Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute?
    #4880463 -

One of Zeno's paradoxes (which I was recently reading about) states that, at any single point in time, an arrow flying through the air is at rest. Because of this, the arrow should not move in the next instant as explain in Newton's first law. So is motion an illusion, or are there definite ways to prove Zeno's logic wrong? Also, seeing as how the arrow should not move (ignoring the force of gravity on it) but it does, does this mean that motion is relative to the position of the object in the past moments, or is it absolute as the object moves through space (at any magnitude or size)?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4880509 -

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, all motion is relative. HOWEVER, being relative is not the same thing as being non-existent. There is not one object standing still while the other moves. All things are in motion relative to one another. In other words, rather than motion being an illusion, it is NON-motion which is truly the illusion.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: Silversoul]
    #4880766 -

no motion = parallel..


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4881029 -

One of Zeno's paradoxes (which I was recently reading about) states that, at any single point in time, an arrow flying through the air is at rest.

What if Time is not digital in nature? What is an "instant" of time? If there were no smallest "quantity" of time - that is time is contiguous - then there could be no such thing as an "instant" of time. Any measurement of time you made would be a measurement of a period of time - and an object can certainly move during a period of time.

Motion is entirely relative, and is relative to the objects around you. Einstein did away with Newtons idea of an absolute Space and Time, so without other objects it is impossible to determine movement.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: trendal]
    #4881167 -

trendal said:
What if Time is not digital in nature? What is an "instant" of time? If there were no smallest "quantity" of time - that is time is contiguous - then there could be no such thing as an "instant" of time. Any measurement of time you made would be a measurement of a period of time - and an object can certainly move during a period of time.


Since space and time are really one thing(spacetime), I would assume that the smallest measurement of time would be the same as the smallest measurement of space: a singularity.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: trendal]
    #4881284 -

I thought more about it, and was wondering whether time really is infinite. Theoretically, a person could divide time down until he or she reached a single moment (such as the time experienced or portrayed when one pauses a video); but after this, how do we break it down further? Is there such thing as half a moment, or can we not actually break time down into a single moment (such as another of Zeno's paradoxes, stating that travel from A to B is impossible, as one would have to travel A to the midpoint of AB, then from there to the midpoint of the midpoint and B, and so on)?


Second, if Einstein did away with absolute space and time put forth by Newton, how is the concept of spacetime (and a graph of behavior on these axes) conceivable? I have limited knowledge of this subject, so I apologize in advance if I'm contradicting myself or anything of the sort.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4881300 -

IAmTheWalrus212 said:
One of Zeno's paradoxes (which I was recently reading about) states that, at any single point in time, an arrow flying through the air is at rest.  Because of this, the arrow should not move in the next instant as explain in Newton's first law.


Just like everyone knows that if a*x= b*x, then a=b, so as an extension of that 1=23, because 1*0=23*0.

Moral of the story? Don't expect meaningful answers in math and science if you're making things zero recklessly without knowing what the hell you're doing. :rolleyes:

Or as a more detailed explanation, it does have a velocity at any frozen moment in time, you just can't see that if you're being a dumbass and only considering the moment itself. You can't say that it has no velocity (defined as displacement divided by time) if you just ignore the existance of time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: Silversoul]
    #4881352 -

There's a lot of speculation as to whether singularities can exist "naked" - without some sort of exterior boundary between the singularity and our universe. Inside a black hole any real concept of "spacetime" goes out the window at the event horizon - so it isn't right to say the singularity is a "measurement" of spacetime, because it doesn't exist in spacetime.

Now personally I don't think a "singularity" exists as an acutal object, in or outside of our universe. A singularity is a mathematical byproduct, an artifact from when we try to use math from this universe to describe conditions outside of it.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: trendal]
    #4881379 -

What I'm getting at is I don't think space or time are discrete in nature. They are both "analogue" - you could make finer and finer measurements into infinity if you wanted.

Ideas like string theory state that there is a limit to our measurement ability...but spacetime still exists at scales beyond this limit.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: GulGen]
    #4881384 -

GulGen said:
IAmTheWalrus212 said:
One of Zeno's paradoxes (which I was recently reading about) states that, at any single point in time, an arrow flying through the air is at rest.  Because of this, the arrow should not move in the next instant as explain in Newton's first law.


Just like everyone knows that if a*x= b*x, then a=b, so as an extension of that 1=23, because 1*0=23*0.

Moral of the story? Don't expect meaningful answers in math and science if you're making things zero recklessly without knowing what the hell you're doing. :rolleyes:

Or as a more detailed explanation, it does have a velocity at any frozen moment in time, you just can't see that if you're being a dumbass and only considering the moment itself. You can't say that it has no velocity (defined as displacement divided by time) if you just ignore the existance of time.



Thanks for pointing that out.  Didn't realize how stupid I was!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: trendal]
    #4881411 -

trendal said:
What I'm getting at is I don't think space or time are discrete in nature. They are both "analogue" - you could make finer and finer measurements into infinity if you wanted.

Ideas like string theory state that there is a limit to our measurement ability...but spacetime still exists at scales beyond this limit.


