Why does motion exist in this universe?

[seriously disabled]

In my opinion motion is just another word for change and we experience change around us almost all the time.

 

The Buddha said that the universe is in a constant state of flux, therefore everything is impermanent.

 

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/imperm.html

 

But why does motion (or change) exist in this universe in the first place?

Edited May 21, 2013 by seriously disabled

[ajb]

But why does motion (or change) exist in this universe in the first place?

One could, I supose, make an appeal to entropy and the theormodynamic arrow of time to argue that the Universe must be a dynamical place. Other than that my thoughts are that the Universe is inhrently instable and balancing forces is diffuclt.

[EdEarl]

Science cannot answer the metaphysical why, such as why is there a universe or why is there motion.

 

Science does answer the physical why as the Universe began with a big bang and everything was thrown into motion. Moreover, dark energy (whatever that is) pushes on the fabric of space time causing acceleration of distant things away from each other, and forces (such as gravity, electrostatic, weak and strong) suck pulling things toward each other. And, for some unknown reason photons move at the speed of light. I don't know if other things, such as neutrinos, move at the speed of light or not.

 

I do not remember the details, but two other kinds of energy affected the expansion of space-time, one caused inflation very early in the history of the universe, and another energy was dominant after inflation and before dark energy is dominant.

Edited May 21, 2013 by EdEarl

[seriously disabled]

Science cannot answer the metaphysical why, such as why is there a universe or why is there motion.

 

Then science is flawed at its core if it cannot answer that. I believe that science should be able to answer the metaphysical whys as well. I believe that everything needs to have a cause because there is no such thing as magic. This means that there is no such thing as something without a cause.

 

Also I don't buy into the religious argument that God doesn't need to have a cause just because he is God. If God caused the universe then I think that God needs to have a cause as well.

[ACG52]

I believe that science should be able to answer the metaphysical whys as well

Then you don't know what science is.

[ajb]

I believe that science should be able to answer the metaphysical whys as well.

That is not usually considered a goal of science. For science one needs to be able to make predictions that can be tested against nature. Asking why something is the way it is is not a question that has testable solutions.

 

This should not be confused with understanding the mathematical constructions behind the science. For example, my suggestion that one can argue that the Universe must be dynamical due to the instability of balancing forces relies on the mathematical description of forces. It does not in anyway tell us why we have forces or why they must balance or not.

 

For many people the best answer to "why" is hidden in the mathematical constructions used in physics.

[michel123456]

In my opinion motion is just another word for change and we experience change around us almost all the time.

 

The Buddha said that the universe is in a constant state of flux, therefore everything is impermanent.

 

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/imperm.html

 

But why does motion (or change) exist in this universe in the first place?

It may be that motion is simply the way the inhabitants of the Universe observe things. There exists the notion of the block universe that spreads in spacetime and in which nothing really happens.

See eternalism

from the link: It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block",^[2] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time."

[swansont]

Then science is flawed at its core if it cannot answer that.

 

No, it merely means that science is not metaphysics. Your lawnmower is not flawed simply because it does not make espresso. That may be what you want, but that's not what a lawnmower is designed to do.

[ajb]

No, it merely means that science is not metaphysics. Your lawnmower is not flawed simply because it does not make espresso. That may be what you want, but that's not what a lawnmower is designed to do.

But...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAy1pCqwpg4

 

lol

[swansont]

Touché

[ajb]

Touché

 

Sorry

[Markus Hanke]

But...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAy1pCqwpg4

 

lol

 

Ha ha, this is brilliant !

[seriously disabled]

That is not usually considered a goal of science. For science one needs to be able to make predictions that can be tested against nature. Asking why something is the way it is is not a question that has testable solutions.

 

This should not be confused with understanding the mathematical constructions behind the science. For example, my suggestion that one can argue that the Universe must be dynamical due to the instability of balancing forces relies on the mathematical description of forces. It does not in anyway tell us why we have forces or why they must balance or not.

 

For many people the best answer to "why" is hidden in the mathematical constructions used in physics.

 

But mathematics isn't science. Mathematics is just an art. People tend to confuse mathematics with real science but the fact is that mathematics isn't really science and mathematics is not even required to do science.

 

But this doesn't really matter because one day we're all going to die and what we know and do now doesn't really matter in the long run.

[ajb]

But mathematics isn't science. Mathematics is just an art. People tend to confuse mathematics with real science...

The opinions on this will vary a lot dependon on who you talk to. It will also depend on how the people you talk to see the application of mathematics. For me, mathematics and science are rather intertwined.

...but the fact is that mathematics isn't really science and mathematics is not even required to do science.

This I think every scientist will disagree on. The level and sophistication of the mathematics will vary a lot depending on the science and the tastes of the scientists involved. At a basic level one needs to record, present and interpret simple data. All part of mathematics.

But this doesn't really matter because one day we're all going to die and what we know and do now doesn't really matter in the long run.

Well, we all like to leave some mark of our existence for future mankind. Publishing scientific works is part of that, lets just hope someone reads them!

[Chrispen Evan]

And, for some unknown reason photons move at the speed of light. I don't know if other things, such as neutrinos, move at the speed of light or not.

 

only particles without mass travel a lightspeed. neutrinos have mass, albeit small.

[MM6]

You've answered your own question. There's motion because there is energy, which as you said, causes change (motion). That's it.

[Kramer]

AJB
mathematics and science are rather intertwined.

------They must be divided in interpretation of limits: In math convergence has the limit zero. In physics there is something, very very small but nevertheless something.

[ajb]

------They must be divided in interpretation of limits: In math convergence has the limit zero. In physics there is something, very very small but nevertheless something.

Convergence of what?

[Kramer]

That exactly: Convergence of WHAT? In math. doesn't exist that question. In physic you tell me.

[ajb]

That exactly: Convergence of WHAT? In math. doesn't exist that question. In physic you tell me.

You have lost me.

 

Convergence is a question of the existence of a well defined limit. That is a mathematical question and such questions can have much relevence for physics.

[SplitInfinity]

You have lost me.

 

Convergence is a question of the existence of a well defined limit. That is a mathematical question and such questions can have much relevence for physics.

 

Just thinking of what your above post is saying...I thought of this.

 

I am beginning to think that Motion or an Object in Motion can exist in various states...those being...

 

1...An Object FORCED into Motion by either Kinetic Transfer or EM Attraction or Repulsion.

 

2...A Falling Object EFFECTED into an apparent state of Motion due to Gravity.

 

Now at first one would think the two objects in the same state...that being a state of Motion. But I think that the two objects are in fact in very different states.

 

In #1...the object is FORCED into motion and the Electron Orbital Fields that surround the Atoms that make up this object...whether the Electron Orbits are unfilled thus an Electromagnet could attract the object by an EM Force or if the Magnetic Poles of an object were aligned with the same of another...the object would be Repelled by an EM FORCE into Motion. Or if the object was struck by another object...thus the Electron Orbital Fields surrounding the Atomic Nucleus' of the Atoms making up the two objects would repel one another and the Kinetic Energy of one object would transfer to the other object FORCING it into a state of motion.

 

In #2...the object does not encounter any Electromagnetism. It is not struck by another object so there is no Kinetic Energy Transfer thus no Kinetic Based FORCE placing it in a state of motion. There is OBVIOUSLY no Atomic Force involved and yet...IT FALLS.

 

I propose that the state of a FALLING OBJECT is not the same state of an OBJECT FORCED INTO MOTION.

 

The Falling Object is existing at infinite points of position along the line of it's fall dependent upon Linear Time. This concept is specific to Gravity being an aspect or Expression of One Dimensionality created by any Mass and as in the case of a celestial body such as Earth...the greater the mass the greater the EFFECT of GRAVITY.

 

Since all Dimensional States...regardless if our Universal Dimensionality and Space/Time is 10 or 11 or 26...etc...each individual state of dimensionality is a part, specific, associated, interconnected, effected, governed and EXPRESSED with and within all individual states of dimensionality as they exist as a cumulative geometric construct of our reality.

 

So since we know that the ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF ONE DIMENSIONALITY in our Universe is a Black Hole or SINGULARITY...and this is achieved after a MATTER QUANTITY THRESHOLD has been exceeded to cause one Star in a Binary Stellar System that is eating it's companion star until at such a point as the star eating the companion obtains enough matter at a position in Space/Time to COLLAPSE into a state of SINGULARITY OR ONE DIMENSIONALITY.

 

Since this can be seen to occur at one end of Matter Quantity Threshold before a Black Hole is created by Gravitic Compression...calculations for One Dimensional Expression in lessor Matter Quantity States exist...allowing us to know exactly how great is the Expression of Singularity or how great is the EFFECT OF GRAVITY when X-Amount of Mass exists at a position.

 

So I think it might be a reality that a FALLING OBJECT might not be in an actual state of Motion but rather in a CHANGING STATE OF EXISTENCE DEPENDENT AND OBSERVABLE UPON THE PASSAGE OF LINEAR TIME AT INFINITE POINTS OF POSITION UPON THE LINE OF IT'S FALL.

 

Just a thought.

 

Split Infinity

[ajb]

We do not need a non-zero net force for an object to be in motion; this follows from Newton's 1st law.

 

Anyway, I am still at a loss here.

[SplitInfinity]

We do not need a non-zero net force for an object to be in motion; this follows from Newton's 1st law.

 

Anyway, I am still at a loss here.

 

I am not saying this...at least I do not believe I am saying this! LOL!

 

What I am trying to detail is that it may be possible that an Object Falling is not in the same state as an Object being FORCED into motion by EM or Kinetic Means.

 

I am starting to think that a Falling Object is not in an actual state of motion at all but rather in a TRANSIENT STATE OF EXISTENCE which can be both observed and determined as to it's existence and the position it is existing dependent upon the passage of linear time.

 

The Falling Object is EXISTING at infinite points of position along the line of it's fall and it's existence at all these infinite points along this line is specific to Gravitational Warping of Space/Time in a manner that is consistent and expressing a One Dimensional State of Effect.

 

Split Infinity

[ajb]

What I am trying to detail is that it may be possible that an Object Falling is not in the same state as an Object being FORCED into motion by EM or Kinetic Means.

This "smells" a bit like the equivalence principle of general relativity. Loosley, the gravitational force as experienced locally is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference. But this does not hold for the electromagnetic force.

 

In other words; "Gravity accelerates all objects equally regardless of their masses or the materials from which they are made". This is because the inertial and gravitational mass are the same. But for electromagnetism it is the electric charge that is responsable for the interaction, not the mass and so we do not have the equivalence principle.

 

Anyway, yes we all agree that falling objects are different to objects accelerated by electromagnetic fields.

[SplitInfinity]

This "smells" a bit like the equivalence principle of general relativity. Loosley, the gravitational force as experienced locally is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference. But this does not hold for the electromagnetic force.

 

In other words; "Gravity accelerates all objects equally regardless of their masses or the materials from which they are made". This is because the inertial and gravitational mass are the same. But for electromagnetism it is the electric charge that is responsable for the interaction, not the mass and so we do not have the equivalence principle.

 

Anyway, yes we all agree that falling objects are different to objects accelerated by electromagnetic fields.

 

I take exception to part of your second paragraph above.

 

Your stated reason above for why Gravity accelerates objects of differing masses equally is...and I quote..."This is because the inertial and gravitational mass are the same."....end quote.

 

I am fairly certain that the reason why objects of differing masses appear to accelerate at the same rate is that due to Gravitational Effect being an Expression of One Dimensionality...the point of existence of any object or particle or particles of...regardless of it's mass...has it's very Existence determined at Infinite Positions along it's path of Fall dependent upon the passage of linear time.

 

So depending upon the quantity of mass...and in this case that of a Celestial Body...will determine the extent of Space/Time curvature specific to a One Dimensional State.

 

The extent of the Space/Time curvature will determine at what point in Linear Time Passage as well as at what point along the line of fall...the object of mass will exist.

 

As the closer to the Gravity Well exists the Falling Object...is the Greater the extent of Space/Time curvature or Greater the EFFECT of GRAVITY...the objects existence will manifest at an accelerated rate within this linear time passage.

 

This is also true for Gravity's EFFECT upon Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons or Light. Even though Light travels at 186,282 miles per second at a constant...the Warping or Curvature of Space/Time generated by Gravitic Effect will cause Light or Photons to travel at Light Speed along the Curvature of such Space/Time.

 

So it is possible to have Light traveling at 186,282 miles per second upon a path that would take it past a point perpendicular to another point in Space/Time at a distance of .7 Million km....without such Light altering it's course....but if Light traveling a similar course perpendicular to a point .75 Million km...which is .05 Million km greater in distance to the Radius of our SUN...and if this Lights course was to travel perpendicular to the center point of our Sun at a distance from the Suns center of .75 Million km and this course is plotted for such Light to pass perpendicular to this center point and at a distance above the Solar surface of .05 Million km...the EFFECT OF GRAVITY or the Warping of Space/Time by the Suns mass will not only cause the Light to travel along the curvature of this warped Space/Time but actually cause this passing Light or Photons to ACCELERATE as if Falling towards the Solar surface.

 

Split Infinity