Journey to Understanding Time

Thanks so much Dr. Kassie for the comments. I realize that your subsequent reading at PSI led you to change your mind about your first comment, but let me address some of the points you made anyway.  I am always intrigued about the journey folks must take to get down the road to understanding time.

Your comment about “allowing the mind to grasp concepts so fragile and seemingly illogical” is instructive. “Illogical” concepts, of course, are founded on alien fundamental assumptions. Thus, as I have mentioned, we commonly objectify time, treating it as if it were matter (“saving” it, “using” it, and imagining that it “flies by”). After treating time as a thing for a lifetime, it then seems illogical to suddenly treat it as motion. Of course, it is illogical until we change the fundamental assumption that leads to that conclusion. I got there by observing, like Newton did, that the universe displays two basic phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. In thinking of all phenomena as either matter or motion, it is temporarily necessary to ignore matter-motion terms such as energy, force, momentum, and spacetime, which have been used by regressive physicists to obscure the Newtonian observation.

I agree with you that the realization that “time is motion” “stems from the freeing of the mind from the shackles that bound our species in decades past.” Of course, as Tachini Pete commented on the “Time is Motion” blog, native Americans had no such shackles. In his native language “time is motion and can only be expressed as motion.”  

You mentioned that “movement ....from a state of no movement is the inception of the chronological quality of matter.” That statement goes back again to your original assumption, common among most folks, including Newton who unnecessarily used that idealization in formulating his First Law of Motion. There can be no “state of no movement.” That is dispelled by the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

By now, you probably realize that it is illogical to argue that “0 Kelvin is akin to proof of the separateness of matter and motion.” The absence of temperature would indicate the absence of matter (as I pointed out in my discussions of inseparability in TTAOS and TSW [see references for these abbreviations below]).  Zero Kelvin has never been obtained in the laboratory and does not occur even in intergalactic space, which has been measured at 2.7 K. I assume that you are being facetious when you wrote that 0 K “absolves matter of any wrongdoing in the crime of motion masquerading as time.”

Again, it is not true that “0 K is a state not a temperature.” Zero Kelvin is only an idea. It cannot occur, in the same way that empty space and solid matter cannot exist. “We may theoretically reduce the energy (the motion) of the atom/molecule to a point of no movement,” but we would be wrong. The correct theory, using inseparability, deduces that 0 Kelvin cannot be achieved.

You wrote, “We know the word particle is the term we CHOSE for the emanation of an energy fluctuance from a state/point/base/field/existence that allowed the disturbance of matter to arise.” Huh? Maybe, at this point, you are trying to say that motion could lead to the formation of matter “disturbance of matter.” Other independent thinkers have speculated that standing waves produce matter. That cannot be, because waves are simply the motion within a medium consisting of matter. Your use of the term “energy” in the conventional way is problematic. Energy does not exist. It is a matter-motion term, a calculation, describing the various forms of matter in motion. With the use of the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), we assume that all matter is formed from other matter. In TPMOE, UCT, and NGT, for instance, Steve and I speculate that: aether particles moving rapidly in a particular direction form ordinary matter when they produce vortices. This “round-up” of particles means that each of the particles in the vortex may continue to travel round and round at high velocity, but the “rounded up” group as a whole does not. A common example is a dust devil, in which the individual particles of dust rotate at high velocities, but the dust devil travels much more slowly across the desert floor. Thus, the formation of matter involves a slowing down, not a speeding up, as in a “disturbance.”

You wrote, “We intuit that motion then occurs to give birth to time.” Motion is time and time is motion. There could never be a bit of motion that could then transmute into time, just as time is not merely an “aspect of motion” that Steve first thought it was. Your imagery is akin to the objectification that we all tend to do and that Einstein was famous for (see EMIPE).

You wrote, “We conclude space is the ongoing reverberation of that fluctuant 'force' on matter that allows motion to masquerade as time and thus giving space/matter. But 0K relates to atoms and their profane gross motion in relation to each other. What about the 'temperature' or 'state of motion' of the fluctuance AT 0 Kelvin!? For me the Kelvin scale is not a yardstick by any measure...pardon the pun.
So for me, I still intuitively feel time may be motion, but until we (hopefully you because I'm taking flack from my wife and kids for being so abstract these days) figure out whether matter is motion too or not, considering we have no surrogate marker like temperature for the motion of finest fluctuance (aka subatomic 'particles') of the constituents of a 'totally still' atom at the theoretical 0 Kelvin mark, I think we may be a bit stuck.”

If you still have some qualms about absolute zero, you might want to see that discussion in TSW, p. 58-60. If you don’t have the book yet, you can see those pages with the “Inside the Book” feature at Amazon or iUniverse. There is no need to be stuck. All you have to do is give up separability, the indeterministic belief that matter could be motionless and/or that motion could be matterless.

BTW: It looks like you could benefit from an audio copy of TSW. We have one in preparation if you are interested in reviewing it during your commute.

Important PSI References
Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc2 ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf ): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, Infinite universe theory: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf ), v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-23.

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2008, Resolution of SLT-order paradox ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/SLTOrder.pdf ).

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The scientific worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Scientific-Worldview-Beyond-Einstein/dp/0595392458/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1 )

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/059531127X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER )

Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press ( www.universalcycletheory.com ), 626 p.


S V Kassie said...

My utmost gratitude to you sir for that most detailed and enlightening explanation. Time also being a precious commodity :) I am highly grateful for that considered reply. I had some time to read your reply a few times over...carefully, and the fact is that in order to fashion the tools required of my mind to see things clearer I definitely need to work around that separability concept.
Will look into those resources you recommended in the coming weeks and hopefully come back here more informed.
I am concurrently grateful and resentful of the scientific brainwashing that I chose to endure as my enquiring mind evolved. ... Yet again proof that a mind is quantum...being 2 places at the same time :)

Glenn Borchardt said...

Thanks Dr. Kassie. Glad you liked my reply. Hope you can get some more practice with the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). There are good reasons for the popularity of the opposing indeterministic assumption, separability. The idea of matterless motion, for instance, has been with us since we first imagined the ghosts in the trees. The nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the wind that moved the leaves could not be seen, so it was not suspected of being produced by matter in motion. Religious folks hypothesizing an afterlife are logically dependent on separability, even though they may not be aware of it. The matterless motion of the soul is said to leave the material body in a grand separation. Einstein’s idea of the immaterial field was consupponible with separability, bringing him ready acceptance among folks imbued with the same assumption.

Sorry, but I need to make a correction to your last sentence “mind is quantum...being 2 places at the same time” so my readers will not get the wrong impression. Remember that “mind” is the motion within the brain. Mind occurs. It is what the brain does. The brain exists, that is, it takes up xyz dimensions and has location with respect to other things. The mind does not exist in a particular place, much less 2 places. Even in quantum mechanics, nothing exists in two different places at the same time. The fact that we cannot completely prove that does not make it a possibility even though some regressive physicists may think so.

Thanks again for your comments. Always glad to hear from those with inquiring minds…