Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part III

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

Abstract

In Part II, I showed that, contrary to what we’ve been taught, Isaac Newton did not believe that a body in motion remains in motion for no reason. I also railed against the concept of continuity, which I compared to the flat earth hypothesis. In this article, I argue that a thorough understanding of the nature of motion inevitably leads to the conclusion that the visible matter of the universe is moving in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Understanding the properties of these particles and how they interact with normal matter will unleash an age of unlimited free energy and super fast travel. In this post, I write about the futility of trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is flawed. I also argue that, at the microscopic level, there is only one type of motion: acceleration.

Either Or

Is it possible to prove Aristotle’s motion hypothesis? I think it’s an either-or situation. It all depends on whether or not you believe in causality. If you do believe in causality, then there should be absolutely no doubt in your mind that Aristotle was right for insisting that nothing can move unless it is caused to move. If you don’t believe in causality, it is because you believe in hocus-pocus and you should not even be reading my blog. Sorry.

Lost Cause

Unfortunately, using simple causal logic that anybody can understand is not nearly enough to persuade the physics community to suddenly confess that they were all a bunch of morons for believing in magic. It’s just not going to happen. The only way to pull it off might be to wait for all the old timers to croak, fire every physicist over twenty-five and then silently float a 50,000-ton cruise liner above the Eiffel tower. And that still would not convince them because you neglected to submit a paper for peer their review. One must never underestimate the capacity of scientists to deceive themselves and others into believing that they have a rightful monopoly on knowledge production.

Is it really worth it to try to convince the physics community that Aristotle was right about motion? Are they really that important in the greater scheme of things? I don’t think so. If you could float a goat five feet above the White House lawn, then you wouldn’t need the approval of the physics community. They would be forced to kiss your ass whether they agreed with your theory or not. In my opinion, any real progress in humanity’s understanding of motion will have to come from outside the physics community. Besides, waiting centuries for them to finally see the light is not particularly appealing.

The Causality of Motion

What does it mean to say that motion is causal? All it means is that no particle can move unless it is caused to move during the entire duration of the particle’s motion. Remove the cause (or causes) and the particle will come to an immediate halt. "But this is not observed", vehemently objects the nearest clueless physicist. True, but so what? Neither are virtual particles, quarks, spacetime, space, etc. Rightly or wrongly, these things were all inferred on the basis of what is observed. Likewise, we can logically infer that there is a cause that keeps a moving particle in motion. What follows below assumes that the reader understands and accepts that the universe is discrete, that the relative is abstract and that only the absolute exists.

Acceleration Is All There Is

Inertial motion is a macroscopic phenomenon that consists of a series of jumps of equal magnitude (actually, given that the universe is probabilistic, this definition is not entirely correct but it will do for now). At the microscopic level, there is no such thing as inertial motion. It is all acceleration. The reason is that a particle moves by making a jump from one discrete position to an adjacent one. A jump consists of two things: a positive acceleration away from the position of origin and a negative acceleration toward the destination. The cause of each jump is an imbalance in nature, i.e., a violation of some conservation principle. Nature uses jumps to rectify the imbalances. Two particles having equal positions and one or more similar properties will produce an imbalance. The ensuing interaction is manifested as a change in position by both particles. The magnitude of the interaction (how fast they react to the imbalance) depends on the energies involved.

Wall-to-Wall Particles

As can be seen in the previous paragraph, a sustained sequence of interactions is necessary to keep a particle in motion. The consequence of this is obvious. The particle must be moving in what I call a wall-to-wall sea of other particles. The primary purpose of the sea is to provide a causal substrate for motion. No sea = no motion. The amount of energy contained in the sea is so huge as to defy description. In Part IV, I will argue that the sea particles are organized as a 4-D lattice. My claim is that there is a way to use the properties of the lattice particles for propulsion and energy generation. Unlimited free energy for the whole world is there for the taking, if only we can figure out how.

See Also:

More Nasty Little Truths About Physics

35 comments:

Matthew B. Richards said...

I like where you're going with this so far. Wall-to-Wall.. hmm, just out of curiosity are those walls just to give us a frame of reference or do you actually think they exist?

