Dahnielson

There’re some news going on in the world of physics that’s facinating, explainable and may break new ground. What making it more newsworthy is the author of the work, a 27 years old broadcasting tutor who only spent 6 moth in college. But after all Albert Eintein was only a patent clerk when he did most of his groundbreaking work, and got published when he was 26. The same is true for Newton altough he didn’t publish Principia until decades later. And there are numerous other examples in science where the most important ideas are concieved at a young age, especially in mathematics.

Lynds solving of the Zeno paradoxes is quite simple and obvious: There are no instances in time! But still present day physics rely on the notion that “objects in motion have determined relative positions”, which of course causes problem as shown by Zeno over 2500 years ago, and instead created various “fixes” for that faulty assumption. That’s obviously contributor to why the acceptance of Lynds work has been less than swift.

Lynds’ solution to all of the paradoxes lay in the realisation of the absence of an instant in time underlying a bodies motion and that its position was constantly changing over time and never determined. No matter how small the time interval, or how slowly an object moves during the interval, it is still in motion and it’s position is constantly changing, so it can’t have a determined relative position at any time. And if it did, it couldn’t be in motion.

This doesn’t suprise anyone who is aware of Heisenberg or done some fundamental integral calculus. But the explaination and expansion is what’s challeging. There is Heisenberg’s uncertainty on quantum scales but Lynds argues that a similar uncertainty applies to all scales that is not a consequence of quantum uncertainty.

Lynds points out that in all cases a time value represents an interval on time, rather than an instant. And the absence of an instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process also illustrates that there is no such thing as a physical progression or flow of time, as without a continuous progression through definite instants over an extended interval, there can be no progression. However intuition seems to suggest that if there were not a physical progression of time, the entire universe would be frozen motionless at an instant. But if the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time.

And because nature exclude time as a fundemental physical quantity, motion and physical continuity are possible in the first instance. Which makes time present in all stages of Big Bang, the creation of universe, there’s no need to “create” time in the process.