Time is Motion and Events are Caused by Collisions

PSI Blog 20220509 Time is Motion and Events are Caused by Collisions

Thanks to Marilyn for this heads up:



By Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic University


This short article is worth checking out. It demonstrates two tiny steps on the way for regressive physicists to finally realize time is motion and that all events require collisions. Also, note the agnostical wording here: “might not exist.” This is typical of regressive physicists and of reformists who are still trying to escape the training and propaganda that keeps them in the paradigmatic fold. Like all agnosticism, it is a half-way measure for faint-hearted folks to have feet in two camps as they transition from one to the other when push comes to shove.


The first step was well enunciated by my esteemed colleague Steve Puetz in his objection that stimulated my highly popular “Time is Motion” blog post written on 20111130:


“I still disagree with the statement....  Time is motion.  To be more precise, it should be worded as....   "Time is an aspect of motion."  According to almost all conventional descriptions of motion, it has three aspects -- an object, a path, and time.  To suddenly state that motion only has one aspect (time) is confusing to many readers, including me.”


By that time Steve and I had already finished our book on “Universal Cycle Theory.” It takes a long time to change paradigms. Of course, some come around faster and earlier than others, depending on how intense the indoctrination was. For instance, here are the last of about a hundred comments we got on that blog:


April 20, 2021 at 2:34 PM 

Unknown said...

Well, I'm not sure if I understood everything as I've always been incapable of apprehending physics and maths to an even basic level. But when I was young, probably around the age of 13, while watching a cartoon where they "froze" time, I realised that what actually happened is that all movement stopped, and that time was the measure of specific movements (astrological or atomic for example). I'm happy that more than a decade later, what I thought to be obvious although contrary to the popular idea, is backed by people far cleverer than I am and with a much finer understanding of this universe.

April 13, 2022 at 2:54 PM 

Glenn Borchardt said...


Congratulations on your most astute observation at the age of 13. You were way ahead of me. As far as I can tell, I did not write the phrase "time is motion" until sometime between 19800607 and 19810418 when I was 38. You probably had trouble with modern physics for the reason I did: It was a mishmash that made no sense.

April 13, 2022 at 8:05 PM


The second point brought up in Baron’s article, is the growing realization that all events are the results of collisions per Newton's Second Law of Motion. In recent discussions with Steve, it was obvious that he still has problems with the Second Law—so much so that I had to decline co-authorship on a recent manuscript. That is not particularly usual, as Newton himself had the same problem. Over 300 years ago, he realized gravitation was an acceleration but did not realize there had to be an equivalent deceleration. When I pointed out that necessity in the intro to “Aether Deceleration Theory,”[1] it was met by reviewers with a resounding thud. They already knew the cause of gravitation was Einstein’s magical “space-time.”


So, dear readers, we are left with today’s radical and now “progressive” ideas that time definitely does not exist (it occurs) and that events are caused by things colliding with things (whether or not you can actually see the colliders). Let us all enjoy watching the great ship christened by Hoyle as the “Big Bang Theory” as it gradually sinks into the garbage heap of history.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

No comments: