Logically Irrefutable: Time is Caused by Motion

SkyWriting · Aug 20, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.

Without motion, time stops?
Or does it function regardless of motion.
Regardless of it is being measured?
Does time change in measure with speed?
Does time change in measure with distance?
Is there any connection?

Bungle_Bear · Aug 20, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Here are my ideas,

Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.

Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.

Here is why my ideas are logically irrefutable as explained with truths,

A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.

Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion.

Examples of standards of motion include, but are not limited to, time keeping devices like stopwatches, the Earth traveling around the Sun, or a person keeping time.

All standards of motion are a form of motion or are derived from a form of motion, albeit sometimes very complex forms of motion.

According to one and two, time can be considered a physical property that describes a physical system's motion compared to another physical system's motion.

According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.

Effect can not precede cause.

According to two, time requires motion to be measured and according to five, effect can not precede cause. This means time depends on motion and because of that motion can not depend on time.

According to two, time empirically exists only as comparative motion and according to six, time depends on motion. This means time is caused by motion.

Note: You may argue that just the measurement of time requires motion, but the way in which time exists within reality (observable, empirical, quantifiable) is by the way in which it is measured.

You need to establish what time is before you argue its cause. I don't think you have demonstrated causality, merely correlation.

46AND2 · Aug 20, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
You need to establish what time is before you argue its cause. I don't think you have demonstrated causality, merely correlation.

Agreed. Correlation, not causation.

Ophiolite · Aug 21, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Here are my ideas,

Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.

Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.

Here is why my ideas are logically irrefutable as explained with truths,

A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.

Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion.

Examples of standards of motion include, but are not limited to, time keeping devices like stopwatches, the Earth traveling around the Sun, or a person keeping time.

All standards of motion are a form of motion or are derived from a form of motion, albeit sometimes very complex forms of motion.

According to one and two, time can be considered a physical property that describes a physical system's motion compared to another physical system's motion.

According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.

Effect can not precede cause.

According to two, time requires motion to be measured and according to five, effect can not precede cause. This means time depends on motion and because of that motion can not depend on time.

According to two, time empirically exists only as comparative motion and according to six, time depends on motion. This means time is caused by motion.

Note: You may argue that just the measurement of time requires motion, but the way in which time exists within reality (observable, empirical, quantifiable) is by the way in which it is measured.

Your thesis logically refuted: My wife says I sat in front of the TV last night for three hours and didn't move.

A_Thinker · Aug 21, 2019

A_Thinker said:
The relationship is actually the reverse of what's described in the OP.

Time is required for motion ...

Ohj1n37 said:
You appear to be stating an opinion. See truth six in my original post. Then explain why truth six is not correct.

I appreciate your deep thinking on this point.

However, I don't need to disprove your thesis ... to advance an alternate theory.

Another observational consideration ... is that motion is inherently variable and occurs from many sources. Motion occurs in macro and micro contexts. Some motion is rather constant and consistent, ... and some isn't.

But time is constant, consistent, and rather inflexible.

From a physical standpoint, the only things that appear to affect time are gravity ... and mass.

Belk · Aug 21, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Retrocausality is a theory and has not been observed.

As may be, however your truth 6 states it is impossible. Theory shows it could be possible. In order for truth 6 to be correct you would have to show why the theory is incorrect.

Ohj1n37 said:
I choose the word irrefutable not non falsifiable. It is irrefutable because it is logically sound. It is falsifiable because all anyone has to do is show a way time can be measured other than what truth two of my original post claims.

I see. So we can test your claims if we can do something no one believes it is possible to do? So your claim is, as I stated, not testable?

Michael · Aug 21, 2019

A_Thinker said:
But time is constant, consistent, and rather inflexible.

Actually....

FYI, according to GR theory, time itself isn't constant or consistent, but rather it changes due to gravitational variations, and speed variations.

I think his premise is easily refuted by the fact that time could be used to measure color changes of stationary objects, not just movement changes, so it need not be strictly associated with the movement of objects.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 22, 2019

Proposition 6 looks flawed to me; if "time requires motion to be measured" then logically it's the measurement of time that requires motion, not necessarily time itself. It's not clear to me that cause and effect have any bearing on this ('effects follow causes' is a temporally dependent statement), it simply establishes a temporal ordering.

In particular, in physics, time is what clocks measure, so again, movement is the measure of time.

Of course, it's entirely possible that motion is the measure of time because time is a function of motion, but afaics that is not established by the OP.

Anguspure · Aug 23, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Here are my ideas,

Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.

Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.

Here is why my ideas are logically irrefutable as explained with truths,

A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.

Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion.

Examples of standards of motion include, but are not limited to, time keeping devices like stopwatches, the Earth traveling around the Sun, or a person keeping time.

All standards of motion are a form of motion or are derived from a form of motion, albeit sometimes very complex forms of motion.

According to one and two, time can be considered a physical property that describes a physical system's motion compared to another physical system's motion.

According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.

Effect can not precede cause.

According to two, time requires motion to be measured and according to five, effect can not precede cause. This means time depends on motion and because of that motion can not depend on time.

According to two, time empirically exists only as comparative motion and according to six, time depends on motion. This means time is caused by motion.

Note: You may argue that just the measurement of time requires motion, but the way in which time exists within reality (observable, empirical, quantifiable) is by the way in which it is measured.

My thinking is that more fundamentally, time is what passes between cause and effect in the eyes of the Observer.
In this way each of the trillions and trillions of causes and effects that surround us every second, whether discernible by ourselves or not, are seen by the Observer and this creates the impression of analogue time.
Nevertheless time is truly digital and determined by the Cause and Observer of the Universe.

Anguspure · Aug 23, 2019

Repeat

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 23, 2019

Anguspure said:
Nevertheless time is truly digital and determined by the Cause and Observer of the Universe.

What makes you think so, do you have evidence or rational argument to support it?

Rubiks · Aug 23, 2019

Motion itself has duration (time). Basically OP is saying time is caused by displacement and time.

Anguspure · Aug 24, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
What makes you think so, do you have evidence or rational argument to support it?

There is a minimal of measurement known as Planck length, 10-33 centimeters, that is indivisible. Objects and space itself either exist within the material universe at a size larger than this size or they loose locality i.e. cease to exist.

We also know that time cannot be subdivided into a smaller unit than 10-43seconds, known as Planck time. Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. Everything that happens in the material universe takes at least this length of time to take place.

It occurs to me that the most fundamental way of describing anything that happens is as a cause and an effect. The most fundamental cause and effect relationship is the relationship that takes place at the point where something causes another thing to exist. When this happens at the level of singularity the minimal material effect is one that is bigger than the Planck length and the cause acts in relationship to the effect at least in a period of Planck time.

So my thinking is that at a fundamental level unless we have a cause, initiating an effect, time itself is not observed.

Of course we as observers within a system of trillions upon trillions of cause and effect relationships are unable to isolate this digital time effect and so time passes even as we try to observe it. However to an observer without time, observing a single isolated cause and effect, time would pass only in proportion to the nature of the relationship between the cause and the effect, and would cease once that relationship had ended.

Anguspure · Aug 24, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
What makes you think so, do you have evidence or rational argument to support it?

Further to the above it occurs to me that i have missed a final point, being that it has been observed that at a quantum level the outcome of cause and effect relationship is probabilistic and that the outcome is determined by the observer.
It seem to me then that the fundamentals of reality are an observer/cause in relationship to an effect and that that the relationship is observed as the passing of time.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 24, 2019

Anguspure said:
There is a minimal of measurement known as Planck length, 10-33 centimeters, that is indivisible. Objects and space itself either exist within the material universe at a size larger than this size or they loose locality i.e. cease to exist.

We also know that time cannot be subdivided into a smaller unit than 10-43seconds, known as Planck time. Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. Everything that happens in the material universe takes at least this length of time to take place.

It occurs to me that the most fundamental way of describing anything that happens is as a cause and an effect. The most fundamental cause and effect relationship is the relationship that takes place at the point where something causes another thing to exist. When this happens at the level of singularity the minimal material effect is one that is bigger than the Planck length and the cause acts in relationship to the effect at least in a period of Planck time.

So my thinking is that at a fundamental level unless we have a cause, initiating an effect, time itself is not observed.

Of course we as observers within a system of trillions upon trillions of cause and effect relationships are unable to isolate this digital time effect and so time passes even as we try to observe it. However to an observer without time, observing a single isolated cause and effect, time would pass only in proportion to the nature of the relationship between the cause and the effect, and would cease once that relationship had ended.

OK, I get the idea. I think there's some debate about whether the Planck length is the shortest possible length or the shortest meaningful length, but that apart, the microscopic laws of physics don't distinguish between past and future - interactions are fundamentally reversible - and so cause and effect, which requires a temporal direction (the arrow of time) is not a feature of physics at this level. There is a strong sense in which the arrow of time, and so cause & effect, is an emergent property of large numbers of interactions (i.e. macro-scale) described by statistical mechanics and driven by increasing entropy.

This suggests that time, as we normally understand it (having a direction from past to future), isn't fundamental, but will inevitably be observed by macro-scale observers, which only exist by virtue of that entropic arrow of time.

All of which seems significantly similar to what you described

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 24, 2019

Anguspure said:
Further to the above it occurs to me that i have missed a final point, being that it has been observed that at a quantum level the outcome of cause and effect relationship is probabilistic and that the outcome is determined by the observer.
It seem to me then that the fundamentals of reality are an observer/cause in relationship to an effect and that that the relationship is observed as the passing of time.

As I understand it, that's a misinterpretation of QM observation, where the outcome of a measurement is probabilistic and depends on the particular measurement rather than the observer. This is a murky area, the QM 'Measurement Problem', but the general idea is that a measurement occurs when two quantum systems interact irreversibly, i.e. with decoherence, where the information disperses into the environment. What actually happens during that interaction is described variously by the different QM interpretations. 'Conscious collapse' versions of the Copenhagen interpretation, have been largely abandoned as too problematic. A QM 'observer' is now taken to be any interacting quantum system.

I prefer to think of our subjective experience of time as resulting from the fact that we remember the past but not the future; from sensory memory through medium-term to long-term memory, we process events roughly in temporal order of perception (some jiggery-pokery occurs to adjust timings to be coherent). Subjective time is modulated by the density of significant experiential (memorable) events in 'real', i.e. external, time; experiential duration is shortened by higher rates of memorable events, and lengthened in retrospect.

The other point is, that under most QM interpretations, the observed properties don't actually exist until the measurement occurs - the wave function describes the likelihood of obtaining a particular result on measurement, not the likelihood of the observed system being in that state prior to measurement; i.e. a particle is not in either a spin-up or a spin-down state which you can then measure but is in a superposition of spin-up and spin-down states, and a measurement will probabilistically observe (and 'fix') one or other; a subtle, but important difference.

Apologies if I'm telling you what you already know, but it's a tricky and much-misunderstood topic.

[serious] · Aug 26, 2019

Interesting idea, but I don't think it works:

A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion.
- Examples of standards of motion include, but are not limited to, time keeping devices like stopwatches, the Earth traveling around the Sun, or a person keeping time.
- All standards of motion are a form of motion or are derived from a form of motion, albeit sometimes very complex forms of motion.
According to one and two, time can be considered a physical property that describes a physical system's motion compared to another physical system's motion.
According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
Effect can not precede cause.
According to two, time requires motion to be measured and according to five, effect can not precede cause. This means time depends on motion and because of that motion can not depend on time.
According to two, time empirically exists only as comparative motion and according to six, time depends on motion. This means time is caused by motion.

#2 doesn't work. You can measure time by radioactive decay as well.
#6 One could equally argue that motion requires time to be measured, thus reversing the entire argument from here forward. More fundamentally, the concept is flawed in that it assumes that every relationship must be causal. You are looking at V=D/t and assuming the V causes the T, but the equation can be rewritten to isolate any variable. It's a relational equation, not a causal one.

