tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post5435400729478732263..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Time is MotionGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-87290383732705975942023-09-15T08:58:44.163-07:002023-09-15T08:58:44.163-07:00If time is motion what is velocity? Motion changin...If time is motion what is velocity? Motion changing of motion in motion? luce80https://www.blogger.com/profile/01563906135444043163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-47487625045525512252022-10-14T21:20:29.238-07:002022-10-14T21:20:29.238-07:00Dear Dr. Borchardt,
Quantum mechanics is a concre...Dear Dr. Borchardt,<br /><br />Quantum mechanics is a concrete result of the General Theory of<br />Relativity. According to the General Theory of Relativity, a clock on<br />Jupiter lags behind a clock on Earth. A clock on earth lags behind a<br />clock on the moon. they ended the theory here. However, I continue the<br />theory with the result I deduced from the Time Flow Formula. One hour<br />on the moon lags behind a clock on the alpha ray. A clock in the Alpha<br />beam lags behind a clock in the Beta beam. a clock in beta ray lags<br />behind a clock in x ray. Concrete results of the General Theory of<br />Relativity begin to be seen as masses and energies get smaller. These<br />are the same theory. Large masses have a very long life. Small masses<br />have very short lifetimes. As the lifetimes get shorter,<br />transformations from mass to energy and from energy to mass begin. In<br />summary Quantum mechanics is a concrete result of the General Theory<br />of Relativity.<br /><br />This is a result from the Timeflow Formula. (Timeflow=Time/Energy).<br />Every simple physics formula explains a law of nature. In the Timeflow<br />Formula; It tells that a time equal to the amount of energy will be<br />released in a physical process. You can find more information on my<br />website. (timeflow.org).<br /><br />In addition,The flow of the thought energy intensity in our brain is<br />body pain, unhappiness and boredom, joy, happiness and love,<br />sleep, and finally death, respectively, from high energy to low<br />energy. At the moment<br />to sleep, if we had a good sleep, our thought energy is very close to<br />zero or zero. When the energy flow intensity increases in our brain,<br />according to the 'Timeflow Formula (Timeflow=Time/Energy). The<br />timeflow will slow down. As the energy density (power) decreases, the<br />timeflow will accelerate. In the case of sleep and death, the timeflow<br />will be infinite. The timeflow formula explains very clearly and<br />simply that this situation, which is perceived as psychological time<br />is actually a purely physical event. I think it would be very useful<br />for psychology experts to evaluate the 'Timeflow' Formula and the<br />philosophical interpretation of the formula.<br /><br />Best Regards<br />Salih KırcalarSalih Kırcalarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09139981612504665019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-45827174984797500662022-08-22T12:57:03.717-07:002022-08-22T12:57:03.717-07:00Hi Glen,
Looks like JWST may be opening a few mor...Hi Glen,<br /><br />Looks like JWST may be opening a few more eyes to the problem with finity.<br /><br />https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/sci/big-bang-theory-debunked.htmlArushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14081455397028941798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-83136509563598279192022-04-13T20:05:03.191-07:002022-04-13T20:05:03.191-07:00Anon:
Congratulations on your most astute observa...Anon:<br /><br />Congratulations on your most astute observation at the age of 13. You were way ahead of me. As far as I can tell, I did not write the phrase "time is motion" until sometime between 19800607 and 19810418 when I was 38. You probably had trouble with modern physics for the reason I did: It was a mishmash that made no sense.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-85213121958496638972022-04-13T14:54:58.373-07:002022-04-13T14:54:58.373-07:00Well, I'm not sure if I understood everything ...Well, I'm not sure if I understood everything as I've always been incapable of apprehending physics and maths to an even basic level. But when I was young, probably around the age of 13, while watching a cartoon where they "froze" time, I realised that what actually happened is that all movement stopped,and that time was the measure of specific movements (astrological or atomic for example). I'm happy that more than a decade later, what I thought to be obvious although contrary to the popular idea, is backed by people far cleverer than I am and with a much finer understanding of this universe. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453828594124503952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-90868778398967968232021-04-20T14:34:38.086-07:002021-04-20T14:34:38.086-07:00Boris:
We used your questions in our latest blog ...Boris:<br /><br />We used your questions in our latest blog (PSI Blog 20210419). Just send us an email with your address and phone number to receive one of our books as the prize of the week. Thanks again for the questions.<br /><br />GlennGlenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-57340018194108397492021-03-25T05:02:32.625-07:002021-03-25T05:02:32.625-07:00Hi again!
