Is not Motion the Dominant Paradigm?

[Nickola Tesla]

If motion is the equivalent of time, then I agree it is the dominant paradigm, but time is quite a bugger to assess imo. "No space empty of field" is fine too, but is the field in motion or just the observable localized systems? If just the latter, then they can be explained away by the pseudo effect of gravitational time dilation which is proportionate to the massive systems. I also agree that the billiard balls traveling through space is contentious, but I merge Newton and Einstein in a different fashion that posit the billiard balls and even wavelets (mass and energy) as relative abstractions of absolute matter.

The scalar densities are only applicable within relative frameworks, not the absolute frame that can have only one absolute density (synonymous to no density), whereby if we were infinitesimal beings measuring the vacuum density our infinitesimal instruments would render the same reading as if we were infinite beings. So that there is such an observed change in densities must mean that our instruments, brains included, are rendering false measurements - arbitrary from what would be an absolute perspective. If even the field is reduced to vacuum fluctuations, measured from the infinitesimal peak-to-peak increments, the absolute frame covers what is between those incremental measurements. And this latter point above is why I distinguish infinite from absolute. The infinite implies a continuation from a relative point of view, whereas the absolute implies the cessation of all motion because all points of view must be simultaneous from what would be an absolute point of view.

I'm sure you're familiar with the analogy of the disappearing sun, where the earth would wait 8 minutes before the gravitational effects reached the earth. I think it is a fair assessment, but incorrect if we extend the cumulative microcosmic gravitational effect to the absolute level which leaves no possible space between the sun and earth. Then the gravitational effect, like light, need not time to transfer effectual information, but observers on earth wouldn't realize this until 8 minutes later because the brain does need time to process information - the brain requires that time be dilated.

I hope you didn't mean "in touch" with reality, RP. I advocate what has been cited of Bohr: "Your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true."

"If motion is the equivalent of time"

Motion is not the equivalent of time. In my opinion friction is the equivalent of time. But you can't have friction without motion or can you ? Hummm?

[MJA]

There is nothing more dominant in the universe, than truth.
But many prefer theories instead.
I would like to make a motion to ban theories from science, and move on with the truth of what is.
All in favor, say I!

=
MJA

[Nickola Tesla]

__________________________________________________ __

Addendum:
“A defect (of Newtonian Classical Mechanics) also eliminated (resolved) only by the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by the mechanics itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point.” - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS.

Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem: the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all.

According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster.
They don't.



on or NEAR earth is the key here

sounds like a theory I've heard before but was proven wrong. off the top I can't remember the theory . but it was originally by a French man.
[/quote]

If E=mc^2 then their is no energy when something is at rest but mass is never at rest so their should always be energy.