In other words, do you believe that there is a scale to the 4-D lattice? If so, what exists outside of our bubble type universe?

You pointed out the inherent problems with the politicization of physics, but really it's the same in all fields of science, industry and even culture.

Things like free energy are already within our grasp thanks to conventional physics, but I doubt we will ever see them due to politics.

Marius said...

I'm delighted that you return to physics, I do not really understand computer chips. I do understand that there is some connection between physics, intelligence and parallel computing, but the architecture of chipmaking is beyond me.
But there is something I can't wrap my head around: You say that a causal universe is - by necessity (sp) - a probabalistic one...

How come?

Louis Savain said...

Matthew asked:

just out of curiosity are those walls just to give us a frame of reference or do you actually think they exist?

The answer is yes, in the abstract. Nothing is infinite.

In other words, do you believe that there is a scale to the 4-D lattice? If so, what exists outside of our bubble type universe?

I believe the lattice particles are organized in such a way that their positional properties form an abstract 4-D math construct. I don't believe in the physical existence of either space, distance or volume. They are all abstract concepts, in my opinion. So, in my view, there is neither outside nor inside in the universe. You should read my reasoning at the link I provide at the end of this post.

Things like free energy are already within our grasp thanks to conventional physics

I seriously doubt this, sorry.

Tango said...

Probabilistic approach is very very important, mostly in the all kind of real life problems. But, practically in my present life, the classical defintion of probability is confusing and irritating me. The definition of the present probability is becoming very limited to analyse my problems which are complete Open CSP problems. Because, in classical definition the sample set are closed,static. You have the complete statistics in your hand. But, in the real time analysis where the sample set is dynamic and open, the classical definition of probability is not working properly.
And, The situation of "Either or" is a very successful technology in my life. Which I usually call "Think Digital!". In term of psychology I will say that noone can be come to a decision without thinking digitally. Optimum Prioritization for doing work (from personal to professional) comes from the "either-or" technque.

Louis Savain said...

Marius wrote:

there is something I can't wrap my head around: You say that a causal universe is - by necessity (sp) - a probabalistic one...

The reason is simply that time does not exist. However, don't expect to find it mentioned in any physics textbook. I explain why time is abstract elsewhere but suffice it to say here that a time dimension would make motion impossible. The existence of things like time travel, motion in spacetime, etc. is pure crackpottery for this reason.

Since time doe not exist, nature cannot calculate the exact timing of particle interactions. It is forced to use probability in order to maintain overall balance in the long run. This is the reason that subatomic particles have a probabilistic decay. I hope to write a article on this topic soon.

Louis Savain said...

Tango,

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by an open or dynamic sample set. What I mean is that I don't see the problem. Probability, in the context that I use it, simply means that there is a certain amount of uncertainty or unpredictability in the timing of interactions. Sure, the size of the sample may change often but that does not change the probability of neutron decay, for example.

Tanmoy said...

Louis,

I mean the "dynamic" in context of "temporal patterns" of informations, where the some part of the datset is known to me. The identification of the changing pattern needs in online. for an example, weather prediction, stock exchange. or the problems like "is it cat or dog?"
I am trying to understand more. I think discussion with you will give me some points. feel free to comments.

tango

Andrew and Nicki said...

Louis,

I am having trouble understanding your causality based argument for observed macroscopic motion.

I have a few simple questions that would start to clarify your theory for me:

If a particle jumps from one discrete position on a 4-D lattice to another, how can it show the acceleration and deceleration that your definition of a 'jump' consists of?

What is the force exerted on a particle by an 'imbalance' to cause this acceleration?

If an imbalance causes an acceleration, what causes the deceleration?

Thanks,

Andrew

Vladimir Dzhuvinov said...

Interesting article :)

While reading it, I drank a glass of beer. The glass is empty now. But why does the glass continue to be empty, despite me not drinking from it any more? Surely the law of cause-and-effect must be violated here!

But oh, I forgot that cause-and-effect is a temporal concept. The cause - the drinking - is actually still there, it's just that it's not in the now, but in the past ;)

Tango said...

Vladimir,

The cause - the drinking - is actually still there, it's just that it's not in the now, but in the past ;)
That means you have proved that time travel is impossible. Like the self-declared scientists are still thinking to be into the past, but that already passed by, because "the cause, "to prove the Time machine is still in their mind. Unfortunately, time has bluffed them and went away.

tango

"Science is not the truth. Science is one of the ways for finding the truth"

Matthew B. Richards said...

"I seriously doubt this, sorry."

Multispectral Nanosolar. It may not be your kind of free energy, but it's close enough for me.

Louis Savain said...

Andrew and Nicki wrote:

If a particle jumps from one discrete position on a 4-D lattice to another, how can it show the acceleration and deceleration that your definition of a 'jump' consists of?

Good question. I use 'acceleration' and 'deceleration' for want of better terms. Customarily, if a particle moves from a resting position, we say that it accelerated. Likewise, if it comes to rest at another position, we say that it decelerated. However, this is not acceleration or deceleration in the Newtonian sense since positions are discrete and there is no distance between adjacent positions.

What is the force exerted on a particle by an 'imbalance' to cause this acceleration?

Force is an abstract mathematical concept invented by Newton. It's a great concept but it does not explain the physics behind it, which is in the interactions between particles. The force exerted on a particle that causes it to jump comes from nature's correcting a violation to a conservation principle. In a future article, I will argue that the mother of all conservation principles is the conservation of nothing.

If an imbalance causes an acceleration, what causes the deceleration?

According to the Aristotelian motion hypothesis (which I fully embrace, ahaha...), absolute rest is the natural state of matter. That is, in the absence of a cause (or force, if you will), matter comes to an absolute halt. Therefore, the "deceleration" happens as a result of the cessation of the original cause. I think it also pays to understand that the duration of a jump is a fundamental interval.

PS.

By the way, if any of you believes that there is no motion/position in nature other than relative motion/position, you're are reading the wrong blog. Why? Because I believe the exact opposite is true. Why? Well, it could be because of the rebel in me and all that. But then again, it could also be because I am right. Still, don't take my word for it. Click on the link at the end of this blog post and check it out for yourselves.

Mac said...

So if space is actually a fixed 4D grid, and time doesn't exist, how does your hypothesis explain relativistic effects on GPS satellites? What force could it be that is acting on an atomic clock in orbit, that causes it to appear to tick faster while observing it from the surface of the Earth?

Alexander said...

You seem to contradict all of physics and not once provide any evidence. Science is built on evidence brought about by experimentation, so really all you are doing is talking rubbish. If you can provide any evidence for any of this and put it through the medium through which SCIENCE is done such as a paper, instead of a blog, a device used by angsty teenagers then maybe I can actually give this some thought.

"Remove the cause (or causes) and the particle will come to an immediate halt. "But this is not observed", vehemently objects the nearest physicist. True, but so what? Neither are virtual particles, quarks, spacetime, space, etc. "
Ok virtual particles are difinately not observed, taht is true and how their name comes about. However unlike what you are stating physicists did not make them upfor fun. INDIRECT influences are observed. If you were to read Q.E.D. by Richard Fenyman you make actually understand this.
My point is that we may not pobserve something directly, but we can still predict observations from our theory andgo about testing it to see if its definately false or not. If this article is to have any scientific credence predict some observations from your theory and test it. Until you do this you have absolutely no reason to insult the greatest minds of our time because of what you think. This is similiar to accusing the Dalai Lama of murder with no evidence.

Louis Savain said...

Mac wrote:

So if space is actually a fixed 4D grid, and time doesn't exist, how does your hypothesis explain relativistic effects on GPS satellites? What force could it be that is acting on an atomic clock in orbit, that causes it to appear to tick faster while observing it from the surface of the Earth?

All phenomena, including gravity and clock slowing, are due to nature correcting violations to its conservation principles. The idea that clocks slow down because time dilates is so absurd and ridiculous that it should not even be discussed. It is easily refuted and I have done so elsewhere. The brief explanation of it is that time is not a variable because variable time is self-referential.

Louis Savain said...

Alexander,

I suspect that you are a member of the physics community. If so, would you kindly refrain from reading my blog because it is not meant for you. My peers consist of the public at large. They are the ones I write for, not a bunch of elitist, ivory tower academics.