How do you split time into smaller and smaller bits? Would you eventually end up with a single moment in time and then not be able to divide it, or would you get the time that is the FIRST amount of time greater than a single moment?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4881433 -

IAmTheWalrus212 said:
I thought more about it, and was wondering whether time really is infinite. Theoretically, a person could divide time down until he or she reached a single moment (such as the time experienced or portrayed when one pauses a video); but after this, how do we break it down further? Is there such thing as half a moment, or can we not actually break time down into a single moment (such as another of Zeno's paradoxes, stating that travel from A to B is impossible, as one would have to travel A to the midpoint of AB, then from there to the midpoint of the midpoint and B, and so on)?


No, what I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as a "moment" of time. Time is continuous. Analogue. It doesn't matter how small you divide it, you could always divide it a little smaller (in reality this may be physically impossible due to measuring limits). No matter how small you make your "moment" it will still be a span of time - and movement is possible during that span.

Quote:
Second, if Einstein did away with absolute space and time put forth by Newton, how is the concept of spacetime (and a graph of behavior on these axes) conceivable? I have limited knowledge of this subject, so I apologize in advance if I'm contradicting myself or anything of the sort.


Spacetime is a concept used to describe the separation and movement of objects. Newton believed that space was a "thing" (likewise for time). Space actually existed on its own.

But think of spacetime as more of a measuring system. It doesn't exist indipendant of everything else - it exists because of everything else. Spacetime is the graph we draw by being here (by "we" I mean all matter/energy in the universe).


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4881445 -

Don't think of it as if you are dividing a thing - you are dividing numbers on a scale.

Just as I could keep dividing 1 into smaller and smaller numbers, I could keep dividing 1 minutes into smaller and smaller bits of time.

Time isn't a thing, it's a scale we use to describe separation and movement.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: GulGen]
    #4881561 -

Science has ignored time (in its experiments) from the beginning. They don't consider time as a variable. e.g. and experiment's outcome should not change if done on Tuesday rather than Friday. Clearly, time fluctuates. Especially when you throw perception in the mix. e.g. Fridays go by faster than Mondays. So, making time equal to zero makes no sense. Though, finding the chronon (smallest particle of time on a quantum level) may have its uses.


--------------------
:egyptian:
Clean flesh is next to Godflesh


-----
Keep Salvia Divinorum from becoming a Schedule I drug in the USA...sign the petition NOW!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: shymanta]
    #4882381 -

Well if it helps, our eyes have limited capablities in terms of frame refresh rate and so on...what implications does this have about the nature of reality?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4882857 -

I'd say that it says we have a very limited scope of what is really going on.


--------------------
:egyptian:
Clean flesh is next to Godflesh


-----
Keep Salvia Divinorum from becoming a Schedule I drug in the USA...sign the petition NOW!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4883083 -

huh ? We don't need Einstein for this question.
As in Newtons physics, the force you relay on is called impulse.
It counts for standing 'timeframes' and is a vector, added to the object, like someone said here, it's like the speed, only invisible.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: trendal]
    #4883223 -

Time is continuous.

Actually, the available evidence suggests that it (time), like space, is discrete.

The absolute earliest instant (for lack of a better word) in the history of the universe that makes any sense in modern formulations of Quantum Mechanics is the Planck Epoch (about 10^-40) seconds after zero.

In every formulation of Quantum Mechanics, speaking of a distance shorter than the Planck Length (10^-35 meters) or a period of time shorter than the Planck Time are meaningless because they lead to meaningless or imaginary results like an interval of time shorter than zero or or a distance of square root of -1 meters.

The Planck units are not made up; they are (as far as we can tell) fundamental limitations in the nature of reality and can never be overcome. They are exceedingly tiny. For perspective, consider that quarks are about 1,000 times smaller than protons. The Planck Length is 100 quadrillion times smaller than a quark.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/08/05 10:39 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: IAmTheWalrus212]
    #4883352 -

yes..
time is a measure...

listen???

me a sure...


me asured?

by what? time? ... or are you, time......

me..., a, sure!!!


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Motion as an illusion/Is motion relative or absolute? [Re: Diploid]
    #4884034 -

Very true, diploid, but as I'm sure you are well aware theory is not reality - merely our current best estimation of how reality "works" :wink:

Thus while QM theory may not be able to handle spans of time shorter than the Planck time, it doesn't indicate that time doesn't exist beyond such limits.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Relative? or Absolute?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 trendalM 6,548 61 01/29/18 07:35 PM
by BrendanFlock
* Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy)
( 1 2 3 all )		 shroomydan 4,572 44 04/30/05 11:29 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Newton's Universal Law SkorpivoMusterion 757 1 05/31/04 09:02 AM
by Shroomerious
* Perpetual Motion
( 1 2 3 all )		 niteowl 4,525 50 06/15/06 04:00 PM
by trendal
* Living without illusion
( 1 2 all )		 Huehuecoyotl 3,537 29 04/22/05 06:25 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Im Back!!! and still convinced free will is an illusion ;)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 ZenGecko 17,381 148 04/22/07 10:22 PM
by PhanTomCat
* Newton's dark secrets Icelander 981 8 11/16/05 02:22 PM
by Ped
* fundamental question on the existence of motion
( 1 2 all )		 automanM 1,732 22 09/24/03 08:27 AM
by trendal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,083 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.