Genady

Speculations about a nature of time pop up quite often in one form or another. But I've never seen those on a nature of space. I wonder, why? What makes time so much more ... mysterious?

This question refers to the rotation of a galaxy, right? Why would a gravitational interaction between DM halo and the galactic matter make DM halo to follow the rotation of galactic matter? Why would a gravitational force on DM in the direction of the galaxy rotation be larger than the gravitational force on DM in the opposite direction?

Doesn't particle diffraction demonstrate the uncertainty principle? The narrower the opening, i.e. the uncertainty in position, the wider the range of directions, i.e. the uncertainty in momentum. E.g.: 220: Single-slit Diffraction and the Uncertainty Principle (Mathcad Version) - Chemistry LibreTexts

Here is something (better than nothing, I guess): Researchers demonstrate Heisenberg uncertainty principle at macro level (phys.org)

Yes, it is: (Perceive vs Sense - What's the difference? | WikiDiff)

or, maybe, the same disorder

to sense, not to perceive

I don't think that the very first concept of time needs to be a quantifiable time. That could come later. 'Something' in the 'change of something' is the context. I can't connect a body clock with the concept of time. The concept rises with a perception of change.

Maybe, but why. Any one-step change seems to have all that's needed for giving rise of concept of time.

Are we sure we are not talking with a poorly debugged version of a chatbot?

Modern physics has degraded into the study of Nature's grandeur rather than focusing on one specific type of biological machinery capable to study it, albeit with difficulties. Of course, the latter is important as well. "We" who? We rather test it. "We" who?

The first such perception might be a perception that something has changed.

How about the fact that electron doesn't fall onto a nucleus in spite of their electrical attraction? Electron cannot be localized on the nucleus and stay there because otherwise it would be in a state with very precise position and momentum.

Just a few clarifications: 1. A 'speed' of particle is not well defined. The uncertainty principle relates rather position and momentum. 2. Position is a three-dimensional vector in space, say along x, y, and z axes. Momentum also is a three-dimensional vector. The uncertainty principle relates position and momentum of a particle along the same axis. Its position along axis x, for example, and its momentum along axis y can be measured at the same time. 3. Position and momentum along one axis cannot be measured simultaneously because there is no such state in which a particle would have a definite position and a definite momentum along one axis. This inability is a matter of particle states rather than that of measurements.

This is known in science for hundreds of years. Why do we need examples of it?

I am not sure what means, but I know of only one instance in the history of science pertaining to a change in understanding of time. I.e., from Newtonian time to SR time. Or, more specifically, from Newtonian simultaneity to simultaneity in SR.

Examples of what?

But the definition of creationism does not assume that there is no evolution, contrary to this:

We have already mentioned one example of mental representation which is not an invisible image, namely a song in one's head.

So, they can create mental representations which are not invisible images.

No, it does not.

They don't form IIs either.

Juxtaposing junction.

So, we focus on 'invisible images' only, for the purposes of this thread. Let's for short call them, II. We know that a song in one's head is not an II. Also, visual hallucinations are not IIs. Now, the question is, what is an II? Do people form JJs?

I still don't understand what these 'invisible images' are. In fact, I don't understand what the OPer means by 'visible images' either. Is 'visible image' any visual perception? Is a song playing in my head an 'invisible image'? Is a visual hallucination a 'visible' or an 'invisible' image? Both? Neither? Does the OP claim that inability to form 'visible images' does not exist? Does the OP claim that inability to form 'invisible images' does not exist? Are there other kinds of images?