Time: Motion or Concept?

My blog on “Time is Motion” has gotten a lot of response. Seems our march out of the muck of regressive physics is easier said than done. One of the most astute comments just came in from “Dark,” who started out well but blew it at the end:

“I arrived at this point myself not long ago. Ease of communication obfuscates reality to certain extent. Concepts become objectified, time being a thing unto itself is a perfect case in point. The best example I've been able to come up with to illustrate this is 'three apples' communicates the reality of 'apple, apple, apple' quickly and easily. Now imagine dealing with a hundred or a thousand apples communicating this way...its inefficient. 'Three' doesn't exist, it's a concept, like all maths: A useful tool for communicating but the hammer you use to pound nails all day long isn't going to be much help when it comes time to tighten a bolt.

'Time' being conceptualized motion is easy to grasp when you look at the units used to measure it. A day is a single revolution of our planet, a year one trip around our sun. Break it down into hours, minutes and seconds or build it up into decades and centuries...it all has its basis in the motion of the planet . It's simply a measure of motion like feet and inches are a measure of matter.”

[Of course, in the original “Time is Motion” blog, I asserted that time is not a concept or a measure of motion. I guess I have to reiterate: Dinosaurs had no concept or measurement of time, but they experienced time nevertheless. That is because time is motion; it occurs regardless of what we can think about it. Thus, I don’t agree with Dark’s semi-mainstream view that “Time is conceptualized motion” or “a measure of motion.” I do agree that those concepts and measurements are necessary for describing time (motion), but they can never be time, just like the photo of a running dog is not a dog. The correct view of time is stated in the slogan “Time is Motion.”

Again, when we speak of time as a concept or measurement, we are simply describing the motion of matter. This is similar to other terms in physics, such as, momentum, force, and energy. Momentum, force, and energy do not exist or occur. They are simply descriptions or calculations. For instance, force (F = ma) is a description of the change in motion (a) of a particular part of the universe (m). To make that calculation, we must observe one microcosm colliding with another. There is no magical, matterless “force” that swoops down to make that happen. The “four forces” of regressive physics are pure fiction—a necessary concomitant of aether denial. Those calculations all involve the descriptions of microcosms colliding with microcosms: there could be one force calculation or a million. The perennially sought “unification of the four forces” will not be achieved until physicists finally agree that force, like “dark energy,” does not exist.

I sympathize a bit with Dark’s ultimately acceding to the traditional, practical side of the question, but we can never reform physics that way. We need to use words such as “is” very carefully. Otherwise, we fail at our goal of educating the public who, like the regressive physicists, still do not know what time is. That is why we use the slogans “Time is Motion” and “Momentum, Force, and Energy Neither Exist Nor Occur.”] 

No comments: