Blog 20150415
Dave
had this comment on my “Time is Motion” Blog:
“I've
always thought of time as a camera recording everything coming to be and
ceasing to be, the ceaseless movement of matter. The camera being this precise
moment -- now - a fixed point. If there was no movement down to the atomic and
sub atomic levels the very notion of time would be irrelevant.”
Thanks
Dave for your insight. Although time is really not a camera, I get the idea. In
a sense, a picture freezes motion, which is time. The corollary is that if all
motion stopped, all matter would disappear. This is another way of stating the Fourth Assumption of
Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without
matter, so there is no matter without motion).
This
should help us confront the silly idea of time dilation. We might “dilate” the
photo we took through enlarging it, but we could never do that with the motion
that the camera cannot photograph. We can dilate the photo and the matter it
depicts because those items have xyz dimensions. They exist, but motion does
not. This “connection” between matter and motion is a necessity for the
existence of the universe. This is also why a finite particle cannot exist.
Such a particle would have to be filled with “solid matter,” which could not have
anything within it that was in motion. Such a particle
would defy the rule that motion is required for matter to exist. That is why we
define matter as that which contains
other matter, ad infinitum, per the
Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite,
both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).
Posts
6 comments:
Assuming this is place to respond to Steve.
Fundamentally, time is motion. The ancient Greeks called it change. I like energy best, but that is vague also. The physical universe "changes" at an infinitesimal rate. The "state" of physical matter changes in an analogue fashion. Best thought of as a wave like form. The infinitesimal state changes are what we recognize as time evolution.
Is that more clear?
Bligh (George)
test
Rita, sorry for web inexperience. I don't know how to find your comment and respond.
blighcapn@yahoo.com
Bligh:
You wrote: "I like energy best, but that is vague also." [Sorry, but energy is not motion, it is a calculation. Energy neither exists nor occurs. It is a matter-motion term and thus is neither matter nor motion. Regressive physicists don’t understand energy either, mostly because they do not always adhere to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).]
You also wrote: “The physical universe "changes" at an infinitesimal rate. The "state" of physical matter changes in an analogue fashion. Best thought of as a wave like form. The infinitesimal state changes are what we recognize as time evolution.” [Sorry, but changes occur at varying rates, some fast, some slow, obviously. Individual microcosms do not have a wave-like form. Wave motion is group behavior. For instance, water waves are properties of trillions of water molecules. Also, time does not evolve. Both time and evolution are motions. So, that would be like saying that evolution evolves. Only microcosms can evolve, because only microcosms can move.]
Comment from Bligh:
“I have a theory that underlying matter and motion is a fundamental oscillation between two states, matter and anti-matter. Oscillation is motion and energy, whether you consider energy to be defined as an amount or not. It is analogous to motion. Oscillation is just a more specific type of motion.”
Sorry, but anti-matter does not exist. In neomechanics we define matter as an xyz portion of the universe that contains other matter ad infinitum. The anti-matter conception seems to derive from what happens during electron-positron annihilation in which oppositely spinning complexes of aether collide and disintegrate into a cloud of aether particles (Borchardt, 2009).
Sorry, but oscillation is motion, but it is not energy. Energy is a calculation, not a thing or a motion. It is not analogous to motion, but a matter-motion term that has no meaning without the concomitant matter, per the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).
Reference:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, 27-31.
Why is time linearized although clocks using circualr motion to construct a linear time? If one says that now waves are used I remark that a wave can be visualized easily by circular motion. Anyhow, it makes calculations easier and it can be used to construct a fourth dimension which makes things rather complicated. So, my question remains.
Post a Comment