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

[stupidnewton]

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. To my way of reckoning the passage of an electron through space is converting space into matter, etc.

[studiot]

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. To my way of reckoning the passage of an electron through space is converting space into matter, etc.

 

Since when did opinion take precedence over observation, especially if the opinion runs contrary to observation?

[StringJunky]

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. To my way of reckoning the passage of an electron through space is converting space into matter, etc.

Science fiction is down the corridor on the left.

[DrP]

Basically I still stand by post#2 - Time is not the cause of motion. It requires a force.

 

Maybe it could be argued that it requires an impulse? Which, being Force over Time, kind of uses time in it's making..... but I still think it is plain wrong to state that the cause of motion is time.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. ....

 

OK - I am close to calling a halt to this thread. Assertions like the above have no place in a physics discussion; if you have any form of proof that the electron is not fundamental then post it - if you do not (and this is almost certainly the case) then do not use such an assertion in your argument. The reason for this rule is that any argument can be made and supported if members are just allowed to make stuff up as they fancy it.

 

So from now on please ensure that statements are backed up, or at least capable of being backed up; if you find this impossible then it is a fair hint that your position in this thread is untenable.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[Mordred]

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. To my way of reckoning the passage of an electron through space is converting space into matter, etc.

Oh now we have radioactive electrons. Everyone move away from your christmas trees, Lights etc.

 

How do convert volume (space) into matter?

 

Maybe you should google "electron" instead of making such embarassing statements.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

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.

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. To my way of reckoning the passage of an electron through space is converting space into matter, etc.

 

You need to deal with one misconception at a time here. You're juggling three or four here in this thread, which is why it was split from the other thread.

 

You redefine well-known/understood terms like motion, space, and matter, which is a HORRIBLE practice (seriously, would you discuss baseball with professionals and use phrases like "If you swing your sticks faster, the ball-grabber's mitten won't be able to catch the ball"?). You assert that you're right instead of asking questions, when it's clear you're dancing on the surface of a shallow, pop-sci foundation for a science education.

 

I think it's great you're interested, and you're obviously pretty smart, but you need some mainstream study. What you're doing here to yourself is science garbage. Nothing personal intended.

[steveupson]

Basically I still stand by post#2 - Time is not the cause of motion. It requires a force.

 

Maybe it could be argued that it requires an impulse? Which, being Force over Time, kind of uses time in it's making..... but I still think it is plain wrong to state that the cause of motion is time.

 

 

 

Maybe some sort of definition of motion is in order. Isn't motion simply a change in position?

 

And, along the same track, isn't position simply a length and direction from a reference?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly this is true, but something must change position (move) or else we would never have any way of knowing whether or not the decay is actually taking place.

 

I'm pretty sure that every particle has a future and that its future lies in a specific direction. The state in which all these directions of all these futures form a coherent entity is what we refer to as "now" in what we refer to as "time." Basically, direction commutes in spacetime whereas length does not. Length only commutes in flat spacetime, which doesn't really exist.

 

To clarify this a little bit, the direction of one future of one particle is relative to the direction of a second future of a second particle, and this relative difference in direction has a value or magnitude. This magnitude is identical whether we look at the direction of the second particle's future relative to the first, or if we look at the direction of first particle's future relative to the second.

 

If we move any instant into the "past" or into the "future" then the discrete directions of all of those discrete futures becomes incoherent. They no longer commute due to the fact that spacetime is not flat but instead has some curvature to it. They must all, in synchronous fashion, get new futures that lie in new directions in order to maintain the coherent entity. That's what makes "now" special with regards to "time."

 

Note that this condition, since it relies on direction only, and not length, should be invariant under relativistic transformation. That's very likely another key ingredient of what we refer to as "now." I suspect (due to the symmetry) that if we turned the math around in the transformation and specified position using direction as the scalar value, rather than length, then length would become the dependent quantity that would be invariant under relativistic transformation. Don't confuse this synchronicity with simultaneity. They are two different things and each one is dependent on the other for its existence.

 

I think it's been stated elsewhere on this site that length cannot exist without time it follows that any change in position (movement) cannot happen without time. I don't think it's pointless to look closely at the causation for this relationship. It seems to be due to the way that direction (the thing that we specify using vectors) behaves in 3D. It's different (both conceptually and mathematically) than the way it behaves in 2D. We rely on this 2D behavior of direction for all of our standard computations. Once we move to include some special 3D behavior then some things that are not so clear using standard methods become more obvious.

