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

[Mordred]

Does energy cause work?

I wouldn't say that no. Energy is just the ability to perform work. Which isn't the same thing as causes work.

 

Lets take an everyday example. A circuit supplied by batteries has energy. Yet no work will be performed until you have a potential difference (circuit load) to cause current. ie You plug the batteries in

 

So although energy is present no work is being done. In this case the load causes the work but the energy performs the work.

 

Now you can have potential difference in the following (energy, mass, charge, pressure,temperature,action).

 

Now everything mentioned above can be described under the principle of least action. Including motion.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/LeastAction.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjnqdrCw-jQAhVU-WMKHcmnDqgQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEqeyfTuBnAGL29pWeJQgjg2vXjQQ

 

This paper shows Newtons laws under Principle of least action. By the way it correlates potential and kinetic energy relations to each other. Action being the difference in potential and kinetic energy.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Mordred

[stupidnewton]

Well what is time? Not the cause of motion, What.

[imatfaal]

Well what is time? Not the cause of motion, What.

 

To define something in the way that you have requested requires a lower level of agreed axiomata - physics does not really have this. Time is what clocks measure - we do not define it in terms of anything more fundamental as physics does not recognise/understand anything much more fundamental.

 

As an analogy I would say that you are asking about what is the number 2; in maths we have created very low-level axiomata (the peano) which can answer this and thus describe numbers, operations, logic etc in terms of simpler (?) ideas. In physics we do not have that group of simpler ideas because there needs to be an empirical evidential link - and at present we have nothing that we can measure which is more fundamental than time (or distance)

[Ten oz]

Does energy cause work?

Work is a measurement. Just like time is a measurement. Work allows of to quantify energy but is not enery itself. In this thread there seems to some confusion between the way we havecome to measure or world vs the literal existence of it.

[steveupson]

Work is a measurement. Just like time is a measurement. Work allows of to quantify energy but is not enery itself. In this thread there seems to some confusion between the way we havecome to measure or world vs the literal existence of it.

 

This seems to be where the uncertainty lies. We can probably agree that work is a measurement of energy. Why can't we agree that motion is a measurement of time?

 

Time doesn't measure anything, does it? It exists in the same way that energy exists, and we know that they both exist due to the ability to measure them.

[Mordred]

Simply as time can measure other classical changes that has nothing to do with motion. example.

 

I had to wait 1 hour in the Doctors office.

 

did I eventually leave the office? of course but while I was there I didn't travel anywhere.

 

Or it took that apple 1 week to rot.

 

Your modelling how long it took the apple to decay but the apple didn't need to go anywhere to rot.

 

One of the details often avoided is that time also measures change or duration of a state. A system state itself has no motion example.

 

This boiler will take 24 hours to cool down. The system state is the boiler. It doesn't travel to cool down.

 

Even if cooling is loss of kinetic energy of the particles inside the tank. Were not decsribing those molecules. We are describing the tanks temperature.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Mordred

[steveupson]

 

To define something in the way that you have requested requires a lower level of agreed axiomata - physics does not really have this. Time is what clocks measure - we do not define it in terms of anything more fundamental as physics does not recognise/understand anything much more fundamental.

 

As an analogy I would say that you are asking about what is the number 2; in maths we have created very low-level axiomata (the peano) which can answer this and thus describe numbers, operations, logic etc in terms of simpler (?) ideas. In physics we do not have that group of simpler ideas because there needs to be an empirical evidential link - and at present we have nothing that we can measure which is more fundamental than time (or distance)

 

I thought that we have some fundamental entities that we refer to as time, space, energy, and matter. Aren't these the fundamental axiomata for physics?

[Strange]

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.

This seems to be a good example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Strange

[steveupson]

Simply as time can measure other classical changes that has nothing to do with motion. example.

 

I had to wait 1 hour in the Doctors office.

 

did I eventually leave the office? of course but while I was there I didn't travel anywhere.

 

Or it took that apple 1 week to rot.

 

Your modelling how long it took the apple to decay but the apple didn't need to go anywhere to rot.

 

Except for the fact that one hour doesn't exist without light moving 6.706e+8 miles, then sure, what you are claiming is true. You are ignoring the idea that we cannot quantify time without motion while at the same time touting the idea that we cannot measure energy without work. This seems a little inconsistent or arbitrary to me.

[Mordred]

No motion is simply one of many ways to measure time. It isn't the only way.

Not all ways to measure time involve motion.

 

You don't define something based on this definition work sometimes but not others.

Those lights will change color every hour. Do I need distance in this case to describe the duration?

 

Of course not. I just need the number of seconds.

 

When you assign a quantity in physics you also units to that quantity. It makes no sense to describe the light in this example as

 

The light took 0 metres/3060 seconds to change color.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Except for the fact that one hour doesn't exist without light moving 6.706e+8 miles

What evidence do you have for this "fact"?

 

You are ignoring the idea that we cannot quantify time without motion

The definition of the second, for example, explicitly says there is no motion. And I'm sure swansont can give full details of how they (a) attempt to eliminate and (b) compensate for motion in atomic clocks to make them more accurate.

 

Also, in GR you can build "toy" models of space time with no matter/energy. They still have the time dimension, even with nothing to move.

[steveupson]

No motion is simply one of many ways to measure time. It isn't the only way.

Not all ways to measure time involve motion.

 

You don't define something based on this definition work sometimes but not others.

Those lights will change color every hour. Do I need distance in this case to describe the duration?

 

Of course not. I just need the number of seconds.

 

When you assign a quantity in physics you also units to that quantity. It makes no sense to describe the light in this example as

 

The light took 0 metres/3060 seconds to change color.

 

 

This, once again, sounds inconsistent to me. One doesn't need to do work to measure energy, either.

 

I joule is the ability to apply one newton for one meter.

 

I second is the ability for light to move 3e+8 meters.

 

This seems very basic to me. I honestly cannot see the distinction between these two that you are trying to make here.

What evidence do you have for this "fact"?

 

 

The definition of the second, for example, explicitly says there is no motion. And I'm sure swansont can give full details of how they (a) attempt to eliminate and (b) compensate for motion in atomic clocks to make them more accurate.

 

Also, in GR you can build "toy" models of space time with no matter/energy. They still have the time dimension, even with nothing to move.

 

Nah, I'm not buying it. There has to motion of some sort has to be the ability to have motion in order to define time. This is the result of c being a constant.

Edited December 10, 2016 by steveupson

[Mordred]

Ok lets try a simple example.

The unit velocity is metres per second.

This defines velocity. The unit for distance is metres this defines distance.

The unit for time is seconds. This defines time.

If we required motion to describe every object in how it changes we may as well just use velocity units. We wouldn't need time units would we. Metres/sec should work in EVERY CASE. But it doesnt. I sat on the couch for 0 metres/4hours. That's a garbage unit.

 

Definition of any quantity in physics has dimensional units inherent in its definition.

 

The unit for time is seconds. This is not a unit of distance or motion. It is not because our everyday existence we describe objects that are not moving.

 

My wife yelled at me for hours being an example.

 

 

This, once again, sounds inconsistent to me. One doesn't need to do work to measure energy, either.

 

I joule is the ability to apply one newton for one meter.

 

I second is the ability for light to move 3e+8 meters.

 

This seems very basic to me. I honestly cannot see the distinction between these two that you are trying to make here.

 

 

Nah, I'm not buying it. There has to motion of some sort has to be the ability to have motion in order to define time. This is the result of c being a constant.

This is superfluous just because you can describe something with motion does not mean you need to use motion to describe it.

 

I don't need motion to describe how long it takes my coffee to cool down so I can drink it.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

Time is defined in Relativity as a function with space, aka spacetime, so it doesn't need anything to move.

[Strange]

 

Nah, I'm not buying it. There has to motion of some sort has to be the ability to have motion in order to define time. This is the result of c being a constant.

 

 

Then look up the way the second is defined. It explicitly says that it is defined at 0K - in other words, in the absence of motion.

 

And the value of c doesn't come into it.

[Ten oz]

 

This seems to be where the uncertainty lies. We can probably agree that work is a measurement of energy. Why can't we agree that motion is a measurement of time?

 

Time doesn't measure anything, does it? It exists in the same way that energy exists, and we know that they both exist due to the ability to measure them.

All matter is made of energy and energy can exist without time. The oppisite isn't true. The 2 aren't parallel.

[steveupson]

All matter is made of energy and energy can exist without time. The oppisite isn't true. The 2 aren't parallel.

 

I thought we had all agreed that energy is the ability to do work. How can work be done without time? I don't understand this assertion.

 

 

Then look up the way the second is defined. It explicitly says that it is defined at 0K - in other words, in the absence of motion.

 

And the value of c doesn't come into it.

 

 

From wiki:

 

"SI definition of second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of theground state of the cesium 133 atom""

 

Are you making the argument that we can observe radiation without motion?

Time is defined in Relativity as a function with space, aka spacetime, so it doesn't need anything to move.

 

We need c in order to define spacetime's relationship with Relativity. We need motion to have c.

[Ten oz]

 

I thought we had all agreed that energy is the ability to do work. How can work be done without time? I don't understand this assertion.

 

No, we all agreed that work is a way to measure energy.

[steveupson]

No, we all agreed that work is a way to measure energy.

