Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is time merely a concept?
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 50 of 55 (442095)
12-20-2007 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Brad McFall
12-19-2007 9:44 PM


Time is in our minds.
Solomon wrote that the reason man cannot understand all that God has made from beginning to end is because owlam (long time) is in our minds (same as hearts in ancient languages).
Consider this.
1. Not a single clock has ever measured any time. Clocks can only compare the rate of complex processes. No clock has ever isolated any time as though it had a private existence. No local clock ever compared the duration of a past "second" with a present one.
2. Yet we can directly compare the rate of ancient clocks with modern ones. Every atom in the distant universe clocks a different frequency than local atoms. Not a single atom in the universe shows itself to be a perpetual motion machines.
(a) yet scientists use the concept of perpetual motion atomic clocks to define almost every one of their units of measurement.
(b) Ancient orbits were radically different from modern orbits. We can see the past with our eyes at many ranges, eras, all directions and wavelengths. We observe how ancient galaxies were tiny and packed with stars. They were naked and without arms. At closer ranges, we follow how the stars came out, accelerating continually as the galaxies grew. (A spiral form is always associated with accelerations on earth).
3. Western science was founded on a first principle, invented by Aristotle, that matter does not change itself. Aquinas, a mendicant friar, convinced the Christian scholastics to found science on aAristotle's solution to the problem of change - that matter cannot change is properties as it ages. Our ancestors contrived the scientific operational definitions of matter and time on theis carefully protected assumption. In its modern form, this assumption means that atoms are not supposed to change their clock rates, so scientists invent pure magic - things like the vacuum spread the light, the vacuum accelerates galaxies, the vacuum created everything out of nothing.
Why? Because what we see with our eyes is that every bit of matter in the whole universe continually changes itself - its clock rate and its orbital rate. Since what is visible is not allowed, scientists invent myths about invisible things (by their own admission their universe is 99% invisible) to obfuscate the evidence that all matter continually changes its visible properties, including clock rate, as it ages.
Carefully examine the historical first principle of science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Brad McFall, posted 12-19-2007 9:44 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2007 5:28 PM godsriddle has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 52 of 55 (442407)
12-21-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Brad McFall
12-20-2007 5:28 PM


Re: Time is in our minds.
I must say, for me at least, I DO NOT think so much with Aristotle, as I do with Newton, when I do.
All Western people are disciples of Aristotle because he invented the foundational assumption upon which Friar Thomas founded Western learning. Aristotle’s primitive idea relates to matter and change. In his system, many things can change causally since the cause is external to themselves. There is one kind of change that Aristotle did not allow - innate change present in an object from inception and not imparted from anything external. He wrote that the attributes of matter cannot change. In other words matter cannot change itself, change intrinsically, change relationally as it ages.
Fundamental relational changes are not measurable. If the speed of all clocks changes because of innate changes in the attributes of matter, we could not measure it locally. Our forefathers contrived the operational definitions of clock-time on Aristotle’s first principle that matter does not change-itself. Newton was a disciple of Aristotle, although he dispensed with mentioning first principles. His book famously defines the properties of matter and time as “the measure of the same.” If matter changes itself in an orderly way (that is relationally) a system of measurement and a system of mathematics can only work accurately in nearby spaces and times.
The question is, is Aristotle’s first principle false? Does matter change itself, change relationally, change all its attributes in parallel as it ages? We can see the past with sight. Every atom in the universe changes its clock rate. We follow in primordial galaxies how the inertial properties of matter continually change as each galaxy grows from a dense naked clump to a great spread giant. If we use sight as evidence, we can see that every visible property of matter changes in an orderly way. Of course such evidence is not alowed in the scientific system because it violates the historical dogma upon which science was founded. SO they invent invisible things like the vacuum stretched the light or subduction prevents the earth from growing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 12-20-2007 5:28 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2007 6:47 PM godsriddle has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 54 of 55 (442743)
12-22-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Brad McFall
12-21-2007 6:47 PM


Re: Time is in our minds.
Logic is not independent of Aristotle’s basic assumption. He could invent logic because he assumed that matter does not intrinsically change-itself. The first law of logic A = A would fail if all "As" change themselves. A modern "A" would not be like an ancient "A". Western science was founded on Aristotle’s principle that matter does not intrinsically change itself, change its attributes as it ages. Aristotle’s assumption cannot be deduced from simple evidence or any other assumption. How can you tell if this is the first principle upon which science was built?
History shows that a mendicant friar, Aquinas, convinced the scholastics to found Western science on Aristotle's assumption that matter does not change-itself. Since this assumption is always taught implicitly (not explicitly) in every science class, most scientists are not aware that they have a first principle. You cannot invent operationally defined units for matter and time without this assumption. If matter changes itself, every clock would change its pulse rate, but you could not measure it locally because all local clocks would be changing. Yet we can see with optics that all distant clocks pulsed a different rate, the more distant the more discordant. You could only measure orbital changes with angles, not with clocks, because clocks and orbits would stay in synch as they both changed. Why? Because the attributes of matter would continually change AS A RELATION. You could see with your eyes the global expansion seam and the stretch marks on the bottom of the ocean but you could not measure the earth changing size because even your meter sticks would change length. You cannot contrive a precise way of measuring (except with angles - with vision) without holding Aristotle’s assumption as dogma. You cannot model reality with mathematics over the long term if matter changes-itself, yet you could see such changes with your eyes.
How can you test whether our way of thinking entirely depends on Aristotle’s assumption that matter does not change its properties relationally? The smartest scientists invent pure magic (and get away with it) to protect their dogma that matter does not change. We can see the past optically. Yet what we see is not allowed because if Aristotle’s assumption is valid, then atoms must be perpetual motion machines. To protect their perpetual motion atoms, they fill the universe with magic. They claim invisible matter far weighs visible matter. They claim the vacuum of empty space stretched the light. They claim a tiny bit of vacuum burped and created everything out of nothing. They claim that the sea floor (twice as dense as granite is diving back into the earth (subduction). Yet the tiny amounts of undisturbed layered soft sediments in the ocean trenches visibly show that subduction is a myth. How could intelligent people invent unsupported myths? Their entire structure of measuring, theorizing and mathematicating was contrived (over several centuries) on the Aristotlean creed that matter does not change-itself. They constructed their version of time with this assumption. The entire structure of scientific earth-history was constructed on this assumption. Yet we can see the past with sight and we see that the assumption is false - with sight. No wonder a scientific earth-history violates the genealogies and astronomy accounts of early people. No wonder the scientific universe is 99% invisible. They contrived all the invisible things with their blind dogma that matter does not change-itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2007 6:47 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Brad McFall, posted 12-26-2007 5:36 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024