 

I've made an effort to be as careful as I can to be somewhat specific in distinguishing the things I believe have been resolved mathematically from the things that are speculation. Of course the reader is free to consider the entire post as speculation since it hasn't been published. The small amount of math that's been done so far seems to support much of this already.

[Mordred]

Yes but none of the above has anything to do with time causing motion. Everything you described above amounts to how we measure change. Whether its length or time

 

The Op is essentially stating rate of change (time) causes motion. Essentially stating time has energy (ability to perform work) which nothing you've stated above suggests.

 

Just because an object has had sufficient time to get from a to b does not mean time causes the object to move from a to b.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Mordred

[Sriman Dutta]

Instead of separating the two notions of space and time, combine them together and then there is motion.

[studiot]

Instead of separating the two notions of space and time, combine them together and then there is motion.

 

Instead of separating the two notions of space and time, combine them together and then there is can be?motion.

 

But +1 anyway for a good comment.

[Ten oz]

Just beg to differ. If an electrons emit radiation, they are particles made of other particles. To my way of reckoning the passage of an electron through space is converting space into matter, etc.

You are applying too linear of an understanding to this. For me, because I am not the brightest bulb, it is easiest to just conceptualize time as a relative measurement. Time is akin to distance in that its measurement is often scaled by speed (motion) or the difference between objects reactive potential. Distance measures between points and not the specific measurement of the objects at any point. However no motion is required for their to be distance between objects nor is scale of the object a factor required to measure. However both movement and size can make a different. It is all relative to the reason way one is measuring the distance.

 

An example would be choosing the distance to stand back from a fire. Obviously the scale/size of the fire influences the distance I will want to stand because the heat the fire produces has the ability to react with me to different degrees at different distances. However distance doesn't measure reaction, just distance. So whether or not at 2 feet between myself on the flames I can feel the heat at all or am being burned by it is irrelevant. Two feet is 2 feet. Distance in relationship to sclae of the objects is determining the reaction but distance alone is just a measurement. Two feet is 2 feet whether or not I can feel the fire at 2 feet.

[studiot]

You are applying too linear of an understanding to this. For me, because I am not the brightest bulb, it is easiest to just conceptualize time as a relative measurement. Time is akin to distance in that its measurement is often scaled by speed (motion) or the difference between objects reactive potential. Distance measures between points and not the specific measurement of the objects at any point. However no motion is required for their to be distance between objects nor is scale of the object a factor required to measure. However both movement and size can make a different. It is all relative to the reason way one is measuring the distance.

 

An example would be choosing the distance to stand back from a fire. Obviously the scale/size of the fire influences the distance I will want to stand because the heat the fire produces has the ability to react with me to different degrees at different distances. However distance doesn't measure reaction, just distance. So whether or not at 2 feet between myself on the flames I can feel the heat at all or am being burned by it is irrelevant. Two feet is 2 feet. Distance in relationship to sclae of the objects is determining the reaction but distance alone is just a measurement. Two feet is 2 feet whether or not I can feel the fire at 2 feet.

 

Also good thoughts +1

 

[steveupson]

Yes but none of the above has anything to do with time causing motion. Everything you described above amounts to how we measure change. Whether its length or time

 

The Op is essentially stating rate of change (time) causes motion. Essentially stating time has energy (ability to perform work) which nothing you've stated above suggests.

 

Just because an object has had sufficient time to get from a to b does not mean time causes the object to move from a to b.

 

I can't agree with this. While it's true that the Op says rate of change (time) causes motion it doesn't really follow that this has anything to do with work, which is actually energy transfer. In the case of motion of matter, this transfer of energy is how we would go about measuring kinetic energy, which I believe can exist without work. Work is only necessary as a method of making a measurement of this energy.

 

 

Instead of separating the two notions of space and time, combine them together and then there is motion.

 

 

+1 perfect

 

 

 

Instead of separating the two notions of space and time, combine them together and then there is can be?motion.

 

But +1 anyway for a good comment.

 

Unless the combination results in a flat spacetime, which it doesn't, then there has to be motion as a result of combining space and time. It's the curvature that makes it necessary that there's motion with any passing of time. This "synchronous" motion is what separates the "past" and the "future" from "now." We know these are different somehow, and this is the how.

[Mordred]

So we ignore basic elementary and highschool physics and the laws of inertia? You know as well as I do the very definition of energy is the ability to perform work. So how can you have energy without the ability to perform work and vise versa.

 

You cannot have one quantity without the other. Not when the quantity energy is defined as the ability to perform work.

 

I love how everyone ignores the definitions of the quantities they argue against. Regardless of whether it is potential or kinetic energy. Energy is still the ability to perform work.

 

I can't agree with this. While it's true that the Op says rate of change (time) causes motion it doesn't really follow that this has anything to do with work, which is actually energy transfer. In the case of motion of matter, this transfer of energy is how we would go about measuring kinetic energy, which I believe can exist without work.

Your belief is irrelevant and incorrect. As the very definition of energy means the ability to perform work.

 

By the way one should never answer threads by others based on personal belief/misconceptions or personal theories. That just leads to thread hijacking.

 

If you wish to discuss your personal theories open a seperate thread. eg energy not being the ability to perform work. Put it into a new thread. "

 

The standardized definition of energy " is the ability to perform work"

Edited December 9, 2016 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

While it's true that the Op says rate of change (time) causes allows motion

 

FTFY.

[steveupson]

 

FTFY.

 

 

Here's the relevant Op quoted.

 

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

 

It's so brief that I don't understand the confusion.

[Mordred]

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

Did you read this? Its pretty clear

Edited December 9, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

...

 

Your belief is irrelevant and incorrect. As the very definition of energy means the ability to perform work.

...

 

The standardized definition of energy " is the ability to perform work"

 

 

Can you please explain exactly what you think that I said that makes you think I believe something other than that energy is the ability to perform work?

 

Are you arguing that in order to have motion you must have a method for measurement of energy? Because that's what it seems like to me. If I have misunderstood your argument then please clarify it for me, if you can.

[Mordred]

Didn't I quote the relevant section. Why yes I did.

 

Can you explain how you can have kinetic energy but not describe it as the ability to perform work ?

 

I can't agree with this. While it's true that the Op says rate of change (time) causes motion it doesn't really follow that this has anything to do with work, which is actually energy transfer. In the case of motion of matter, this transfer of energy is how we would go about measuring kinetic energy, which I believe can exist without work. Work is only necessary as a method of making a measurement of this energy.

 

If thats not your intention then this section is poorly worded and implies kinetic energy does not mean the ability to perform work.

 

We can chalk it up to simply being poorly worded if you agree energy is the ability to perform work.

 

The Op is literally stating time causes motion. Motion involves energy. To cause motion (ie from a state of rest) you must perform work. Which time cannot perform

Edited December 10, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

We can chalk it up to simply being poorly worded if you agree energy is the ability to perform work.

 

I can definitely agree with that. Let me try again while keeping it a little simpler this time.

 

Yes but none of the above has anything to do with time causing motion. Everything you described above amounts to how we measure change. Whether its length or time

 

The Op is essentially stating rate of change (time) causes motion. Essentially stating time has energy (ability to perform work) which nothing you've stated above suggests.

 

Just because an object has had sufficient time to get from a to b does not mean time causes the object to move from a to b.

 

It sounds arbitrary to me to argue that the way we measure time isn't causative while at the same time arguing that the way we measure energy is causative.

 

I don't see any difference, so I consider these two things in the same light. To me, they are both causative, or they're not.

Edited December 10, 2016 by steveupson

[Mordred]

The question is what causes motion from a state of rest. The correct answer isn't time. Simply because there is sufficient time for a process. This does not mean time causes the process.

 

Time never causes anything. Its simply a measurement of rate of change or duration it is not causative.

 

Lol this forum is swamped literally with posters trying to apply time as a cause. Time causes curvature, time causes motion time causes....

Everyone wants to find mysterious descriptions of time. Some want to apply materialistic properties to it.

 

Yet time is never a cause, its simply a rate of change or duration. The faster people get over this hurdle the better off they will be in understanding spacetime isn't some mysterious fabric. Which these misconceptions usually stem from.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

The question is what causes motion from a state of rest.

 

I didn't understand the question then.

 

I don't think anyone is asking that particular question, are they? I see the question as being in the same vein as the question about how an object knows how to move (stay in motion) when no forces are acting upon it.

 

I think the question is more like: Does motion (stuff moving) happens because of time, independent of other stuff. I think the answer is the same as when we ask whether work happens because of energy. To me these are similar questions with similar answers. In both cases the question is how we view the quantification of something.

[Mordred]

Well the Op was pretty clear in his belief time causes motion. I had quoted that above a few posts ago. look 6 posts back

Edited December 10, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

Does energy cause work?