I'm not sure if I will be interested in the philosophical discussion of A and B theories of time, but I look forward to reading it.
My interest is more in the physics realm, and in particular Big Bang Theory, but there is also an element of philosophy which may be of interest to you.
For the past century we have theorized that the increase in red shift in stars which increases with distance indicates an expanding universe which began with a big bang.
One skeptical hypothesis proposes an alternative possibility which contradicts Big Bang Theory.
This is counterintuitive, but to understand the hypothesis one must visualize that time has an innate property of speeding up over time (slowly or rapidly, it matters not). Imagine one clock covering the entire universe, but one which is designed to constantly increase the rate at which the hands turn. All things would operate under this clock, so the earth would still take 24 hours to rotate, and so on. Then imagine a one meter wavelength of light emitted billions of years ago taking one second to pass an observer under a slower running "clock". Billions of years later, we observe the same wave under the modern faster clock. It might take two clicks of the faster clock, rather than one for the wave to pass the observer. If so, then our observation would be that the wave is two meters in length, not one. Distance over time. The same wave would consume one click when emitted, but two clicks when observed by us. That is the essence of a longer wave, taking more time to pass. So the only evidence we might have that time slowly (or rapidly) speeds up would be the observation that light would appear shifted more and more red as the distance of the emitter (or age of the emitted light) increases.
The interesting thing is that all of the recent challenges we face with the big bang theory can be completely eliminated with this simple change in the idea that time is not static, but that it speeds up over time. Since light has no mass, the idea does not break any thermodynamic principle of physics.
If we do not assume that red shift indicates expansion, then what we are left with is a seemingly random motion of objects extending into infinity, and eternity. Never created, but simply always existing, eternally and into infinity, in constant motion seemingly random to our limited observational perspective, but always moving in accordance with Newton's laws of motion, and with cause and effect.
The "cosmic" radio background we observe may simply light so old, emitted under such a slow clock that the waves appear to us as long wave radiation (radio and beyond). At some point the waves appear so long under our fast clock, that we cannot even measure them. This blackness is the edge of observation, but not really the edge of anything. Under this hypothesis there is no edge, and therefore no center of gravitation into which everything would eventually collapse.
Many are not aware that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Belgian Priest, Georges Lemaitre. From a philosophical standpoint, I propose that the Big Bang Theory is an extension of Creationism from earlier versions to one which could exist alongside of newer science observations.
We tend to humanize everything, and perhaps the big bang is a way to jealously presume that since we are born and must die, then so must the universe. This emotion may have led to broad acceptance of the theory. While the universe does contain living things, the majority of matter is not living. It does not need to be born or die.
So this hypothesis is an attempt to break free from the possibly flawed notion that the universe has a beginning and an end (temporally and spatially). Much of our recent observation of motion seems to indicate that the Big Bang Theory is highly suspect. Particularly the notion that some "dark" energy is forcing matter to accelerate outward at an increasing pace. The use of the word "dark" is itself suspect and has undertones of a religious nature.
As a side note, the word "dark" was also employed in Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign intentionally by advisors to place a stigma upon the opposing party. I heard it several times and it was effective. Darkness still strikes fear in the hearts of men.
Btw: would you consider embedding PDFs of articles in the newsletters sent out each week?
I don't mean each newsletter containing all article PDFs, but the new article we get in a given week. I'm told this PDF embedding is now possible on substack.
It would be quite useful for me as I much prefer to read on E-ink displays or in note taking apps that allow for pen annotations, notes. Having the PDF ready just makes this way easier.
I'm not sure if I will be interested in the philosophical discussion of A and B theories of time, but I look forward to reading it.
My interest is more in the physics realm, and in particular Big Bang Theory, but there is also an element of philosophy which may be of interest to you.
For the past century we have theorized that the increase in red shift in stars which increases with distance indicates an expanding universe which began with a big bang.
One skeptical hypothesis proposes an alternative possibility which contradicts Big Bang Theory.
This is counterintuitive, but to understand the hypothesis one must visualize that time has an innate property of speeding up over time (slowly or rapidly, it matters not). Imagine one clock covering the entire universe, but one which is designed to constantly increase the rate at which the hands turn. All things would operate under this clock, so the earth would still take 24 hours to rotate, and so on. Then imagine a one meter wavelength of light emitted billions of years ago taking one second to pass an observer under a slower running "clock". Billions of years later, we observe the same wave under the modern faster clock. It might take two clicks of the faster clock, rather than one for the wave to pass the observer. If so, then our observation would be that the wave is two meters in length, not one. Distance over time. The same wave would consume one click when emitted, but two clicks when observed by us. That is the essence of a longer wave, taking more time to pass. So the only evidence we might have that time slowly (or rapidly) speeds up would be the observation that light would appear shifted more and more red as the distance of the emitter (or age of the emitted light) increases.
The interesting thing is that all of the recent challenges we face with the big bang theory can be completely eliminated with this simple change in the idea that time is not static, but that it speeds up over time. Since light has no mass, the idea does not break any thermodynamic principle of physics.
If we do not assume that red shift indicates expansion, then what we are left with is a seemingly random motion of objects extending into infinity, and eternity. Never created, but simply always existing, eternally and into infinity, in constant motion seemingly random to our limited observational perspective, but always moving in accordance with Newton's laws of motion, and with cause and effect.
The "cosmic" radio background we observe may simply light so old, emitted under such a slow clock that the waves appear to us as long wave radiation (radio and beyond). At some point the waves appear so long under our fast clock, that we cannot even measure them. This blackness is the edge of observation, but not really the edge of anything. Under this hypothesis there is no edge, and therefore no center of gravitation into which everything would eventually collapse.
Many are not aware that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Belgian Priest, Georges Lemaitre. From a philosophical standpoint, I propose that the Big Bang Theory is an extension of Creationism from earlier versions to one which could exist alongside of newer science observations.
https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang
We tend to humanize everything, and perhaps the big bang is a way to jealously presume that since we are born and must die, then so must the universe. This emotion may have led to broad acceptance of the theory. While the universe does contain living things, the majority of matter is not living. It does not need to be born or die.
So this hypothesis is an attempt to break free from the possibly flawed notion that the universe has a beginning and an end (temporally and spatially). Much of our recent observation of motion seems to indicate that the Big Bang Theory is highly suspect. Particularly the notion that some "dark" energy is forcing matter to accelerate outward at an increasing pace. The use of the word "dark" is itself suspect and has undertones of a religious nature.
As a side note, the word "dark" was also employed in Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign intentionally by advisors to place a stigma upon the opposing party. I heard it several times and it was effective. Darkness still strikes fear in the hearts of men.
Btw: would you consider embedding PDFs of articles in the newsletters sent out each week?
I don't mean each newsletter containing all article PDFs, but the new article we get in a given week. I'm told this PDF embedding is now possible on substack.
It would be quite useful for me as I much prefer to read on E-ink displays or in note taking apps that allow for pen annotations, notes. Having the PDF ready just makes this way easier.
Definitely excited for more philosophy related stuff!
Look forward to it!
LET'S FUCKING GO BALL dot PNG