Motion is just as fundamental as matter

Blog 20150715

Occasionally I get comments from those who think that “motion is more fundamental than matter.” This seems to be a long-standing train of thought stemming from regressive physics. The exchange below highlights the misconception:

Bligh wrote:


Time is motion. Time is relative. Without motion no time. There is no absolute time in an infinite universe. No place to measure from. My UPR (universal point of reference) would take care of that. A space station between 3 galaxies would be the "official" center of space. It would measure the time of objects as they move. In that way Einstein's paradoxes would be gone. It is really the SOL [speed of light] and the velocity of the object taken together that count. Only from my UPR would we measure correctly.”

[GB: Sorry, Bligh, but space stations must be in orbit, and a station between  galaxies would make no sense, regardless of the impossibly great distance involved. Indeterminists have dreamt of such a fixed point, but they will never get one, as all things are in motion—your imagined, impossible UPR also would be in motion, requiring a correction.

The supposed falsification of aether theory was based on a similar dream. A fixed aether could not be detected, so instead of merely proclaiming that a fixed aether did not exist, they claimed that the aether did not exist. In "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe” we speculate that aether particles travel at high velocities, being the medium for light and providing the pressure for gravitation. Without aether particles, regressive physicists have been led to construe “energy” as matterless motion. No wonder some folks now consider motion to be more important than matter!] 

“There would be no problem of twins both getting younger and things like that.”

[GB: Don’t hold your breath. The false assumption responsible for the Twin Paradox is the belief that time is an object and thereby can dilate.]

 “Motion is absolutely fundamental to physics. Imagine a frozen Universe with no motion. There would be no time. THEN the immaterialists might have something, but not in the real world."

[GB: Then, in reference to Luis’s statement that “I'm still not clear on just why matter requires motion,” which I answered here, Bligh wrote:]

BTW [Luis,] you are correct. Motion is more fundamental than matter.”
[GB: False, as alluded to above. Reread the Fourth Assumption of Science: inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Matter and motion are equally important. Choosing either of them as more important would be like saying that the width of a rectangle is more important than its length in calculating its area.]

“Motion in the form of oscillations between matter and anti-matter create a field that everything we are aware of exists in.
Bligh Theory.

[GB: That is not a unique theory. It has been a part of regressive physics for nearly a century. In neomechanics there is no such thing as “anti-matter.” We define matter as an xyz portion of the universe. Matter always contains matter within and without per the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). The term “anti-matter” is an oxymoron.]

No comments: