Metering and Metrics

Metering is done by interval. To say that you metered something is to say that you measured how much happened per set unit of time that passed. In finances, this is shown rationally by comparing rates to taxes. Your electric bill is prorated. Service is continuous, but you only pay for as much electricity as you consume, in kilowatt hours. The fact that your light bill is a rate is inherent in the fact that the government owns the civil earthworks including dams that generate the power, as well as the connecting cables that deliver it to your house. The difference between a rate and tax is that you pay taxes on items that you own, and most often pay taxes on things at the time you come into possession of them. A metered rate is paid for usage, meaning consumption, on something you don't own outright. Herein we find the first ratio of goods to services, and the difference lies in the difference between ownership and consumption.

The whole angle of attack here in defense of science is to explain that metering is measurement of distance, and metrics is measurement of distance traveled per rational unit of measurement. Among theologians, this is of at least speculative interest, because in point of fact, not only did the Earth tilt on its axis during the flood, but during the same forty rotations, it's orbit also elongated and early philosophers wanted to know whether this had changed the amount of time it took the globe to travel around the Sun. There is no indication that the length of the day changed, as that depends on the size of the planet, but what was the shape change on the yearlong orbital path effected?

Newton's astronomy is the point of departure for new science debaters. You'll be surprised when you start to meet the atheists, somehow they're either bright enough to know that directly attacking the flood narrative in the Bible, or even taking up matters like Guidon's Day, the Red Sea, and other miracles in which the laws of physics were effected more than there being a spiritual result, will only get them in arguments and interfere with both laboratory research and funding. If you spend much time in the publishing industry, and teachers as well as librarians do, you'll eventually start to see the connections among the new physics thinkers around Einstein and the writers of "paranormal", "cryptozoology", and other topics alternative not just to mainstream and traditional religion, but to fundamental science.

Comparing Newton's to Einstein's physics rationally qua physics, therefore, requires theology as well as the inverse square law of gravity, and while most alternative theologians who still identify publicly as Christian have almost as little interest in science as new atheists in biology and chemistry have in religion, both groups are highly political and very publicly so, as well as being professionally engaged in grass roots or lobbying groups and dug in to competing universities. I am going to try to repeat Newton's result on the laws of gravity for you and show how he arrived at his conclusions on the basis of Greek science before the advent, but ultimately comparing the two cosmologies and proving one false and the other true isn't the final word in national science. People who are refuted might still own big names, prestigious addresses, and large Rolodexes, so making a viable case that "hard science evolution" is geologically false and even connected to the occult clubs in city center relies on proving less that they are blasphemous (now there is a candidate for "relative term"!) but that they plagiarized the results of other geometers, astronomers, and arithmeticians.