 

Back at post #40

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101390-time-is-the-cause-of-motion-hijack-split-from-time/page-2#entry960981

[TakenItSeriously]

If all motion in the universe stopped, then an observer would have to conclude, yep it looks like time has stopped because all motion has stopped. But then again, the observer wouldnt be aware that time had stopped because he had been stopped as well, so who's there to say. It simply becomes an equivalent statement of if a tree fell in the woods and theres no one around to hear it does it make a sound.

Edited December 10, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Itoero]

If the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate then I suppose time is slowing down.

Motion should slow down as well.

Does that mean that the expanding will slow down?

 

Or is the slowing down of time an observer based property?

Distant galaxies are moving away from us at great speeds, events in those galaxies would (from our point of view) appear to run slower. But if someone can observe the entire universe, would he find time to be constant?

[stupidnewton]

http://www.whyvenusturnsbackwards.com/

 

Was in good faith back a month or two ago.

 

Planetary motion has always been taught in a way that doesn't make sense at the junior level. If you didn't see this at secondary school, you must have been having an off day.

 

Time to move on. If someone else wants to take up the running about Galileo's silly mistake go for it. We have to get the motions of inverse square laws into school curricula. Otherwise we are stuck in the garbage of mathematical physics. If it comes, accept the ban.

[hoola]

while time allows geometric motion, isn't time itself a form of informational wave motion of a fundamental oscillation, with each moment as a collapse of that wave into discrete parts when observed (or interacted with in a geometric or physical sense) similar to light's duality status? I see that is why time slows down in a higher gravitational field and through accelerations. The fundamental oscillator interacts with more changes of mass/energy under those conditions, so more interactions slow the completion of time's duty cycle. I further see this related to the Unruh effect in acceleration and Hawking radiation as relates to gravity, where the duty cycle meets it's ultimate geometric slowdown; complete interruption of the interacting virtual particles which are closely coupled to the fundamental time regime.

Edited February 23, 2017 by hoola

[Strange]

while time allows geometric motion, isn't time itself a form of informational wave motion of a fundamental oscillation, with each moment as a collapse of that wave into discrete parts when observed (or interacted with in a geometric or physical sense) similar to light's duality status?

 

 

No.

[TakenItSeriously]

while time allows geometric motion, isn't time itself a form of informational wave motion of a fundamental oscillation, with each moment as a collapse of that wave into discrete parts when observed (or interacted with in a geometric or physical sense) similar to light's duality status? I see that is why time slows down in a higher gravitational field and through accelerations. The fundamental oscillator interacts with more changes of mass/energy under those conditions, so more interactions slow the completion of time's duty cycle. I further see this in the Unruh effect in resistane to acceleration and Hawking radiation as relates to gravity, where the duty cycle meets it's ultimate geometric slowdown; complete interruption of the interacting virtual particles which are closely coupled to the fundamental time regime.

I think your thinking of frequency which is the inverse of time as in cycles per second. Then you connected frequency to waves which they aren't actually the same because frequency is a property of waves much like velocity is a property of particles.

 

However, I think that one could make an arguement for waves or perhaps more accurately fields which could be a cause of motion, or at least they induce motion which seems to me to be saying the same thing, though not exactly since its a kind of motion that is not felt, which I think in a way, is what makes it a more legitimate cause of mothio than force or thrust for example.

 

While, It's true that fields do change motion the same way that forces change motion, it seems more legitimate to me in terms of the question because the motion that fields creates is always relative between the particles independent of outside observers. Another words, the motion itself is definitive to all observes between bodies of charged particles moving towards other charged particles or massive bodies moving towards other massive bodies. So all outside observers must agree that their is motion between particles with mass or particles with charges and what is the cause of that motion at least in general terms if not mechanistic terms. All observers must agree that the relative motion between bodies as being the same and cannot argue over whether some force was causing motion or resisting motion.

 

Ironically the only exception being the observer in a sealed elevator with no windows as in Einsteins thought experiment who would think they were not in motion at all.

 

However you could say that the motion of particles are what creates fields, at least with EM fields and I suspect that something similar can be said for gravitational fields. In fact their was a quote that said something to that effect though I can't recall the quote exactly. it was kind of like a chicken and egg relavance though not exactly.

 

I think someone mentioned energy as causing motion, which I think it could be argued that energy in the form of heat is what causes brownian motion. Energy also causes the motion of particles in the solar wind.

 

Energy is also what creates induces the frequency of waves to increase although that doesn't impact the waves motion which is always at the speed of light. Also waves causing the motion of photons is debatable as photons are always in motion at the speed of light just as waves are always at motion at the speed of light.

 

However the overwhelming greatest amount of motion, is easily due to the expansion of the Universe, therefore I think that ultimately you would have to say that the Big Bang was the definitive source of all motion and conservation laws are what keeps motion going in what ever form that followed

Edited February 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously