Movement requires energy

[5614]

This came up from a conversation I was having earlier:

 

Well, classically a force is required to accelerate an object, whereas to maintain a constant speed no net force is required.

 

So when it comes to moving in time, you may say no force is required as you move in time at a constant rate, but is that strictly true? If you take into account time dilation you don't always move through the 4th dimension at a constant rate...

 

So is a force needed for you to move through time?

 

If so what is this force?

[uncool]

No force is required for you to move through time at a constant rate. Remember, moving through space and moving through time are directly related - so accelerating in space will deccelerate your movement in time.

-Uncool-

[Tom Mattson]

So when it comes to moving in time' date=' you may say no force is required as you move in time at a constant rate, but is that strictly true? If you take into account time dilation you don't always move through the 4th dimension at a constant rate...

[/quote']

 

You do from your point of view. Time dilation is what happens to the other guy's frame.

[Primarygun]

If you take into account time dilation you don't always move through the 4th dimension at a constant rate...

I don't know how scientists think.

I am still young now and I think many theroems in 3-D in 4-D has to been rejected or amended.

[5614]

You do from your point of view. Time dilation is what happens to the other[/i'] guy's frame.

umm, ok, but the fact that somebody is going faster/slower in time means that somebody's speed in the 4th dimension is a variant which is where the "for speed to vary you need a force, what is this force?" question came from.

 

I mean, obviously I know that I'm wrong, I just can't see the solution, as I see it either:

 

1) Newtons laws of motion which apply to the 3 spatial dimensions are not applicable in the 4th dimension,

 

or

 

2) I can't remember, there was a 2nd possibility I came up with!!!

 

The only real problem I see here is time dilation because that's where the variance in speed comes into it.

[YT2095]

without 1 2 or 3D there will be no 4D. time implies Change and relies entirely upon this change and periodicity applied in the prior dimensions.

 

the force is that of Change, what creates that change is imaterial

[5614]

I don't quite follow, so I'll go through each bit of your post and you can see where I went wrong:

 

without 1 2 and 3D there will be no 4D.

Well yeah, you obviously can't have a 4th of something without the 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

 

time implies Change and relies entirely upon this change and periodicity applied in the prior dimensions.

Some things do not change over time, well over hundreds of years they might, but the model on my shelf hasn't changed for a month or so. Time doesn't "rely" as such as that is a human thing [or at least that of a life form], time would exist even if there was nothing happening in the other 3 spatial dimensions.

 

the force is that of Change,

I was thinking more of the energy kind of force, the force which when unbalanced enables a change in velocity.

[YT2095]

I don't quite follow' date=' so I'll go through each bit of your post and you can see where I went wrong:

 

 

Some things do not change over time, well over hundreds of years they might, but the model on my shelf hasn't changed for a month or so. Time doesn't "rely" as such as that is a human thing [or at least that of a life form'], time would exist even if there was nothing happening in the other 3 spatial dimensions.

 

 

I was thinking more of the energy kind of force, the force which when unbalanced enables a change in velocity.

 

you`ve not necesarily SEEN the model change, but be certain it has! in billions upon billions of ways, and even if it did only change in anyway once every 100 years, that`s still change and with a periodicity

 

velocity can be created by different forms of Force/Energy, nuclear spin, gas pressure, impact of other particles, each will impart a force to make a change in some 1 to 3D aspect, Time is then "Born", as it will take Time to move from position A to position B (change).

 

is that any help at all?

[5614]

Well, kinda, but I don't think it is answering the exact question I was asking...

 

We know from Newton's laws of motion that for a change in velocity an unbalanced net force it required, whereas to maintain a constant velocity no net force is required.

 

We know that the universe is travelling through the 4th dimension.

 

We also know from SR and time dilation that, or at least this is what I thought, that we do not travel through the 4th dimension at a constant rate (be it us or the other guy).

