Time = Motion = Timotion: is the 4th dimension.

[NotStein]

String and quantum loop (for example) are not theories, because they are based on non-metric mathematics (refer The Elegant Universe, and Castles In The Sky).

That is, metric mathematics is obliged to reflect, accurately describe and conform to existing conditions.

On the other hand, non-metric mathematics is not bound to describe reality, it (non metric mathematics) for example, may hold out two equations - each equally accurate, while they mutually contradict each other.

Conceptualization and deductive logic, does, as you say, have a valuable place in the contemplation of physical conditiions, and the points you make to that effect are, IMO, well expressed.

Regarding your conclusion that time and motion aren't the same 'because otherwise we wouldn't have a separate word for each'... is remiss, in the fact that motion is a natural condition, and time is a man made tool for measuring that condition. Motion is a verb, while time is more noun than verb.

With these exceptions, IMO, your post is well expressed and significantly clarifies several otherwise frequently misunderstood considerations. Thanks for the alternative perspectives - on D.A. Peel's posts as well.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

from http://www.wordreference.com/definition/motion:

motion:
in Spanish | in French | in Italian
in context | images
Listen: US - UK


Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

motion
A noun
1 motion, movement, move

the act of changing location from one place to another; "police controlled the motion of the crowd"; "the movement of people from the farms to the cities"; "his move put him directly in my path"
Category Tree:
act; human action; human activity
╚action
╚change
╚motion, movement, move
╚rise; ascent; ascension; ascending
╚pursuit; chase; following
╚travel; traveling; travelling
╚lurch; lunge
╚locomotion; travel
╚progress; progression; procession; advance; advancement; forward motion; onward motion
╚approach; approaching; coming
2 motion, movement, move, motility


No offense RascalPuff, but 'motion' is defined primarily as a noun. In order for us to all to progress our ideas, any and all innacuracies, including my own, must be fleshed out. In regards to metric mathmatics, you've got me there, and I'll need to do a little self-education of my own. I'm not sure what you mean my metric vs. non-metric mathmatics. Do to mean mathmatics in the metric scale vs. the English scale? If so, I can't see the difference between a mile and a kilometer; it's irrelevant. If you mean Euclidean vs. non-Euclidian algebra, or from a topological viewpoint, I may need to look at that. In any event, I can't see where any mathmatics that does not describe reality in some form or fashion has any relevance in physics, particularily a TOE. Of course, many apparently 'non-practical' branches of mathmatics (aka. chaos theory/turbulence/etc.) have lay dormant for decades before we could conceive their connection to the real world.

What do you think of the last point, of time essentially ending up at zero for the lifespan of our universe? Fittingly elegant in a way, for a universe that started at nothing, and may presumably end up there.

RascalPuff, I respect and values your viewpoints and contributions. Long live healthy debate! Real science lives by it!

Jeff

[RascalPuff]

All I can say in the moment, NotStein, is that motion is action - movement - which, as I learned it, is a verb; whereas a noun is the name of a person, place or thing.

Motion exists in the Natural universe, whereas, time - linguistically parallels motion - exists in the human vocabulary because we invented it for measurement.

I thank you for contributing the dictionary definition, whereas, it seems the dictionary counterstates my conclusion. Point taken, with the above qualification.

Please let me know when you've researched the difference between metric (existentially occupied) math, and non-metric (existentially arbitrary) math. Curious to know what you ferret out...

P.S. Thanks for being a good sport.

Got some chores to do right now.
Looking forward to future dialogue and perhaps some qualified debate.

[NotStein]

Me, too (chores), you, too (good sport!). Love the dialogue - will get back when I know more...

Jeff

[sillysally]

Hi RP, is time a singular such as just forward moving? Because I think it would come in waves going in 3 directions, it's just the current direction that would be at more or less a standstill. But the current would curve into the past as well as the future but what direction would the future head into? I read some of everymansmedium works and he says the future does not exist. This idea seems to be heading in that direction too so there might only be 2 waves of motion.

This is where I get confused with the speed of light. A star is emitting light and it takes billions of years to reach our eyesight. How come stars don't trail if it's still moving? Certainly I can't turn my head faster than the speed of light for the light not to be in the direction I turn my head. The whole sky would look like a time elapsed photo with streaks of light, but it doesn't. Has the speed of light stopped? Wouldn't the whole night sky in essence be completely lit up? I know distance place a factor here but it doesn't explain the streaks because the earth is rotating too so really you don't even have to turn your head while the earth is spinning. Why don't we see trails of light?

[RascalPuff]

Hi RP, is time a singular such as just forward moving? Because I think it would come in waves going in 3 directions, it's just the current direction that would be at more or less a standstill. But the current would curve into the past as well as the future but what direction would the future head into? I read some of everymansmedium works and he says the future does not exist. This idea seems to be heading in that direction too so there might only be 2 waves of motion.

This is where I get confused with the speed of light. A star is emitting light and it takes billions of years to reach our eyesight. How come stars don't trail if it's still moving? Certainly I can't turn my head faster than the speed of light for the light not to be in the direction I turn my head. The whole sky would look like a time elapsed photo with streaks of light, but it doesn't. Has the speed of light stopped? Wouldn't the whole night sky in essence be completely lit up? I know distance place a factor here but it doesn't explain the streaks because the earth is rotating too so really you don't even have to turn your head while the earth is spinning. Why don't we see trails of light?

Hi SillySally:

Yours are some good questions.

To my knowledge time is a singular measure, sometimes called 'the arrow of time' - where the rule is that it moves forward only.

Regarding your question of why we don't see trails of light, due to the movement of the earth and the stars themselves, apparently we don't see anything but the arriving signal of the past of a given source of light, regardless of the distance of its origin. We are observing arrivals of signals at any given moment in time, and, not the past arrived moments of those signals.

There may be a better way of expressing it, if anyone wishes to add or subtract from this.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie