There Is No Single Instant In Time

tekkieRich writes "Some interesting news from the world of physics. Supposedly, in this paper, the author answers some of the major paradoxes (achilles vs. the turtle and Zeno) concerning our understanding of time. 'Impressed with the work is Princeton physics great, and collaborator of both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, who said he admired Lynds' "boldness," while noting that it had often been individuals Lynds' age that "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."'"

Comments

Re:Not Physics

[phritz]

In doing research a few years back, an advisor gave me these pointers on dealing with new "theories" that might be A)scientifically unimportant (metaphysical instead of physical), or B)are complete crackpot science. We ask these 2 questions:

-What experimental predictions does this new model make? i.e. the theory must be falsifiable

-Why is this new model better than current theories? i.e. the new theory should contain as few parameters as possible

For instance, Einstein's papers made some bold experimental predictions - his theory could easily be proved or disproved on the basis of experiment (time dilation, specifically, is easily testable). Further, special relativity completed the unification of electricity and magnetism and accounted for the trouble in detecting the ether - making his theory preferable to old concepts, which could not account for various "coincidences" in Maxwell's equations. If anyone is going to be comparing this guy to Einstein, his theory had better be clearing up some holes in modern physics or making some bold new experimentally testable predictions.

So, has anyone read the actual paper? Does it give an answer to these questions? And is Foundations of Physics Letters a respectable journal? I've never heard of it before in my life.