Comments on: Move over Einstein for Augustinian physics

By: Benno

Benno — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:41:30 +0000

Following on from Graeme, perhaps time iz best defined az change:
Time equals distance traveled divided by velocity. Assuming constant velocity, time iz dependent on the change in distance traveled, which is the change in an objects position in the three spatial dimensions relative to another body. So time iz dependent on change and can be defined in terms of change. What would be a neat and accurate sentence to sum this up?

By: Graeme Bird

Graeme Bird — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:47:46 +0000

We have no evidence for TIME itself. We have no evidence that time is anything more then what you would get when you divide a distance by a steady velocity.
Its a necessary concept but a derivative one.
So its really pushing it for physicists to play make-believe and pretend that there is some unicorn called space-time.
This is why they’ve gotten themselves bogged down and stuck. Because they have let all sorts of arbitrary assumptions creep up into their work.
I like Augustine (Lord give me chastity but not yet) but we ought to be sweeping out as much crud from the models as possible.
Not adding more.

By: John

John — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:28:30 +0000

I would say that the philosophical world view of this blog/forum and its associated sponsors such as Henry Thornton, the IPA etc is entirely within the materialist clockwork mechanical “universe” of Newtonian physics. And that its associated understanding of human beings and culture is also entirely within this dismal reductionist paradigm. Webers deadly iron cage. Scientific materialism rules!
And that the “religion” it generally promotes is also entirely within this dismal reductionist framework–being entirely exoteric with no esoteric content whatsoever—meat body philosophy–when you are dead you are dead.
How odd (and perhaps refreshing)then that we have a post which seems to promote what is in effect a multi-dimensional quantum worldview which is full of space-time paradoxes and multiple points of view.
That having been said these related essays provide an Illuminated understanding of “matter”, space-time, and Real God.The first one specifically discusses the cultural implications of Einsteins famous equation.
1. http://www.dabase.net/christmc2.htm
2. http://www.dabase.net/spacetim.htm
3. http://www.dabase.net/dht6.htm
4. http://www.dabase.net/dht7.htm
This essay discusses how Big Science eclipsed Big Religion as the official arbiter of what is true and real.
5. http://www.dabase.net/ilchurst.htm

By: Faustino

Faustino — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:13:41 +0000

Sub-atomic particles arise and decay at 10 to the power of 22 times a second. Each arising and passing is a cause for the following arising and passing. It’s a one-way street. You’re being unusually credulous here, Graham.

By: MikeM

MikeM — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:32:54 +0000

It’s a mystery why this article, which appeared in “New Scientist” last September, and appears to draw on a paper that Cramer presented in Sydney in July 2005, should have suddenly appeared in SFGate the other day. Google Scholar finds no subsequent papers by Cramer on the subject.
It is true that quantum mechanics and relativity make no distinction between forward and backward time, but thermodynamics does, specifically the second law, which defines a forward direction for time.
The possibility discussed by Cramer is that of an event seeming to determine the outcome of another event occurring six microseconds earlier. But retrocausality is not the only possible explanation if that is in fact what happens.
It’s a far cry from this though to Paul Davies’s conjecture that there might be a retrocausal link between the existence of life and the conditions existing at the moment the universe was created.