∆ What do clocks Measure? P2


We can make machines and 'call' them different things, but just naming a thing a certain way is not the same as proving it does a particular job.

Consider an inventor shows you the 3 machines A, B and C above. He (or she) claims that machine A is an ‘Electricity measurer’, B is a ‘Yeti  detector’, and C a ‘Time Clock’.  

Now, just giving some machine a particular name, is not the same as proving that it does what is claimed. So in each case the inventor should be able to prove facts about the machine, and what it is meant to display or detect etc.

The Electricity measurer.

With machine A, the claim is that electricity exists, that it can be stored in batteries (or cells), and that it can be made to flow through a ‘circuit’, revealing physical ‘motion’ and numerous other effects. All these claims can be revealed, and confirmed in many different ways by independent testers. When we look inside the machine, we find a motor, a quartz crystal, and various cogs etc


When we look in side machine A we find a motor and cogs, and that the machine only works when a charged battery is inserted.

Also with machine A we find that when we put a fresh battery in the device, the hands on it do move. And when we remove the battery, or replace it with a dead battery, the hands do not move. And that this is very consistently true.


The ‘Yeti  detector’.

With machine B, the ‘Yeti detector’, the inventor does not provide actual proof that the thing it is meant to detect actually exists. In fact, their only apparent proof is that when switched on, the hands on the device move,  which, he claims, means it has detected one or more ‘Yetis’. The problem here is that this machine may well perfectly detect yetis, and they always exist, and may be thousands of miles away, or even close by but totally invisible, and not detectable by any other machine. If this is the case then what is even more suspicious is that the machine seems to always detect yeti’s, and it seems to be absolutely identical in construction and function to machine A, which was said only to detect electricity.

However, it can be said that the machine would operate just as it seems to whether Yetis exist and are near by or not. In other words, unless the inventor proves that Yetis exist, and shows how this machine is affected by them and detects them, then anything said about it 'may' or 'may not' be true. Which makes it effectively meaningless.

In his defence, the inventor says that he personally really believes that yetis exist because his own parents had told him this for as long as he remembers. And as further proof that yetis exist he knows 3 other people who also firmly believe they do, and he presents his own children.

The ‘Time Clock’

So, what of machine C, the ‘Time Clock’? The claim here, is that the machine detects or displays the ‘passing’ of a thing called ‘Time’. ‘Time’ is said to pass from the ‘future’ to the ‘past’. Or it is claimed that everything constantly moves forwards through time, leaving the past accumulating behind us, as we constantly head into the future, and time wise it is claimed that the present moment is a thin slice of constantly moving time sandwiched between the future and the past.

So, the numbers on the dial, and the 'hands' on the clock are said to show this progression of time from the future to the past as they rotate.

However, similar to machine B, the Yeti detector, the inventor does not provide actual proof that the thing it is meant to detect actually exists. In fact, their only apparent proof is that when switched on, the hands on the device move,  which the inventor claims proves that there is an 'invisible' past, and an 'invisible' future and that 'time' is flowing or passing between them.

When asked why the machine only works when a charged electric cell is inserted the inventor claims that time always flows everywhere, whether it is being detected, or measured or not.

Again, the problem here is that this machine may well perfectly display the effects of 'time' (if it exists) , and time may well be 'flowing everywhere' and 'totally invisible', and If this is the case then it is not suspicious is that the machine seems to always display the passing of time. But, oddly it seems to be absolutely identical in construction and function to machine A, which was said only to detect the flow of electricity.

However, it can be said that the machine would operate just as it seems to whether Time exists, and is needed for motion, or not. In other words, unless the inventor proves that Time exists, and shows how this machine is affected by it, then anything said about it, or Time in relation to it, 'may' or 'may not' be true. Which makes it effectively meaningless.

In his defence, the inventor says that he personally really,really, believes that 'Time' exists, because his own parents had told him this for as long as he remembers. And as further proof that Time exists, he knows 3 other people who also firmly believe it does, and again he presents his own children.

Given that machine A was claimed only to show the flow of electricity, from one end of a battery, through some clearly visible wires, to the other end, then to prove the claim that machine C proves the flow of a thing called 'time' from the future to the past, the inventor must prove the existence of the future and past, and time.

In other words, if time exists, then this machine may well show times passing. But this machine alone, no matter what we call it, does not prove the existence of time.

see >>∆-The speed of light, is 'the speed of light'.
Comments