 

As our velocity changes in the 3 spatial dimensions, so our velocity changes in the 4th dimension (time dilation)... as Newtons told us, for this change in velocity a force is required, in the 3 spatial dimensions that force comes from our feet against the ground, gravity, engines making wheels rotate on the ground etc etc, where does the force come from (and what is this force) which makes our velocity vary in the 4th dimension?

 

There's something wrong with that question, I just can't see it, it may to do with my interpretation of time dilation, because, after all, if it weren't for time dilation there'd be no problem!

[YT2095]

the greater the velocity in the spatial dimensions, the greater the effect upon the 4`th.

so ANY force that makes you "Move" faster, will have an effect.

there is no ONE particular method of application of force to make this occur, as you mentioned yourself, a chemical rocket or your feet on the floor walking

 

you original question almost answers itself, Movement requires Energy, and that`s 100% true, and that also is your force, it`s the "Energy" word in that question

[5614]

OK, now I'm getting confused!..

 

Time dilation means we go through time at a variable rate.

 

For our velocity to vary in time an unbalanced net force is required.

 

To make this net force unbalanced an energy is required.

 

What is this energy?

 

(Is it actually our kinetic energy from moving in the 3 spatial dimensions that directly alters our velocity in time? Or is that just cause/effect?)

[YT2095]

it`s our Kinetic energy in our 3D world that creates this effect, That is the Cause, the Time Dilation is the Symptom if you like

[5614]

So is it the same kinetic energy pushing us in x direction across a spatial dimension that is also pushing us in y direction across the time dimensions?.. Or is there another energy doing that?

[YT2095]

no other energy is needed, Y is a Function of X as you put it

[5614]

OK... cool, I get it, thanks.

 

Then onto the 2nd part of energy/force in time thread!

 

As the title says "movement requires energy", we know what Newton says about forces and we also know that energy is required to sustain motion (note the difference between force and energy).

 

So we are moving through the 4th dimension at c (speed of light) except when time dilation kicks in...

 

What energy is it that keeps us moving through time?

 

As you increase your kinetic energy in the spatial dimensions this energy will also act against your speed in the time dimension... However as your kinetic energy in the spatial dimensions drops your energy in time dimensions increases again because you go faster (or nearer to normal), so as your KE decreases in the spatial dimension, it increases in the time dimensions. Due to this inversely proportional nature of this KE in spatial dimensions cannot be the same energy required for movement in the time dimension, so what is the energy in the time dimension that makes us move through it?

[YT2095]

I think the problem here is that you beleive your Watch or Clock is telling the truth for all frames, it is not, it`s only true where it is.

 

we move through it as a function of change, without it, there would be no "Time".

 

I think I`m going to have to leave this chat for now, I`ve got work to do (I`ve got Bees to collect and an appontment to attend) and I could also do with someone that can explain better than I.

 

5614, sorry I couldn`t have been of greater help to you, chat later

[5614]

we move through it as a function of change, without it, there would be no "Time".

I beg to differ, we'd be travelling through the 4th dimension whether there was none, analogue, digital or binary watch on your wrist!

 

I once read somewhere that your total speed across all 4 dimensions would always be c, so when you are stationary in the spatiail dimensions you move through time at c and then as you accelerate in the spatial dimensions it takes speed 'away from' the 4th dimension, so you go slower through time.

 

Whether this is a respected theory or a randomer's way of visualising it, it works... but as you can see, although no net force is required as your speed is a constant c across the 4 dimensions, unless perpetual motion exists, a constant energy is required to propel us at c...

 

Anyway, thanks YT.

__________________

Yours truely 5614... YT5614

[swansont]

As the title says "movement requires energy"' date=' we know what Newton says about forces and we also know that energy is required to sustain motion [i'](note the difference between force and energy)[/i].

 

 

Energy isn't required to sustain motion - it doesn't get "used up" as you move. Energy is a property of moving objects, but I don't think that's the same thing.

 

I think your previous point can be addressed by the position four-vector, which is invariant under a Lorentz transformation. If you're in an inertial frame, you move through spacetime at a constant rate. That's purely time for someone at rest.

[Tom Mattson]

umm' date=' ok, but the fact that somebody is going faster/slower in time means that somebody's speed in the 4th dimension is a variant which is where the "for speed to vary you need a force, what is this force?" question came from.

[/quote']

 

Think about it with an everyday analogy. Consider a set of inertial frames with different (constant) velocities under ideal conditions. They all have different states of motion, but no energy is required to keep them that way. It is no different with motion in the time dimension.

 

1) Newtons laws of motion which apply to the 3 spatial dimensions are not applicable in the 4th dimension,

 

Sure they are. Newton's laws adapt to relativity just fine, but of course the 2nd law is in 4-vector form.

[5614]

Energy isn't required to sustain motion - it doesn't get "used up" as you move.

hmm, that's what I thought, when I was saying no net force and no energy, but then I had a flashback memory of those f=ma exam style questions, and there's always a friction, a backwards force, and so the object must supply an equal driving force to maintain a constant velocity... no that I've typed that I've realised, is it correct to say that there is no friction in the 4th dimension and thus no friction-counteracting force is required to maintain a constant velocity?

 

Okay, if the above is correct it leaves only one question (which I asked before):

 

As you increase your kinetic energy in the spatial dimensions this energy will also act against your speed in the time dimension... However as your kinetic energy in the spatial dimensions drops your energy in time dimensions increases again because you go faster (or nearer to normal), so as your KE decreases in the spatial dimension, it increases in the time dimensions. Due to this inversely proportional nature of this, KE in spatial dimensions cannot be the same energy required for movement in the time dimension, so what is the energy in the time dimension that makes us move through it?

 

I accept Tom Mattson's analogy, but with time dilation surely somebody is varying in speed [in 4th dimension], which requires energy?

[swansont]

hmm' date=' that's what I thought, when I was saying no net force and no energy, but then I had a flashback memory of those f=ma exam style questions, and there's always a friction, a backwards force, and so the object must supply an equal driving force to maintain a constant velocity... no that I've typed that I've realised, [b']is it correct to say that there is no friction in the 4th dimension and thus no friction-counteracting force is required to maintain a constant velocity?[/b]

 

But friction is a force. In the absence of a force, there is no energy loss.

 

Think of it this way - do you have to do anything to move through time? If you think "yes," is there any way to stop doing that something, that would stop or change your motion through time?

[5614]

But friction is a force. In the absence of a force' date=' there is no energy loss.

 

Think of it this way - do you have to do anything to move through time? If you think "yes," is there any way to stop doing that something, that would stop or change your motion through time?[/quote']

I think you missed the point... if there is friction (a force opposing you travelling through time) then you must supply a force (which requires energy) to counteract friction (assuming you wish to maintain a constant velocity).... but no such energy exists (I don't think) therefore if you are supplying no force and yet you are moving a constant rate there cannot be any force opposing you, (including friction), I was checking that that was correct.

 

[edit] movement requires energy only when there's friction, in the spatial dimensions this is always true, but in time I dont think it can be.

[swansont]

I think you missed the point... if there is friction (a force opposing you travelling through time) then you must supply a force (which requires energy) to counteract friction (assuming you wish to maintain a constant velocity).... but no such energy exists (I don't think) therefore if you are supplying no force and yet you are moving a constant rate there cannot be any force opposing you, (including friction), I was checking that that was correct.

 

 

But if you are supplying this force, is there a way you can stop?

 

You are correct: no force = constant velocity

[5614]

Just as I can't stop my heart beating I can't stop myself from putting energy into travelling in time...... I don't think you can say "you can't stop yourself therefore it's not there", but I suppose there isn't friction in the 4th dimension so you don't need to supply an energy.

 

So then:

 

With time dilation surely somebody is varying in speed [in 4th dimension], which requires energy?

[Tom Mattson]

With time dilation surely somebody is varying in speed [in 4th dimension]' date=' which requires energy?[/b']

 

But this is wrong. Time dilation simply does not necessitate nonconstant velocities. Time dilation is a derived result for inertial (nonaccelerating) frames. No energy is required to sustain that kind of motion.