Logically Irrefutable: Time is Caused by Motion

[Ohj1n37]

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,

1. A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
5. Effect can not precede cause.
6. 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.
7. 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.

 

[A_Thinker]

Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.

You don't need time to describe motion.

Motion is simply the measure of a change in location (i.e. 3-dimensional space). For instance ... Mary went to the store. I just described movement (i.e. change in location) without any mention of time.

When you bring time into the picture, you've moved on to talk about velocity or speed, in other words ... how long it took to complete a movement ... or not. Time goes on inexorably ... whether we move ... or not.

 

[Ohj1n37]

You don't need time to describe motion.

Within reality time requires motion. See truth two in my original post.

Would you please explain how you would measure time without motion, meaning not as truth two in my original post states?

I realize this flies in the face of convention, but it does not mean it is wrong, especially if it can not be proven so.

 

[ewq1938]

Time is the measurement of existence. No motion is needed for time to pass or exist.

 

[Michael]

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,

1. A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
5. Effect can not precede cause.
6. 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.
7. 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.

One can imagine a light source that changes color periodically but doesn't physically change location, in which case time could be used to describe the change in color without respect to location.

Admittedly the photons are moving, but aside from that, the concept of time doesn't seem to be limited strictly to the motion of objects.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

A digital stopwatch has no moving parts.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

A digital stopwatch has no moving parts.

eh.. the atoms and electrons are moving.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Time is the measurement of existence. No motion is needed for time to pass or exist.

Isn't time a necessary property of motion? You can't have motion without time passing can you? Space and time are inextricably linked in GR. You can't really even talk about anything moving or traveling without considering time.

 

[Belk]

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,

1. A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
5. Effect can not precede cause.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Retrocausality - Wikipedia

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I'm not down with saying motion causes time because there can be a passage of time with no motion. Just intuitively. I could be wrong though.

 

[Belk]

Logically Irrefutable

You do realize this is a negative in science?

 

[Belk]

I'm not down with saying motion causes time because there can be a passage of time with no motion. Just intuitively. I could be wrong though.

I would agree, but I have no idea how one would test it.

 

[SkyWriting]

eh.. the atoms and electrons are moving.

So you feel the motion is being measured?
If the motion stops, does time stop?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

So you feel the motion is being measured?
If the motion stops, does time stop?

I don't think so. No more so than time would stop if the hands on your analog watch stopped moving because you didn't wind it. However, I don't think you can have motion without time.

 

[ewq1938]

Isn't time a necessary property of motion? You can't have motion without time passing can you? Space and time are inextricably linked in GR. You can't really even talk about anything moving or traveling without considering time.

Again, time does not require any motion to exist. As for motion requiring or using time, I think it might depend on how fast of motion.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Again, time does not require any motion to exist.

we are in agreement on this.

As for motion requiring or using time, I think it might depend on how fast of motion.

I think any motion at all requires time. If the universe though truly came to a complete stand still, absolutely no motion whatsoever anywhere in the universe, could you really say time was passing? I'm not sure of that answer. It may be what the OP is getting at.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Time is the measurement of existence. No motion is needed for time to pass or exist.

This statement appears to be an opinion. Please give a logical reason as to why my original post is wrong. My claim is falsifiable all you have to do is show a way time can be measured other than what truth two of my original post claims.

One can imagine a light source that changes color periodically but doesn't physically change location, in which case time could be used to describe the change in color without respect to location.

Admittedly the photons are moving, but aside from that, the concept of time doesn't seem to be limited strictly to the motion of objects.

Light is made of photons, a photon's wavelength determines what color it is, both the movement of the photon and its wavelength are motion.

A digital stopwatch has no moving parts.

eh.. the atoms and electrons are moving.

Thank you for answering that for me.

Isn't time a necessary property of motion? You can't have motion without time passing can you? Space and time are inextricably linked in GR. You can't really even talk about anything moving or traveling without considering time.

This is what is traditionally thought and I totally disagree and given valid reasons as to why. Please free to share your thoughts as to why they are wrong using facts.

Retrocausality - Wikipedia

Retrocausality is a theory and has not been observed.

I'm not down with saying motion causes time because there can be a passage of time with no motion. Just intuitively. I could be wrong though.

It's what I call an illusion. I made a post on it a long time ago on these forums you might want to look there. My idea has really matured since then though.

You do realize this is a negative in science?

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 would agree, but I have no idea how one would test it.

It is simple, is there any way that time can be measured other than what truth two of my original post claims?

So you feel the motion is being measured?
If the motion stops, does time stop?

A better question is this, what if time just did not exists and everything just moved like normal, what would that change?

However, I don't think you can have motion without time.

See truth six in my original post. That facts show differently.

Again, time does not require any motion to exist. As for motion requiring or using time, I think it might depend on how fast of motion.

See truth six in my original post. That facts show differently.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Please free to share your thoughts as to why they are wrong using facts.

Firstly, I'm not interested in trying to prove you wrong. I'm just discussing. I'm not a physicist or a philosopher. I have no expert knowledge on these matters, just opinions based on the little that I do know and my own intuition about how reality works. I've stated that I could be wrong.

See truth six in my original post. That facts show differently.

I'm not sure that's actually a "fact". I'm not really even sure you can actually separate motion and time that way. Motion requires locality, locality requires space. GR shows us that space and time are inextricably linked. They are 2 properties of the same thing. I'm starting to think that you actually cannot have a meaningful discussion of motion or time without the other.

I'm also not sure I really feel like getting very deep into it.

 

[A_Thinker]

I don't think so. No more so than time would stop if the hands on your analog watch stopped moving because you didn't wind it. However, I don't think you can have motion without time.

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

Time is required for motion ...

 

[Ohj1n37]

Firstly, I'm not interested in trying to prove you wrong. I'm just discussing. I'm not a physicist or a philosopher. I have no expert knowledge on these matters, just opinions based on the little that I do know and my own intuition about how reality works. I've stated that I could be wrong.

I am sorry if I have come off offensive I did not mean to. I honestly am just trying to find someone to talk about my idea who will understand. I am disabled to the point where I am home bound and have no one to talk to about my idea who will understand.

I'm not sure that's actually a "fact". I'm not really even sure you can actually separate motion and time that way. Motion requires locality, locality requires space. GR shows us that space and time are inextricably linked. They are 2 properties of the same thing. I'm starting to think that you actually cannot have a meaningful discussion of motion or time without the other.

I'm also not sure I really feel like getting very deep into it.

I understand much of the concepts of general and special relativity. I disagree with the construct of space time. I do not wish to get on a general relativity tangent. As to what I have stated, the original post speaks for itself and I have yet to see anyone falsify it. Can you directly address any of the truths that I have claimed in the original post? If not it appears your comment are just an opinion.

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

Time is required for motion ...

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