GR writes:
1. Relational changes cannot be defined with precision.
2. They cannot even be measured with precision because even the instruments, the formulas and the units and the “constants” would track with the changes. For example, if all matter is changing relationally, both sides of a balance scale would change equally.
So a relational change is an idea that you have no way of showing that it has occured or is occuring and no way to falsify the idea? Yeah that sounds like creation science. If you have no way to know that it happened then how can you claim that it in fact occured?
gr writes:
We see the past with sight. The properties of all matter are observed to change relationally as billions of galaxies spread out - grow into huge growth spirals - in defiance of every law and principle of science
First off we do not see the past with sight. Most everything we have learned about our universe has come with the advance of technology that lets us view the universe in a spectrum that is invisible to the eye. Secondly on what grounds are you stating that the growth of spiral galaxies conflicts with the laws of science? As Rhrain likes to say please be specific.
gr writes:
General and special relativity are at their heart Aristotlean ideas. They are based on the assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent - that atoms do not normally and continually change with age
I don't know where you are getting your info but there are plenty of examples of emergent properties in science. I don't believe you when you talk about how science does this or does that. I seriously doubt that you study any of the physics behind any of the ideas that you are incredulous about. Be specific what emergent property exactly do you believe is not realized by science. If it is only your relational change property than maybe you could explain how you alone have been able to see this property of the universe where every other scientist and instrument can not.
gr writes:
In Einstein’s system, clocks can change speed due to proximity to massive objects etc. How do we know what is the real time if clocks can change speed?
This property has been observed and has been put to use. Most notably in our GPS systems. The time dialation has to factored in, since the satellites are further away from the Earth's gravitional field. Also it is important to keep in mind that relativity does awy with the concept of universal time. Time is in fact relative to the observer.
Yet countless atomic clocks throughout the vast universe keep on accelerating with age
Which clocks? You have been to other parts of the universe and have seen these clocks?
No perpetual motion atoms are visible.
You have already admitted that this idea of perpetual motion atoms are you concoction. Please stop using made up terms inorder to say how the universe does not behave the way you want it to.
Their clock signals generated two different radio frequencies. The received frequencies continued to decrease as referenced by the Deep Space Networks precision clocks WITH DISTANCE - not speed (Doppler). The farther from the past the signal came, the slower it was compared to local clocks. Apparently all clocks in the universe are accelerating - local clocks are generally the fastest. Primordial atomic clocks clocked minuscule frequencies compared to local atoms. How can scientists explain this without inventing myths about invisible things?
Like I said this is perfectly explained by relativity. Time is relative to the observer.
'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
™ Version 4.2