Time is the cause of motion (hijack split from Time)

[stupidnewton]

Time is the cause of motion. Work out the cause of motion, you have time.

[DrP]

No - an applied force, strong enough to overcome inertial constraints and friction, is what causes motion.

Edited December 1, 2016 by DrP

[StringJunky]

No - an applied force, strong enough to overcome inertial constraints and friction, is what causes motion.

Things are always in motion. It is acceleration that occurs with applied force. Things only appear stationary if the observer is co-moving with the subject.

 

Based on this: why do objects move? Because that's the default state.

Edited December 1, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrP]

I am talking about 'change' of motion - or causing motion from rest in a frame of reference (which I agree, requires/is acceleration) - which requires a force.. the guy before me posted something about "Time is the cause of motion.." and "Work out the cause of motion and you have time". Maybe it was over my head or philosophical or something - but it didn't seem like physics to me. Not the way I learnt it at Uni anyway. Can you correct me if I am wrong here please?

[StringJunky]

I am talking about 'change' of motion - or causing motion from rest in a frame of reference (which I agree, requires/is acceleration) - which requires a force.. the guy before me posted something about "Time is the cause of motion.." and "Work out the cause of motion and you have time". Maybe it was over my head or philosophical or something - but it didn't seem like physics to me. Not the way I learnt it at Uni anyway. Can you correct me if I am wrong here please?

No, weren't wrong I was just taking it to a slightly more fundamental level... I think. Pass on the that previous comment.

[Phi for All]

No - an applied force, strong enough to overcome inertial constraints and friction, is what causes motion.

 

So it would be more accurate to say that time allows motion to happen as you describe above, but doesn't cause motion as stupidnewton suggests, wouldn't it?

[stupidnewton]

 

So it would be more accurate to say that time allows motion to happen as you describe above, but doesn't cause motion as stupidnewton suggests, wouldn't it?

That's acceptable so what allows motion to happen is the question to answer to know what time is.

[Mordred]

A measured rate of change. I certainly don't need anything more than that to define kinematic motion. With regards to time.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Mordred

[geordief]

Things are always in motion. It is acceleration that occurs with applied force. Things only appear stationary if the observer is co-moving with the subject.

 

Based on this: why do objects move? Because that's the default state.

If motion is the default state , what non-default states are there ?

 

Is "rest" a state?

 

Am I just playing with words?

[studiot]

Why must I keep reinventing the wheel every time this question comes around?

 

Motion is only one form of change.

So whilst the OP has a point that because we observe motion we need a running variable to describe it, we also use this variable for other changes.

 

A simple example of motionless change is radioactive decay.

[StringJunky]

If motion is the default state , what non-default states are there ?

 

Is "rest" a state?

 

Am I just playing with words?

Rest is a result of having the same velocity; same direction and speed.

Edited December 2, 2016 by StringJunky

[stupidnewton]

If nothing ever moved or moves, there is no time. So common sense says that time is the cause of motion.

 

And hey, the starter of this thread was someone else.

Edited December 2, 2016 by stupidnewton

[studiot]

If nothing ever moved or moves, there is no time. So common sense says that time is the cause of motion.

 

And hey, the starter of this thread was someone else.

 

Re-read post#6 (+1 to phi)

 

You might just as well argue that because having a hammer allows you to drive a nail hammers are the cause of nails.

 

PS you might also like to comment on my post#10

 

and hey you are recorded as the starter of this thread.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by studiot

[stupidnewton]

 

Re-read post#6 (+1 to phi)

 

You might just as well argue that because having a hammer allows you to drive a nail hammers are the cause of nails.

 

PS you might also like to comment on my post#10

 

and hey you are recorded as the starter of this thread.

 

That's silly.

 

Regarding post 10 what changes occur without motion?

[Mordred]

You were already given an example of change without motion. Particle decay

[Butch]

You were already given an example of change without motion. Particle decay

In a system that could tolerate imperfection to some extent decay would be an expected process, however motion would be required, even if only the motion of fields.