Ohj1n37 · Aug 30, 2019

Hi everyone, I tried to go on a vacation with my family, but again learned vacations are not for me. I apologize for taking so long to respond. I also appreciate all the constructive comments. My dad informed me that I did not have to go through the comments one by one and answer everyone's post individually, so I am going to try to give general responses from what I have read. Doing what I did previously was kind of making me go crazy. If I do not address your post you can let me know and I'll try to get back to you. I also want to note that I have recently found out that I more than likely have dyscalculia. No one has done any crazy math stuff yet, but that is just a forewarning. Other than that the purpose of this thread is that I have these ideas and I have no one to share them with. I would really like to find someone good at physics who could show me my ideas are wrong, as to take this burden off me, or define them in a way others could more easily understand.

One of the misconceptions that I see people having is thinking things they personally can't see moving is not motion and this is not true. For instance hot and cold we generally can't see moving, but it is just the excitation of atomic particles. Another example is given in the post above, radioactive decay. Radioactive decay to my understanding (may be wrong) is caused by the weak force and is an atom losing a proton or neutron, this again can be considered motion.

Another thing that is perceived incorrectly is what my dad has dubbed the conundrum of math (currently the only person I can talk to that really understands me is my dad). The conundrum of math is an illusion that math creates and here is an example. I was talking to a person a lot smarter than me and the person states, "matter can not move unless it has velocity." I told him he was incorrect, "the matter has velocity because it is moving." For those of you reading take awhile to think about that, it is both hard, but simple to understand, an illusion of sorts.

Here's a crude outline:

Force (Other Movement) -> Movement -> Velocity, Time, Etc.

The same can be said about time because when something is moving it's movement can be compared allowing for both the perception and measurement of time. Remember my definition of time is motion compared to a standard of motion or comparative motion.

Time defined as comparative motion leads me to my next point. Relativity tells us time is not always constant just as someone corrected another person in one of the previous posts. This works seamlessly with time defined as comparative motion, after all comparative just means relative. If anyone would like me to I can explain how time dilation works without the need of spacetime and why it is seamless with time defined as comparative motion.

The best argument I have seen so far and the one I myself have thought of is that the measurement of time is not necessarily time itself. This argument is good because traditionally time is thought of as an entity of its own, currently a dimension of its own according to Relativity. I can really only highlight a point I stated previously and purpose a question which I believe to be sufficient. Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to a standard of motion. This means that the only way we can know time within reality, the real world, the physical world, is by comparing motion. This comparison is not just done by measuring, but by our own brains and how we perceive as we too are matter moving through space. Our own perception is like a clock of sorts. And the question is, if time only exists within reality as motion compared to a standard of motion, including our own perception, is that what time really is?

Let me know what you all think I would very much like to continue the conversation. I have much more to say and many ideas I have yet to share on the subject, but do not want to create to long of a wall of text. I really do wish to get what is in my head to people who will understand, so that people can either show me how I am wrong (be nice please) or spread the knowledge to others. Thank you all for your time.

sjastro · Aug 30, 2019

Time is not caused by motion as explained via Quantum Mechanics.
Starting off with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle;

ΔxΔp ≥ h/2

Δx and Δp are the uncertainties in measuring position and momentum and h is Planck’s constant.
A variant of Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the energy-time relationship.

ΔEΔt ≥ h/2

Whereas position and momentum are defined by mathematical operators, there is no mathematical operator for time in Quantum Mechanics and Δt is therefore not an uncertainty in the time measurement.
Instead Δt is the characteristic time scale for a quantum state to change.

Bungle_Bear · Aug 30, 2019

You still haven't defined what time is or demonstrated anything other than correlation between time and movement.

Logically Irrefutable: Time is Caused by Motion

The Librarian

Whoot!

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

proud libtard

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Active Member

Newbie

Whoot!

Similar threads