The earth is in gravitational free fall around the sun, which is in gravitational free fall around the galactic core, which is in gravitational free fall in the intergalactic void. None of which is at the center of anything.

The earth is thus technically always falling through the void. But so is everything else. So it all looks stationary relative to us (dark energy notwithstanding etc.). Just as would be the case of any set of balls you dropped at the same time, for example. Thus the view that the earth needs no support because it is at the center is false (but still plausible given knowledge of the time). Whereas the view that the earth needs no support because it is always falling through the void is technically true.

The only thing that would be technically incorrect about it is that rather than everything falling “down” (as there is no down), things fall in various directions depending on the locality of various gravity wells, up to and including falling eternally in place owing to an orbital trajectory around a particular gravity well.

But though the ancients developed such theories of universal gravitation (they are discussed, for example, by Plutarch, who appears to have in mind as his source Menelaus, a contemporary astronomical scientist of considerable renown none of whose writings survive), we have no atomist writings of that period to ascertain if they had adopted it (there were such writings; we just don’t know what was in them).

Lucretius, BTW, our principal source now, was simply putting Epicurus into verse, who was already obsolete by the time Lucretius wrote, just as Latin translations of Aratus made around the same time were just bringing a versification of Eudoxus into Latin, despite Eudoxus being by then just as obsolete. So Lucretius only conveys 4th century atomism, even though writing c. 100 BC. Atomist philosophy by that time will have advanced considerably; we just don’t know in what ways specifically.

I do not understand how atomist view is technically correct? Would you be kind to explain it? Thanks

That’s not really what the text says, but even if it were, what you describe wouldn’t actually work as described. So I think you’ve been conned.

You need to read (and understand) the original Hebrew to make sense of Genesis 30:37-39. There really isn’t an English translation that does it justice; at least, not that I’ve seen. (Not that I’m a Hebrew expert, by any means, but I have a friend who’s from Israel, and can translate for me. More importantly, they can answer questions about the implied meanings of colloquialisms in the original language that are completely lost when translated.)

It’s not saying that a pair of sheep mating in front of a white stick will change the colour of the offspring.

It’s saying that Jacob employed selective breeding, using the sticks for the sheep Jacob didn’t want to breed for the females to rut up against (“mate” in front of – as in, the sticks were behind the sheep, so the sheep were in front of the sticks), so they never got pregnant.

That’s why in verse 41 Jacob used the sticks with the stronger of Laban’s sheep, but not the weaker ones. Jacob was selectively breeding a weak flock for Laban, and a strong, speckled flock for himself.

Basically, the sticks were a phallus for the female sheep when they were in heat. Since sheep are known to do this today, it’s hardly surprising that a well-versed sheep wrangler at the time would know how to take advantage of it.

Wish granted. Thank You Kindly.

“And we still do bleed people, but we know how to do it in better moderation now (e.g. we draw blood all the time as a diagnostic tool, or to reuse it for other patients), or we do it by replacing bad blood with better…”

Aha.

I see you didn’t bother to learn why the Planck time is the smallest measurable unit of time.

Until you understand why that is the case (why we can’t measure smaller units), you won’t understand my point about why this matters.

(I won’t bother trying to explain to you that the only plausible competitor to LQG is M Theory which entails the same conclusion, because that would just be a distraction from what you actually need to understand, which is more fundamental and more presently demonstrable than whether LQG or M theory is true)

[Q:] Why is Planck time the shortest possible duration ever?…

[A:] No, this is false. I guess you were reading this from Wikipedia’s page on Planck lengths, where, I think, I remember having seen that it says that Planck units are shortest intervals.

In reality, however, this not true. Despite the multiple mislead and utterly false claims that “Quantum mechanics says that spacetime is discrete!” and that “Planck length and Planck times are the shortest intervals!”, etc., this isn’t really true, in most of physics.

The Planck length is just a combination of the constants ℏ (Reduced Planck), G (Newton’s gravitational), and c0 (speed of light or a massless particle in a vacuum), such that the result has units of distance (metres).

Similiarly, the Planck time is the combination of the same constants such that the result has units of time (seconds).

However, in certain theories, such as loop-quantum-gravity, spacetime is viewed as discrete, and the spatial distances and temporal intervals are indeed considered as to be multiples of the Planck length and Planck time respectively. However, as far as I know, from reading Vaid & Bilson-Thompson’s LQG for (and by) the bewildered, this is merely an assumption.

In conclusion:

· In QM, spacetime is not discrete.

· In LQG, it is, but the Planck length being the scale of this discretisation is merely an assumption.

So long!

If it makes no sense to you, then I can’t help you. Confer with the scientific sources I cited in the article.

Meanwhile, the problem that creates the Planck time is not merely that you can’t measure smaller units. The problem is why you can’t measure smaller units of time. The latter is my point. Either you understand that “why,” or you don’t. The former would make you a troll. Whereas the latter is an eminently solvable problem.

The paragraph you quote is describing what I am: time is zero in that frame. The photon is everywhere it will ever be at the same time.

This is why all solutions of QM that conform to RT entail determinism

That’s makes absolutely no sense at all.

You will notice if you don’t quote mine that times below the Planck time have no meaning. Just what I said.

You have a weird definition of quote mining. And our inability to measure events below, at, or even near the Planck scale does not render smaller scales meaningless. Anyway, my point was that time is not a discrete quantity in QM, as you claimed. Spacetime is discretized in loop quantum gravity (which is not even close to being synonymous with QM) and “times below the Planck time have no meaning” would apply there, but it is by no means settled that this is the correct picture.