Just a guess, but it more likely related to the way the measurement has to be made. It is essentially a measurement made of a free electron. When bound in an atom that value would have to chage as emission and absorbtion events occur and by amounts consistent with the energy value of the associated photons.
You mean you think he's a "closet creationist"? ...Heavens to betsy! Who'd have thunked it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He's doing about as well as chinglu methinks.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Time is the measurement of movement by things whether micro or macro , and this movement is based on the Nature of both manifestations of things This goes on and on and on and on ..... When will this depth of logic take hold I mean no matter how you slice it , time is based on movement(s) of things , and hence what the mathematics of time is based If you disagree , Show me that time is based on stillness and emptiness
Sure! movement, motion all take place within time. If time did not exist, nothing would. You for example are 13.83 billion years from the BB. If you disagree, show me a Universe, world or realm, where time does not exist. [Peter Pan's Never Never land does not count.]
You failed to ask a question, and irrespective I did reply to your statement and highlighted the shortcomings.
Yes, and the time required (duration) of the measurement is governed by the speed of the measurement.
There was not a question, but I paid your post due respects by correcting your error....You just think I didn't , but I did. Sure! movement, motion all take place within time. If time did not exist, nothing would. You for example are 13.83 billion years from the BB. If you disagree, show me a Universe, world or realm, where time does not exist. [Peter Pan's Never Never land does not count.] Now river, if you disagree with what I have told you, tell me why? Tell me how anything could move if it didn't have time to move in? Time is a property of the Universe, its as simple as that, and evolved along with space at the BB. Now let's not have any more of the usual "river like shenanigans" Okydokey?
Stop posting idiotic posts river...I'm not answering your usual series of inane river like questions. Your querie has been answered and correctly in my opinion. If that does not fit with you, then tough titty sonny. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IMO it comes down to the duality of the Wholeness, the universal potential, the conditional permissiveness which permits certain events to happen and restricts other thing from happening. Universal potential permitted the emergence of space, but restricted this emergence of space only in accordance to certain mathematical rules which we know as Natural Laws or Universal Laws. The execution of these universal functions produce a duration of events which we measure as Time. By this logic, it seems to me that Space (BB) was the a priori event, the beginning and continuation of measurable substance, which "resulted" in the beginning and contuiation of a Universal Timeline; - Space is the expression of Universal potential permissiveness / Timeless Universal Potential >>>>>>>>spacetime \ - Time is the expression of Universal potential restrictiveness.
In summing with all [I hope the links I have given supporting the concept of time being real.... http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/ where Carroll says.... I mentioned some time back the Closer to Truth series, in which Robert Lawrence Kuhn chats with scientists, philosophers, and theologians about the Big Questions. Apparently some excerpts are now appearing on YouTube — here I am talking about whether time is real. In one sense, it’s a silly question. The “reality” of something is only an interesting issue if its a well-defined concept whose actual existence is in question, like Bigfoot or supersymmetry. For concepts like “time,” which are unambiguously part of a useful vocabulary we have for describing the world, talking about “reality” is just a bit of harmless gassing. They may be emergent or fundamental, but they’re definitely there. (Feel free to substitute “free will” for “time” if you like.) Temperature and pressure didn’t stop being real once we understood them as emergent properties of an underlying atomic description. The question of whether time is fundamental or emergent is, on the other hand, crucially important. I have no idea what the answer is (and neither does anybody else). Modern theories of fundamental physics and cosmology include both possibilities among the respectable proposals. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed: Where Thorne says....... In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics, and the answer is likely controlled by a set of physical laws that we do not yet understand at all well: the laws of quantum gravity. In order for humans to travel forward in time very rapidly, or backward (if allowed at all), we would need technology far far beyond anything we are capable of today. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://leesmolin.com/writings/time-reborn/ Where the following review was given.... “In the Rebirth of Time, Smolin weaves an ever brilliantly creative skein of arguments based on deep mastery of cosmology, quantum mechanics, general relativity and all the diverse attempts at quantum gravity. He finds that contemporary physics eliminates time. He argues persuasively that any adequate cosmology rests on making time and “NOW” fundamental. Here laws evolve in one universe, and the future is open to unknowable novelty. Smolin’s skein is a tapestry that turns physics towards an entirely new view of reality. Stunning.” —Stuart Kauffman FRSC University of Vermont Emeritus University of Pennsylvania ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html where Sagan says..... "Time travel into the indefinite future is consistent with the laws of nature." There are at least two more favourable links throughout the thread, but time and laziness prevents me from finding them at this time.
