Today we build atomic clocks which rely on the assumption that internal processes within atoms cannot change their dithering motions and geometry together.
and if they do, what's the difference? if the period of helium decay lengths by a certain percent, and our planet's rotational speed and the laws of gravity change at that same percent, is the clock inaccurate? no.
Time is not only ‘what clock’s measure,’ as Einstein stated.
you've obviously never read einstein. he asserts that time is quite changing. just as space is. mass warps both. he also says that the laws of physics change according to the speed at which things are going, and that everything is relative to your point of observation.
now, there's a set of equations, called lorentz contractions, based on this simple thought experiment.
suppose you're on a train. you fire a gun in the same direction the train is going. how fast does the bullet travel? the speed of the bullet relative to the gun, plus the speed of the train.
now suppose you shine a light in the same direction as the train. how fast is the light going? the speed of light. it can't get any faster.
so what lorentz did was come up with a set of equations that took into account the relativistic differences. now, i messed around with some of these equations in high school. and for everyday life, they don't mean a damned thing. in fact, i had to use special software that would even do the decimal arithmetic after 50 some places. i only started to get significant changes when i significantly approached the speed of light. (i think the first noticeable change was at about 1/10th c. i don't recall)
but there IS a case where we know that the laws of physics DO in fact change in relation to speed. and for all intents and purposes, the difference is so fractional as to be unimportant. ockham's razor, eliminate all the extra needless calculation. i'm not even sure you can tell the differences as an internal observer at relativistic speeds. (anyone know? my physics is a little rusty)
but, if everything is changing in relation to everything else... how can we tell? how is it different than staying the same?
Everyone of our definitions of the fundamentals relies on Aristotle’s Conjecture...
...Once you examine the first principle that Peter predicted and identified,
aristotle was born in 384 bc. he's not what peter was "predicting." modern scientific philosophy and methodological naturalism was already well established when peter wrote. peter was writing about SIGNS and fulfilled prophesies, arguing that the first thing WE AS CHRISTIANS should know is that everyone else will deny that god has done anything new.
you're still misreading the verse.
You may be thinking, the system works. Of course it does - but only in nearby ages and close spaces. We have adjusted it to work in those areas. But the evidence that this symbolic structure is false is:
If matter is a relationship - for which there is simple evidence in the quantum.
so back to sir ockham again. when einstein wrote his theories of special and general relativity, it shook the physics world. huge revolution. and yet we still study newton, and use his rules. they still work. why is that? when quantum theory came out, it revolutionized einstein. yet einstein and newton still work. when string theory came out, it revolutionized quantum mechanics. yet quantum theory is still taught and works, as does newton and einstein.
in fact, some things works better than other depending on how and when they're used. quantum theory is piss-poor for describing the behavious of large objects, and string theory is even worse. yet relativity and newtonian mechanics each work perfectly, depending on the speed. yet relativity and newtonian mechanics can't explain quanta and super strings.
so for the most part, that symbolic structure WORKS, and not only works, but WORKS BETTER than the more intricate understandings.
the evidence that supports the Bible is simple and visible. What we see exactly fits what the Bible states in simple grammatical words.
now, my real area of interest is the bible. and i will tell you flat out that it does not describe the real world accurately. for instance, mustard does not grow any kind of tree, let alone the biggest and the strongest.
there is, quite frankly, a TON of evidence that the bible is not even internally consistent within its books. genesis contradicts itself no more than a page in. proverbs occasionally contradicts itself in the next verse. now this is just literary evidence. i'm not even concerned with archaeology, philosophy, theology, geology, biology, etc. i'm just using simple logic to actually look at the book, and determining that it does not present a simple, straightforward claim to anything, let alone having that claim verified by the real world.
sure, you know, we can ignore that "first principle" of yours, and not require it to make any sense. who cares if it contradicts itself? maybe god changes his mind. maybe he just tricked moses when he said he made plants before man (like genesis 1), and he really meant that he made man before plants (like genesis 2).
oh wait, no. that would make one of them wrong, wouldn't it? which means the word of god lies. which means there's no reason we should trust it, including peter's "first principle."
logic is a bitch, isn't it?
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2