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

[hoola]

when I described motion, I am describing the smallest form of motion, that is virtual particle motion. I see the quantum effect of light being of dual wave and particle, so the same with fundamental particles, and the same with time. I am not confusing electronic terms with velocity terms, I am saying that IF time has a quantum basis, there is unity in the underlying structure of light, particles, and time. I see time as the most fundamental of the three, as that mechanism allows the other two to exhibit their particular properties, not that it necessarily caused it. As far as the big bang causing motion, yes, in a geometric sense, but that property must have been mapped out in the previous era of informational calculations that set up the bb to happen the way it did. So, the ability to move physically was first described mathematically as "little bangs" between the "significant participants", then the "just push play" of the mature program was allowed to begin it's final iteration of this particular universe with our big bang. I further see that there are "less significant" participants, and dark matter is one of those as it is more remotely linked in the mathematical flow chart and so has fewer little bangs (allowable interactions) with the major players. I further see that the intervals between " finite discriptors" as an artifact of the logic that led to formal geometric mathematical properties, formally expressing those intervals as the emergent physical phenomena of "distance".

Edited February 23, 2017 by hoola

[swansont]

when I described motion, I am describing the smallest form of motion, that is virtual particle motion. I see the quantum effect of light being of dual wave and particle, so the same with fundamental particles, and the same with time. I am not confusing electronic terms with velocity terms, I am saying that if time has a quantum basis, there is unity in the underlying structure of light, particles, and time.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you want to present your own speculation about this, you need to do it in a new thread. Responses need to be mainstream science, unless you are defending the specific proposals of the OP.

[hoola]

but I am speculating on the topic, namely cause of motion as relates to time, and mainstream science has supported the "math as everything" idea from Pythagoris to Tegmark, and that I am "defending" the OP to the degree that if there is a relationship between the two, a possible cause for that relation, and based upon that cause, a few particular concequences.

Edited February 23, 2017 by hoola

[michel123456]

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

When you combine things together, you multiply them. But in this case, instead of multiplying, one must divide. When you divide distance by time you get speed. And if you think about it deeply, it is weird.

Take a small distance, equal to a ruler.

Then you divide your ruler by "something" and get a speed.

What is that "something" that divides your ruler and gets you speed? We call it "time".

So simple.

[Strange]

When you combine things together, you multiply them.

 

 

Not necessarily.

[michel123456]

 

 

Not necessarily.

Please give an example.

In my understanding, when you want to analyze things, you divide (or subtract).

And when you combine, you multiply (or add).

[michel123456]

For example, if you make a distance/time diagram like the one below (from here Credit: Ben Himme, Tristan O'Hanlon, with angle addition by me).

 

The speed is represented by a line, which in facts represents the data coming from a moving point transcripted over time. In fact speed is represented by the angle of this line. The greater the speed, the greater the angle. Null speed correspond to null angle. And SOL is very near the vertical corresponding to an angle near to 90 degrees. IOW the division of distance by time (m/s) is represented by an angle.

 

The surface of the diagram is distance multiplied by time (m s) and I don't know what it is.

 

 

 

Reversely, when you take time and multiply it by an angle, you should obtain distance.

 

And if you take distance multiplied by an angle you should obtain time. Whatever that means.

[swansont]

In fact speed is represented by the angle of this line.

 

 

v = dx/dt

 

The speed is the slope of the line. It's not the angle, because speed has units. If I change the scale of the axes, the angle changes, but the slope doesn't.

[michel123456]

 

 

v = dx/dt

 

The speed is the slope of the line. It's not the angle, because speed has units. If I change the scale of the axes, the angle changes, but the slope doesn't.

You are correct, my bad.