Thanks for your reply.
Re-reading my p...Hi again!<br /><br />Thanks for your reply.<br /><br />Re-reading my post I see how disjointed it was. I should've probably edited it a lot more. I apologize for that, I just wrote what came to me. <br /><br />But regarding yoru last reply.<br />If 20% of scientists or physicists fundamentally shouldn't be falling for this (and I'm sure some of the 80% should somehow be able to resist it as well when confronted with fallacies), why are they?<br /><br /><br />I've been looking into your research a bit and in my opinion the whole aether theory seems while a little bit more logical and plausible equally unproven, just like you say, certain fundamental assumptions can't be proven. Though that's not entirely true, if we were to actually observe the edge of the finite universe, then that would have been proven, but as we keep exploring, new space keeps opening up to us. <br /><br />Anyway my point is that perhaps you and everyone else shouldn't be focusing on a theory of everything.<br /><br />Would it be better to focus on alternative models with more naturalistic, observabale elements in them and apply those to where the theory of relativity is being used right now? <br /><br />What is keeping alternative theories from at least being considered as possibly viable? Are there too many of them? Is it like Sean Carrol says, that most scientists, whatever group they may belong to, are more interested in solving problems rather than discovering the truth? Is that bad? Borishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10458472398421031748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-52016996139616470622021-03-23T20:10:04.722-07:002021-03-23T20:10:04.722-07:00Boris:
Thanks so much for your detailed comment o...Boris:<br /><br />Thanks so much for your detailed comment on time is motion. Yours is #97 on this, our most popular Blog post. You are certainly not the only one to have trouble figuring out what good old Uncle Albert was writing about. You also hit it on the head when you said relativity was like a religion. You maybe don't realize how right you are. During Covid lockdown, I got a chance to explain the connection with religion in detail:<br /><br />Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]<br /><br />I hope you get a chance to read the book. In short, relativity is highly popular because it is based on religious assumptions, which are held by 80% of the global population. Should you have become an anti-relativity physicist you would have been one of the 10,000 folks de Climont says fit that category. <br /><br />After reading that book (and perhaps giving a review on Amazon), I would like to hear whatever suggestions you have in remedying the situation.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-51160510731886222632021-03-23T09:36:18.839-07:002021-03-23T09:36:18.839-07:00Hi!
I was going to send you an email, thinking t...Hi!<br /><br /><br />I was going to send you an email, thinking that I'm a special little snowflake. Then I see how many have found their way here before me and how in so many cases their paths were similar. <br /><br />Well here's my story anyway, for I feel like a burden has been somewhat lifted from my shoulders that I must put it to writing. At the end there is a question or two for you if you have time to answer it. <br /><br />Just like so many in these comments I was interested in science and mathematics at a young age and reading up on Einstein and the Theory of Relativity the first time felt like hitting a brick wall. I was to accept it as some kind of religious dogma and if I didn't understand it's because I didn't study it enough. <br /><br />Yet thrhoughout my life I have been able to grasp concepts alien or new to me very easily. I read child encyclopedias the way people read teen-novels in their young days, I was at the top of my class in math (without ever having to study much), even today I can understand and empathize with say political opponents in a way people in my own political camp can't and vice versa. <br /><br />So out of all these things that I encountered and continue to encounter in life, GTR is the single least understood by me of all those that are at least somewhat accepted as norms or truths by a large corpus of people. <br /><br />And the reason is exactly what you state. Time is motion. Or rather, time is something we humans use to explain the entirety of motion during a specific frame of reference. It's a cruthc, or as you more kindly put an abstraction the way fruit is so that we do not have to reference several points of motion to explain what we mean. <br /><br />I was bothered by it at a fundamental level too. How because of its central position in modern physics and because of the claimed use it as a model had for various important practical applications that it couldn't be questioned, almost again as a dogma. <br /><br />Indeed it seems to be that many scientists including say Sean M. Carroll care more about a theories applied use than how true it is. What led me to your site was going through an alternative, somewhat less appealing theory put forth by Julian Barbour that time is an illusion that we've woven together from an endless array of instances or "time capsules". <br /><br />Critique listed on the Wikipedia page, or rather the reason for Seans fundamental disinterest in Julians work is because Julian has not proposed how adopting it would help in any practical sense. As if the truth, that which underpins your very understanding of reality isn't reason enough? <br /><br /><br />And this brings me to my question. You write in your paper that "If there is any consistency in SRT and GRT, it is the objectification of motion, Einstein‘s most important philosophical error". Essentially that the problem of Einsteins theories are that they are theoretical models without any basis in empirical evidence. I think you write something akin to this even more clearly elsewhere but I can't find it right now. <br /><br /><br />Wouldn't the solution to this be to simply find (if possible) or construct one or several mathematical modesl that is an alternative that can then be used to aid the same applications or tested through the same experiments that is based on empirical science and that can be tied to natural phenomena that we can observe?<br /><br />Indeed this is what I regret almost every week if not sometimes every day of my life, that I didn't become a physicist to disprove Einstein.<br /><br />But I know that I'm not exceptionally smart compared to some people, so why has no one else broken through the acadmemic shroud yet?Borishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10458472398421031748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-45625081276281033912020-04-25T08:05:26.134-07:002020-04-25T08:05:26.134-07:00Sharon:
Thanks so much for your comment! This is ...Sharon:<br /><br />Thanks so much for your comment! This is one of our most popular posts. Time has always been messed up, but our friend Einstein did a job on it. Turns out that nowadays you cannot be a physicist if you really know what time is. Here is a detailed explanation:<br /><br />Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8of 64-68*p. [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].<br /><br />You can download that free.<br /><br />Your mention of vocabulary was exceedingly helpful. We have an extensive glossary. Maybe we should put that on the Blog. <br />Thanks so much SharonGlenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-68745674234649767592020-04-22T23:30:11.567-07:002020-04-22T23:30:11.567-07:00It's 23 april 2020, and I'm at the seminal...It's 23 april 2020, and I'm at the seminal performative beginning of an artistic project that depends on the motion of the moon for its timing. <br /><br />I write this:<br />It is 6:30 CET and I sense the inexorable climb of the moon toward the horizon. I suddenly "know" (in an embodied sense) motion=time.<br /><br />I also google "time is motion" later and am rather shocked, because I actually thought somehow that this was an established scientific tenet.<br /><br />I see your links in your answer to Faith, so I'll continue pondering this even though I feel my scientific vocabulary is at the level of a preschooler. Thank you, Glenn BorchardtSharon Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00733542154841335411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-3224604133466970892020-03-03T18:48:17.398-08:002020-03-03T18:48:17.398-08:00I’ve recently been giving time and motion a consid...I’ve recently been giving time and motion a considerable amount of thought. I see it this way now. Time is defined by a rate of change. Change is defined by motion. The lowest rate of change is |1|, and the highest rate of change is |0|. The logic behind it is, at |0|, change is instantaneous, and at |1|, no change occurs. With motion, |0| would be the logical real at rest state, and |1| would be the logical maximum velocity, which defines motion as instantaneous. Our perception of time is inverted from the direction of motion. When v=|0| ~ t=|1|, and when v=|1| ~ t=|0|. These are logical limits of motion, not relative limits, which are assumed limits of motion. We don’t exist on the finite end points, we exist between those limits of motion, |0| < infinity < |1|. What that seems to suggest to me is that everything is either accelerating in one direction, or decelerating in the opposite direction. Motion is never a constant. What is constant is our relative perspective. That’s how we observe reality, but not how reality is truly defined. <br /><br />By the way Faith, I completely understand the feeling. No one really knows I think about these things. I can’t seem to turn it off, and as you say, no one really seems to understand or care. Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04441530317748555053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-56466522576700896992020-03-03T18:45:37.497-08:002020-03-03T18:45:37.497-08:00I’ve recently been giving time and motion a consid...I’ve recently been giving time and motion a considerable amount of thought. I see it this way now. Time is defined by a rate of change. Change is defined by motion. The lowest rate of change is |1|, and the highest rate of change is |0|. The logic behind it is, at |0|, change is instantaneous, and at |1|, no change occurs. With motion, |0| would be the logical real at rest state, and |1| would be the logical maximum velocity, which defines motion as instantaneous. Our perception of time is inverted from the direction of motion. When v=|0| ~ t=|1|, and when v=|1| ~ t=|0|. These are logical limits of motion, not relative limits, which are assumed limits of motion. We don’t exist on the finite end points, we exist between those limits of motion, |0| < infinity < |1|. What that seems to suggest to me is that everything is either accelerating in one direction, or decelerating in the opposite direction. Motion is never a constant. What is constant is our relative perspective. That’s how we observe reality, but not how reality is truly defined. <br /><br />By the way Faith, I completely understand the feeling. No one really knows I think about these things. I can’t seem to turn it off, and as you say, no one really seems to understand or care. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11376531279393261423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-62633445152554772942020-03-03T13:20:52.454-08:002020-03-03T13:20:52.454-08:00Faith:
Thanks for your comment. Glad to hear you ...Faith:<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. Glad to hear you are thinking about such stuff. As you found out, not many folks think beyond just making a living. Since you have come this far, maybe you will find our books and PSI Blogs of interest:<br /><br />www.scientificphilosophy.com<br /><br />http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook<br /><br />Be sure to sign up for the weekly PSI Blog:<br />http://go.glennborchardt.com/emailsub<br /><br />Infinity forever,<br />GlennGlenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-70906216000681013672020-03-01T06:57:34.649-08:002020-03-01T06:57:34.649-08:00Not a physicist, though I have most of a degree in...Not a physicist, though I have most of a degree in engineering. Last night, it came to me apropos of nothing, received knowledge as it were, that time is motion. And like so many, I googled it upon waking and found myself here.<br /><br />I have nothing to add to the discussion, other than adding my voice to the choir of those who have had a similar experience. Also like so many here, I find myself deeply lonely among people who not only don't think about such things, but wouldn't understand (or probably care) that I do.Faithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18000687101044643561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-81219168599163805572019-07-15T15:21:14.177-07:002019-07-15T15:21:14.177-07:00Time is motion. Hmmmm. I'm supposing that is...Time is motion. Hmmmm. I'm supposing that is different from how we perceive time, which is relative to some external event. As obvious examples, a year represents one Earth orbit around the Sun, or a day is one Earth revolution around its axis. And equally as obvious, motion would be required for an event to occur. No motion, no event, no time.<br /><br />Time does slow with increasing motion, although I've never really considered it as slowing, as much as expanding. The frequency just gets longer, with a maximum frequency of 1, and a minimum frequency of 0. Traveling at the speed of light does not stop or even slow time, it expands the wave length of time relative to other things moving slower. Big time and little time might be a better way to describe our perception of time. When you take away the idea of speeding it up, or slowing it down, then the idea of time travel starts to sound somewhat absurd. There's a mechanical process at work related to motion, which relates to time. <br /><br />How we perceive time is arbitrary in more general terms, but like everything else we adapt, or tune our perspective to it. Like the difference between the imperial measuring system and the metric system. For me, I was trained under US Customary Units, and fully comprehend the meaning of a mile, or a pound. In temperature, I'm all Fahrenheit. I understand 32 degrees is freezing. Never mind one system is technically easier than the other. I tend to use the metric system for math, and the learned system for everyday decision making on the fly. Time happens to be the one perception that is universally accepted by everyone as the orbit of the Earth. A year is the same for everyone. No conversions necessary. <br /><br />How we perceive the world around us is a matter of experience and shared knowledge. <br /><br />I suppose the real question is, why does the frequency of time expand or contract with motion?<br /><br />I have a hunch that our universe is a +wave, which never crests. Its max frequency is always perceived as 1, relative to all other events. Light is a phenomena that matches, or comes very close to matching, the universal wave frequency. The universe is a single wave moving along a 1-dimension path, where the upper limit always defines the lower limit (|1|, |0|, respectively), for a realized net gain of 0 from our perspective. I guess I'm describing a perpetually rising amplitude/velocity at a fixed frequency of 1. We're in the wave, so everything we observe is relative. What's important to understand is that its frequency is fixed at 1, never ending, and never changing. After all, the universe is infinite, but it has to be doing something to cause motion, in my opinion. <br /><br />Definitely, time would be all about motion in my view. But our perception is always bound by the frequency of events around us. To us, time=change. From the moment I am born to the moment I die, my existence is defined by change. My entire life defines one single event in the universe. Collectively though, we naturally seek a common point of reference to understand time and compare it to other things. <br /><br />Hope I'm making sense.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04441530317748555053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-77983812119680987882018-07-09T11:44:46.129-07:002018-07-09T11:44:46.129-07:00just wanted to let you know I found your blog like...just wanted to let you know I found your blog like many others by searching "time is motion" ..I think about the concept since some weeks watching many videos about relativity, spacetime, einstein etc.. I was high when it finally struck me that time and motion are the same, I even come that far that time is not needed at all to describe what's going on.. like you said there is just matter in motion and that's it..geistreicheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09467399020116879069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-12154009173578372702018-04-01T09:41:50.436-07:002018-04-01T09:41:50.436-07:00Time is NOT motion! Motion is motion. Time is mere...Time is NOT motion! Motion is motion. Time is merely the way we REFERENCE motion (in fact all change, motion being a subset of change) in two specific contexts:<br />1. As a non-specific set of change events ('motion' at a quantum level). Just like the word traffic is a non-specific set of vehicles, so Time is a non-specific set of change events ('motion' if you must constrain it to quantum);<br />2. Time is the abstract framwork based on standard units that we use to calibrate, index and reference events ('motion' at the quantum level).<br />Abstract nouns are NOT the same as illusions. For example'Science' is an abstract noun...<br /><br />It is important to be able to differentiate between an underlying subject and the abstract way we reference that subject.<br />And to differentiate between abstract and illusion.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08719125696505762372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-15928672824204331942018-04-01T09:40:42.212-07:002018-04-01T09:40:42.212-07:00The Universal Oscillation theory says that motion ...The Universal Oscillation theory says that motion (oscillation) provides the substratum for changes in state of the physical universe. IOWs Time.Blighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-34818855189326309322018-04-01T07:51:14.861-07:002018-04-01T07:51:14.861-07:00Sorry, but time is not an illusion, it is motion. ...Sorry, but time is not an illusion, it is motion. Things exist as xyz portions of the universe. All things are in motion relative to all other things. Motion does not exist, it occurs. The belief that the universe is an illusion is a violation of the First Assumption of Science, materialism, which states that the universe consists of matter in motion.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-16005202148778869622018-03-31T22:43:46.736-07:002018-03-31T22:43:46.736-07:00I came with exactly same conclusion today. Then i ...I came with exactly same conclusion today. Then i googled if anybody has ever thought like this and bingo i found this blog. “Time is an illusion created due motion between objects”. In other words, it is the first illusion created due to interaction between two points in space. The universe is the illusion created due to motion between infinite number of points in space. This concept can also explain principles of quantum and classical physics together. May be its the theory of everything. But modern humans believe things only which are mathematically proven. We need to find a proof for it.Dr. Sourabh Chachanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11489783884306289172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-21627710789439169112017-10-06T10:29:40.175-07:002017-10-06T10:29:40.175-07:00Time is motion does not erode the pillars of moder...Time is motion does not erode the pillars of modern physics.It is just a phrase that points out, fundamentally it is the motion that physics studies that is the cause of what we call time. Quantum fields are nothing other than motion. The changes in the Q field are changes in matter. In universal oscillation theory, oscillation is motion and it produces matter and anti-matter.<br />Try telling me next that anti-matter doesn't exist either.<br />G Blighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10160829900151513063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-10922216505376812502017-10-06T00:48:45.875-07:002017-10-06T00:48:45.875-07:00A while ago I reached much the same conclusion as ...A while ago I reached much the same conclusion as you, I.e. time is essentially an illusion created by movement, specifically with respect to us humans, growth , decay and the rotation of the Earth leading to the 'passage' of what we choose to call days, weeks etc. <br />In the abscece of ohange time is meaningless and change itself is essentially just motion. We all exist in a constant 'moment' where things just move around. <br />When I raised this opinion on Quora i got no response presumably becuase it erodes on of the pillars of modern Physivs. But it intuitively feels right. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09538926873034431616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-71477781367584622432017-06-28T09:49:44.698-07:002017-06-28T09:49:44.698-07:00Sorry Simon, but time is motion. The universe cons...Sorry Simon, but time is motion. The universe consists of matter in motion. All phenomena are either matter (xyz dimensions) or the motion of matter. You can call motion whatever you wish, but it definitely is not matter.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-66531166740470213892017-06-28T07:56:16.286-07:002017-06-28T07:56:16.286-07:00Well, we have some agreement then Glenn. My last c...Well, we have some agreement then Glenn. My last comment would be to disagree though with your principle that 'Time is motion', I believe that Time REFERENCES motion...not quite the same. Motion is the fundamental, Time is merely the way we reference motion...but heyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08719125696505762372noreply@blogger.com