> Time measures change over space, a thing you witness firsthand when your yodel returns in echo from the mountain. If space did not change from point A to point B, there would be no distance, no coordinate system, and our yodel would not echo from anywhere.
I'm still not following what you mean. What is "space"? You claim it is real, in the same sense that a physical clock is real. Is it some kind of physical thing in the world? Is it the general idea that two objects can occupy different positions?
What does it even mean for "space" to "change"? Does it refer to the existence of different positions? Does it refer to the idea that a physical object can change which position it occupies? Why does the concept of distance depend on the existence of "change over space"? We can make the obvious observation of transmitting a sound to a distant object and receiving an echo back. But I don't see how to derive your concept of "change over space" from such an observation.
Further, why is "change over space" in particular the quantity that "time" measures? Normally, I'd think that "time" refers only to the intrinsic relationship between different events that allows us to place them in an ordered sequence. What does this necessarily have to do with "change over space"?
I don't mind; I'm mainly curious as to whether their ideas are self-consistent, more than anything else. Any coherent system of beliefs has to be either aligned with experimental evidence (perhaps with unconventional terminology), independent of experimental evidence (i.e., unfalsifiable), contrary to experimental evidence, or self-contradictory. It's an interesting exercise to tease out which one it is, yet often unsuccessful, if the other person gets tired of your incessant questions. (In the worst case, they simply refuse to let their beliefs cohere at all, falling back to unexplainable mysteries that it's your fault for not already understanding.)
Well, I'm afraid you beg the charity of your readers' minds when you post ideas contrary to popular belief on a public forum. If begging others' charity is something to be avoided, then the alternative is to keep your ideas to yourself.
"Rational discourse" is the demand of people who cannot grok and need it explained within their epistemology. It is pointless, for they bring no conviction but disbelief and biases; and it is endless because it gives them not food for thought but "rations for argument", which is all their lazy intellect desires.
I'm still not following what you mean. What is "space"? You claim it is real, in the same sense that a physical clock is real. Is it some kind of physical thing in the world? Is it the general idea that two objects can occupy different positions?
What does it even mean for "space" to "change"? Does it refer to the existence of different positions? Does it refer to the idea that a physical object can change which position it occupies? Why does the concept of distance depend on the existence of "change over space"? We can make the obvious observation of transmitting a sound to a distant object and receiving an echo back. But I don't see how to derive your concept of "change over space" from such an observation.
Further, why is "change over space" in particular the quantity that "time" measures? Normally, I'd think that "time" refers only to the intrinsic relationship between different events that allows us to place them in an ordered sequence. What does this necessarily have to do with "change over space"?