Motion is relative and is measured against time, however that makes it a requirement, not a cause. I agree motion has no cause, only acceleration has a cause.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Butch

[studiot]

In a system that could tolerate imperfection to some extent decay would be an expected process, however motion would be required, even if only the motion of fields.

Motion is relative and is measured against time, however that makes it a requirement, not a cause. I agree motion has no cause, only acceleration has a cause.

 

I leave tuna, marlin and shark fishing to proper fishermen.

It is a well respected activity.

So if I wanted to know what was a good catch weight etc I would ask a proper fisherman.

 

Because I really don't know.

 

So please leave particle physics to particle physicists and ask.

 

Incidentally, a more interesting question than can you have motion without time? is

 

Can you have time without motion?

 

For time can also measure the duration for which nothing happens.

[Mordred]

 

For time can also measure the duration for which nothing happens.

precisely

[stupidnewton]

You were already given an example of change without motion. Particle decay

Go on.

 

edit didn't mean to give a smart answer but decay in its self is motion.

Edited December 4, 2016 by stupidnewton

[StringJunky]

Go on.

 

edit didn't mean to give a smart answer but decay in its self is motion.

Decay is a change of state not movement through space.

[stupidnewton]

Decay is a change of state not movement through space.

Motion within the object of decay, not motion of a object of decay. If something has changed about an object, something pertaining to the object has moved.

[Mordred]

Really how does a fundamental particle decay with motion internally when it has no other particles within its structure ?

[stupidnewton]

Really how does a fundamental particle decay with motion internally when it has no other particles within its structure ?

That's speculation on your part. Are you attributing decay to a non mechanical process?

[Mordred]

Its not speculation certain particles has no internal structure thats why they are called fundamental particles.

 

An electron isn't made up of any other particle. Though this particular example is extremely stable. There are other fundamental particles that are not stable.

 

Such as the muon or heavy quarks. The muon can decay into an electron without motion being involved. Neither has internal particles to move. A muon is not made out of electrons. A quark can change into a lighter quark but has no internal structure.

 

The point being you can have types of decay without any internal motion. When it comes to elementary particles that are pointlike with no discernable volume and no internal structure. Your statement of internal movement does not apply. Yet those particles can still decay.

 

In all honesty you should study physics instead of asserting its wrong. Not all change requires motion.

 

The other point is time is a property. It isn't something that exists on its own. Much like you can't have color without an object. You require objects/particles to have something to measure rate of change.

 

It really breaks down to a pointless argument. You can't measure time without having some object to measure. Stating time causes motion or motion causes time when both are simultaneous is futile. You can't freeze time as time is a property not an entity unto itself. Much like color is a property. You can't have color without an object.

 

However time does not exert a force upon objects. How can it, there is no such thing as a time particle. So how can time cause motion when time has no energy or particles to perform work? So stating time causes motion makes absolutely no sense.

 

Time simply is a property of objects/systems/states that change. Even if those systems/objects/states don't have motion. Example energy increasing or decreasing of an object. Energy also being a property of an object etc. Doesn't exist on its own. So doesn't move.

 

As Studiot mentioned time can also measure duration of no change. So if you have a hypothetical universe at precisely absolute zero. Time still exists because we can ask the question.

 

How long will that hypothetical universe remain at absolute zero.? There is no internal motion as that would not be absolute zero, but it still has a duration. (assuming you have some godlike view) ie able to view a universe from the outside.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Mordred

[studiot]

 

Mordred

The point being you can have types of decay without any internal motion. When it comes to elementary particles that are pointlike with no discernable volume and no internal structure. Your statement of internal movement does not apply. Yet those particles can still decay.

 

Just to add a small extra to Mordred's excellent piece. +1

 

The whole point of (radioactive) decay is that is happens regardless of the state of motion or lack of motion of the particles involved.

 

In other words the decay does not depend upon the motion.

 

 

Note there are many processes like that in Physics. i.e. those were there are many things going on.

So separation as to what affects what can be quite difficult.

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by studiot