Does Time = Motion?

[Wick]

In a recent thread, several persons suggested that time equals motion.

Is that necessarily true? If we limit the discussion to calculus perhaps so. But is it true in the real world?

When I consider the ideas of duration and time, I differentiate between changes of postion (motion) and changes of state (existence). I can imagine an existence in which bodies change position without changing state, and I would call such an existence timeless (even though things move). They are timeless because their existence is not changing even though their positions are. For me, time only arises in an existence in which the state of things changes (because I and all the things around me become altered, we grow old, we die). Temporality is akin to change of state, not change of position.

[Max™]

I apparently have an odd view of time.

Take a snap shot of the universe. That's a now.

Take another, and another, and another, so on so forth.

That's how we interact with time.

Take all the snapshots and stack them up, you get something looking like a line in 3+1 dimensions, that's how time actually is.

I'm not sure where the ideas that time doesn't exist come from, honestly.

[Wick]

Thanks, Max,

So are you a proponent of the block universe theory? Do you believe that all time exists and that if, say, time were to run backwards that melted ice would freeze and cracked eggs would reform? This is a valid position and one held by many physics, I just want to know if that's where you stand?

Thanks again for your post!

Wick

[Max™]

Well, I view it a lot more fluidly than that.

Running time backwards would describe events like that, though I'm not quite sure what it would matter, since it isn't really something you could do.

Yes I do feel that the future and past are real things.

When you go left, does right stop existing?

Why then is there an assumption that because we're in a now, that past and future stop existing?

[Wick]

So is the present special in any way? Einstein said that the human sense of past, present and future is a persistent illusion. Do you agree?

[Farsight]

In a recent thread, several persons suggested that time equals motion.

Is that necessarily true? If we limit the discussion to calculus perhaps so. But is it true in the real world?

When I consider the ideas of duration and time, I differentiate between changes of postion (motion) and changes of state (existence). I can imagine an existence in which bodies change position without changing state, and I would call such an existence timeless (even though things move). They are timeless because their existence is not changing even though their positions are. For me, time only arises in an existence in which the state of things changes (because I and all the things around me become altered, we grow old, we die). Temporality is akin to change of state, not change of position.

I don't know you were thinking of me, but can I say a couple of things to clarify my position on time:

I don't say time = motion. I say time is cofounded with motion rather than space.

I don't differentiate between changes of position and changes of state. If the state of something changes, it's because somewhere, somehow, something moved.

Given the above, I agree that temporaility is akin to a change of state, but that this demands some change of internal position.

Can I also add that in my view time exists. It exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. But we travel through space, not through time. Time doesn't run. Instead things move. To run time backwards you'd need negative motion, and motion is motion whichever way it goes. Nobody can actually show you a world line, or a block universe. It's just an abstraction. You might think all this is somehow opposed to Relativity, but it isn't. It's totally in line with Einstein. And other people think in similar terms. See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Dr Robert A Close at http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/R...elativity.html.

[Max™]

So is the present special in any way? Einstein said that the human sense of past, present and future is a persistent illusion. Do you agree?

The present is just the part of time we observe interacting with.

Einstein was right that our sense of past/present/future is a persistent illusion, the Universe is actually all of those at once.

I find it weird how Farsight can disagree, and agree at the same time.

Time is just a measure of changed states, yet it doesn't actually matter to measure those changed states, because you're measuring the motion that elapsed?

I get the point you're trying to get at, believe me I do, I just don't get why you're saying it the way you are.

[Farsight]

Max: Einstein lived for another fifty years after his 1905 paper. His ideas evolved. It's too simplistic to say "Einstein thought x". The illusion is in our sense of the past or the future as a place. For a change of state there has to be some kind of internal motion going on.

[lamedvavnik]

Time is the calculation between two reference points. And the change of an object with reference to time and space is called motion. Time is a tool for communicating certain data to another person. This communication is again a Relative component.

[michael turner]

In a recent thread, several persons suggested that time equals motion.

Is that necessarily true? If we limit the discussion to calculus perhaps so. But is it true in the real world?

When I consider the ideas of duration and time, I differentiate between changes of postion (motion) and changes of state (existence). I can imagine an existence in which bodies change position without changing state, and I would call such an existence timeless (even though things move). They are timeless because their existence is not changing even though their positions are. For me, time only arises in an existence in which the state of things changes (because I and all the things around me become altered, we grow old, we die). Temporality is akin to change of state, not change of position.

In my opinion, Time is a measure of action, change. In the contruction of a sentence in the english language action is the verb, and so is space. In the english language, matter and energy would be the nouns and time and space would be the verbs.

It is the details of how time and space relate to matter and energy that gives the simple, eloquent and profound insight into understanding the very nature of the Theory of Everything.


The missing link to understanding how the universe operates is the notion that underneath all the principles and laws of the universe, each quanta of matter operates through field mechanics and underneath the most basic level of magnetic field mechanics is where the answer lies.

In my opinion, all matter decays from a gravitational field into a MONOPOLE gravitational wave, a non reverseable process, the endpoint of energy.

The essence of time is the actions of this process and the essence of the ether of space is the continous change, or motion of the magnetic's fields potential energy changing to the gravitational field's kinetic energy.

I propose that the entire universe operates with the fundamental principle that each quanta of matter and energy, through their potential, stored energy naturally decay via the magnetic field into the monopole gravitational field creating space itself.

This process, in my opinion, is the essence of proper time. Relative time is modified my ratios of wave frequency propagation, velocity and acceleration, and dependent upon field densities, gravitational wave densities directly related to relative densities of mass and energy.

So does time = motion? Yes for the most part, because and so does space because they are both actions of a process of the potential energy of matter and energy naturally decaying creating the ether of space, the kineticlly challenged monopole gravitational field resulting a space that is governed by laws and principles of wave interference, Huygen's, Eddy's, F=M x A, which you have heard as gravity, dark energy and flow, and dark matter.