tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post5774558314930953889..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Matter and TimeGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-56518344219346578392015-05-26T13:06:55.633-07:002015-05-26T13:06:55.633-07:00Why is time linearized although clocks using circu...Why is time linearized although clocks using circualr motion to construct a linear time? If one says that now waves are used I remark that a wave can be visualized easily by circular motion. Anyhow, it makes calculations easier and it can be used to construct a fourth dimension which makes things rather complicated. So, my question remains. henk korbeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00980854278183124249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-15081444139777254432015-05-14T21:41:20.482-07:002015-05-14T21:41:20.482-07:00Comment from Bligh:
“I have a theory that underly...Comment from Bligh:<br /><br />“I have a theory that underlying matter and motion is a fundamental oscillation between two states, matter and anti-matter. Oscillation is motion and energy, whether you consider energy to be defined as an amount or not. It is analogous to motion. Oscillation is just a more specific type of motion.”<br />Sorry, but anti-matter does not exist. In neomechanics we define matter as an xyz portion of the universe that contains other matter <i>ad infinitum</i>. The anti-matter conception seems to derive from what happens during electron-positron annihilation in which oppositely spinning complexes of aether collide and disintegrate into a cloud of aether particles (Borchardt, 2009). <br /><br />Sorry, but oscillation is motion, but it is not energy. Energy is a calculation, not a thing or a motion. It is not analogous to motion, but a matter-motion term that has no meaning without the concomitant matter, per the Fourth Assumption of Science, <i><b>inseparability</b></i> (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).<br /><br />Reference:<br />Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, 27-31. <br /><br /><br />Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-37704007558615810402015-05-13T13:52:29.595-07:002015-05-13T13:52:29.595-07:00Bligh:
You wrote: "I like energy best, but t...Bligh:<br /><br />You wrote: "I like energy best, but that is vague also." [Sorry, but energy is not motion, it is a calculation. Energy neither exists nor occurs. It is a matter-motion term and thus is neither matter nor motion. Regressive physicists don’t understand energy either, mostly because they do not always adhere to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).]<br /><br />You also wrote: “The physical universe "changes" at an infinitesimal rate. The "state" of physical matter changes in an analogue fashion. Best thought of as a wave like form. The infinitesimal state changes are what we recognize as time evolution.” [Sorry, but changes occur at varying rates, some fast, some slow, obviously. Individual microcosms do not have a wave-like form. Wave motion is group behavior. For instance, water waves are properties of trillions of water molecules. Also, time does not evolve. Both time and evolution are motions. So, that would be like saying that evolution evolves. Only microcosms can evolve, because only microcosms can move.]<br />Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-86676013370507913682015-05-08T12:33:21.237-07:002015-05-08T12:33:21.237-07:00I'm still not clear on just why matter require...I'm still not clear on just why matter requires motion. I get why motion requires matter (since for movement to take place, there needs to be something that is moving), but could we not conceive of a motionless chunk of motion (even if such a thing is not possible in reality, given that it would be effected by its environment)?Luis Cayetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-35425413822021182522015-05-04T12:28:03.297-07:002015-05-04T12:28:03.297-07:00Rita, sorry for web inexperience. I don't know...Rita, sorry for web inexperience. I don't know how to find your comment and respond.<br />blighcapn@yahoo.comBlighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-2045301038313207142015-05-04T12:26:58.482-07:002015-05-04T12:26:58.482-07:00testtestBlighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-62281128089661468552015-05-04T12:25:58.704-07:002015-05-04T12:25:58.704-07:00Assuming this is place to respond to Steve.
Funda...Assuming this is place to respond to Steve. <br />Fundamentally, time is motion. The ancient Greeks called it change. I like energy best, but that is vague also. The physical universe "changes" at an infinitesimal rate. The "state" of physical matter changes in an analogue fashion. Best thought of as a wave like form. The infinitesimal state changes are what we recognize as time evolution. <br />Is that more clear?<br />Bligh (George)Blighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.com