Prev: n-stars.
Next: Time sharing space aether geometry
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:03
On Jun 26, 11:17 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 10:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 22, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time;
> > > > > only humans do. Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without
> > > > > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after
> > > > > the change. As time does not exist, it cannot slow down or speed up.
> > > > > However, the rate of change can vary.
>
> > > > Here is where you are making a philosophical statement.
> > > > You are saying that time cannot change, but the laws of physics can,
> > > > from instance to instance.
> > > > I'm curious why you think the laws of physics would change.
>
> > > PD, the laws of physics cannot change. Change in nature is the result
> > > of the laws of physics. It occurs at the nano level or below. It is
> > > very difficult for us to observe these changes at that level without
> > > advanced devices. At our level we can see a seed grow to a full sized
> > > tree over many years. It involves a myriad of microscopic changes. The
> > > important thing is that nature does not use our concepts of time to
> > > achieve creation. We however use artifices like seconds, meters and
> > > kilograms to explain to ourselves the laws of physics.
>
> > > Peter Riedt
>
> > Peter, all you've done is to say, "Things behave the way I say they
> > behave, not the way you think they behave. But to account for why they
> > behave the way I say they do, there must be things unknown that are
> > driving them."
>
> > All you are doing is saying, "I reject your explanations. I'd rather
> > have unknowns driving an alternate explanation than to try to
> > understand your explanation."
>
> > It's better to insist that NO ONE understands anything than it is to
> > say that you don't understand something as well as somebody else,
> > right?
>
> PD, wrong. It is better to accept that many people understand many
> things very well.

Indeed. Including our understanding of time, as I outlined it to you
earlier.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: n-stars.
Next: Time sharing space aether geometry