Does everything move?

[mkirkpatrick]

Yes of course everything moves in this universe,but that is only true,in a relative sense,to all our present understanding,and being observeres stuck in
relative time and space,that appears to be the truth,but that is only half of the
story,outside of time and space,which have no reality in themselves,lies that
awesome Absolute,unmanifested,mind,unfocussed and undirected intent,which
cannot be known,and never will be by man.When you have all that there is,and
also all that there appears not,and are in attendance everywhere at the same
illusory time,then there is no need to move,you are already there,whereever that may be?The very idea of motion,implies that you have somewhere to go.
if you were already there,it would be rather pointless,dont you think.
to all intents and purposes then,things do move,but back of all intent and purpose,there is absolute stillness.Bliss.

kind regards,michael.

[SinJin]

The reason why I originally asked this question is in relationship to what 'time' is. If our universe consisted of space and nothing else, no matter or energy, just a complete vacuum (let's pretend there are also no quantum fluctuations going on in this vaccum), then I would think time wouldn't exist, because nothing would be changing, and if there was some how an outside observer looking at this voided space, there would be no rate of change to create time.

But say there is something in this space, for instance 5 particles. Pretend these 5 particles are completely static, frozen in place, if you will, not moving or interacting with eachother or anything. I think still time would not exist, because there is no change in these particles. They would be frozen in place, so there would be no change to distinguish one event from another.

However, if these 5 particles, or even if there's just 1 particle, start to move, changing their location in space, then time would exists, because you could say "well, this particle is here, and now it's over there" thus giving refrence to something that happened and something that is happening. That's how our universe is, and that's what time is, particles moving around which gives rise to things changing, events happening, and so forth. If all the particles in the universe suddenly froze, time itself would cease to exist. In fact, every second that our clocks tick off, all the particles in the universe could freeze for a trillion years, and then suddenly start moving right from where they left off, and no one (or thing) would know the difference. That trillion years the particles froze for would have no meaning, and would not even exist.

[Guille]

Sinjin,

I believe exactly like you do. If onyl space existed, then ther woudl nbe no time. If you add particles od the space, then there would still be no time as much as if they do not interact. But this is meaningless. Because particles interact,t hey have forces between them that obligate the to do so. And, anyway, remember that time would not exist if the particles are infinite, eternal, if they have a life, or decay, then time exists.

Also, don' think that "rate of change creates time" it IS time, not create.

Finally, remember that if there is no particles, not only time doesn't exist, but also space doesn't exist.

[Graybeard]

However, if these 5 particles, or even if there's just 1 particle, start to move, changing their location in space, then time would exists, because you could say "well, this particle is here, and now it's over there" thus giving refrence to something that happened and something that is happening. That's how our universe is, and that's what time is

I don't think that is what time is. I think the re-location of a object is simply human memory and the way it has evolved on our earth so that we recognise change. After all, if we managed to escape the slavering jaws of a predator yesterday our memory tells us not to go there today.

I think time is part of the 'order' of the universe. As in the second law of thermodynamics. Everything tends from order to disorder. This is the only law i know of that addresses this issue. Both classical and quantum mathamatics ignore it.

1.. If you used either of them to explain the situation you have proposed they would say that either a force or probabilty is why you now see the object where it is.

2.. If you now moved the object back to exactly where it was both methods would still use the same explanations as in 1.

3.. Leaving the object where it is and now applying these methods to discover if any change has occurred (time passed) would result in no time having passed at all.

Thats because these methods don't recognise forward (time) or backward (time).

but the second law of thermodynamics (i think) would track both movements as an imperceptible and cumulative increase in disorder. This increase in the universes' disorder would go to prove that time has passed. So far as I know, this is the only method of measuring time.

But feel free to criticise.

[SinJin]

I was mainly talking about change creating time. That's very similar to what you're saying. Things changing creates time is the same as saying things changing towards more disorder creates time, the only difference is that it puts a specific direction on it, which I fully agree with. Even if it was reversed somehow, and the universe went from disorder to order, there would still be a sense of time - how things were disordered the and how they're ordered now. Granted that rate of change doesn't make much difference to a rock, but it would still exist.

[Guille]

Things changing creates time is the same as saying things changing towards more disorder creates time, the only difference is that it puts a specific direction on it, which I fully agree with.

But your theory is a generalised form.

Saying that animal A is a mamal is general. Saying htat animal A is a dog is not so general. You can say that by saying that it's a dog, it mut be a mamal, but you can't say that by saying it's a mamal it's daying it's a dog.

I mean, induction is acceptable, although not completely correct. But what you are doing is completely opposite, it's having something big reduced to something small.

One may believe that time is changing in disorder, but that doesn't believe that time is change as general. He may not think that change is time. Although you do think both, because you claim the general one.

[SinJin]

But I do think time is change in general, on the small scale and on the large scale. When I say change, I mean all changes - changing from red to blue, from hot to cold, from position A to position B. I don't think it matters how big or small the change is, or even what is changing. As long as there is a change of some sort, then it divides something static into this and that. If the entire universe freezes, then time does not exist because the sun will no longer rise and set, clocks will no longer tick off seconds to count by, no longer will atoms decaying into smaller particles - no change to determine some sort of passing from one event to another.

[AntonioLao]

The reason why I originally asked this question is in relationship to what 'time' is.

We know from special theory of relativity, that time can be connected to space. From this connection, different definitions of time can now be made more clearly. There is now concept of universal time, local time, and proper time. Furhtermore, it has already been proven that even gravity can affect time. Speed can also affect time.

In physics, time is usually making its appearance as a differential denominator/divisor or as a derivative with respect to it. However, there are a few fundamental concepts that used time as a differential multiplier.

A complete description of time needs to consider both of its characteristics as a divisor and as a multiplier.

As a differential divisor: divide length by time defines speed, divide periodic cycle by time defines frequency and the reciprocal of time is defined as the period of a periodic function, divide momentum by time defines a force.

As a differential multiplier: multiply force by time defines momentum, multiply energy by time define action.

[Guille]

But I do think time is change in general, on the small scale and on the large scale. When I say change, I mean all changes - changing from red to blue, from hot to cold, from position A to position B. I don't think it matters how big or small the change is, or even what is changing. As long as there is a change of some sort, then it divides something static into this and that. If the entire universe freezes, then time does not exist because the sun will no longer rise and set, clocks will no longer tick off seconds to count by, no longer will atoms decaying into smaller particles - no change to determine some sort of passing from one event to another.

oh, yes, ok, I know. But anyway, someone that believes that time is disoridering change, doesn't believe that thime is change in general, only that time is change in disorder.

[SinJin]

oh, yes, ok, I know. But anyway, someone that believes that time is disoridering change, doesn't believe that thime is change in general, only that time is change in disorder.

Well let me ask you this - let's say that the theory is that time is the change in disorder. You have five particles, let's call them particle A's, and they are in the most ordered state possible. Let's say you make a 'general change' to these particles, for instance switching two particles. Since they are all the same particles, particle A, would this switching of two particles change the order of them? Or would it be like there was no change. Because if there is no change in order, then I would agree and say that a 'general change' and a 'change in disorder' are two seperate ideas for the existence of time. If, however, switching the two particles does change the order, then I would say a 'change in disorder' and a 'general change' are the same thing.

However I still don't think it would matter. If swapping two particles registers no change in order, did anything change at all? If each particle is identical, then switching them around wouldn't change anything. Therefore a general change would be the same as a change in disorder.