perigee distances from the years 1800 to 2100 and found that the moon
was brighter (closer) in 1912 and only slightly less bright in 1893 and
1930. So there!

Best,

Luke


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Thanks for the very detailed explaination Luke.  So is the answer 27.2%
 brightness difference between the June Moon and the Dec. Moon?  That would
 mean the paper was wrong.  The newspaper also predicted the January Moon
 would be even brighter (something you didn't cover).
 Another thing that bothered me is after the astronomical explanation,
 they author of the article interviewed an astrologer, who basically told him
 the moon was in Cancer (it may have been another constellation for you
 sticklers), and the brightness didn't matter.  Then he rambled off general
 predictions depending on your astrological sign.  It's hard to believe we are
 about to enter the 2000s...Frankly, I'm disappointed.  No flying cars, and
 astrologers are still taken seriously.
 ~Troy


Re: passing time

1999-12-21 Thread PsykoKidd

Fritz Stumpges' letter does a fine job of explaining why if time didn't 
exist, it would still be relevant.  One thing to remember though, is if it 
didn't exist this understanding would help make relevant and useful theories, 
such as time's arrow as mentioned in the article.  (Just as relativity 
allowed the same, while not affecting classical mechanics all that much)