Still, I would not want my readers to go around thinking that your arguments have any merit. You wrote:

You seem to contradict all of physics and not once provide any evidence.

Causality is the most time honored principle of science. It needs no evidence as it is self-evident. The supporting evidence for my claim that we are moving in a sea of energetic particles is all around you but you are blind to it as a result of your indoctrination. The observation of motion is all the evidence that is needed to draw the conclusion that I draw. It's so simple, even children can grasp it. The academics ought to be ashamed of themselves.

As far as predictions are concerned, I do predict that, in the not too distant future, we will have technologies that will tap into the lattice for both propulsion and electrical energy production. At that time, levitating a 2000-ton block of stone will be just as easy as lifting a feather. When the time is right, I will publish instructions for an experimental setup that anybody can perform. Unfortunately for you, you live in interesting times.

Ok virtual particles are difinately not observed, taht is true and how their name comes about.

The idea that a particle can be virtual has got to be one the greatest crackpotteries since the flat earth hypothesis. It's not even wrong. It smacks of hocus pocus and all that voodoo stuff. Virtual is synonymous with voodoo in my book.

Until you do this you have absolutely no reason to insult the greatest minds of our time because of what you think. This is similiar to accusing the Dalai Lama of murder with no evidence.

Wow. Even Newton, one of the few physicists that I truly admire, deserves to be ridiculed, in my opinion, for believing in continuity. I have every reason to insult your so-called "greatest minds" because it is their job to discern the truth with regard to the nature of motion. They have failed. They deny the causality of motion, for crying out loud! How much more stupid can you get?

Besides, I know who my God is. Your greatest minds are like the grass of the field in comparison.

BBM said...

Interesting posts.

The gist of the argument seems to be this:

Because of causality, if an object in motion is to remain in motion, then something must be causing it to stay in motion.

Question:

If something is at rest, then by that logic something must be causing it to remain at rest.

What would that be?

An answer of "nothing" would seem to be susceptible to the same criticisms leveled at the physicists who would answer that "nothing" is needed to keep an object that is in motion moving. Especially if the object is resting in a sea of energetic particles.

Louis Savain said...

BBM wrote:

If something is at rest, then by that logic something must be causing it to remain at rest.

Not so. The principle of causality simply demands that an effect must have a cause. An effect is a phenomenon, i.e., a change in some property or state. Being at rest is neither an effect nor a series of effects. However, being in motion is certainly a series of effects, or changes in position to be precise.

James said...

Elsewhere you said our 3D universe is travelling through the 4th dimension. Are particles in the 4D universe usually at rest, and does this imply the universe was given an initial "push"?

Aether physics theories generally posit a 3D universe filled with tangible particles which are in constant motion. Can you dismiss this idea?

Your claims of free energy and transportation are similar to claims made by various aether physicists. Are you familiar with the aether physics tradition, and claims by its advocates that relativity is promoted to suppress free energy research?

Louis Savain said...

James wrote:

Elsewhere you said our 3D universe is travelling through the 4th dimension. Are particles in the 4D universe usually at rest, and does this imply the universe was given an initial "push"?

I would imagine so although it is just a guess as to what happened in the beginning. The Big Bang is certainly not the way the universe came to being because nothing could move (explode) unless there was already a lattice waiting for them to move in. The creation of the lattice necessarily precedes that of normal matter.

Aether physics theories generally posit a 3D universe filled with tangible particles which are in constant motion. Can you dismiss this idea?

Aether physics is crackpottery, in my opinion. The aether is posited as necessary to sustain the propagation of EM radiation (waves). I think this is nonsense. Photons are certainly made of particles. The energetic lattice that I am proposing is primary there to support motion, including the movement of photons.

Your claims of free energy and transportation are similar to claims made by various aether physicists. Are you familiar with the aether physics tradition, and claims by its advocates that relativity is promoted to suppress free energy research?

I doubt that very much. There is the possibility that some unseen but powerful force has been guiding and/or retarding scientific evolution but I doubt that it has anything to do with suppressing free energy research. If this force did exist, it would have a much more cynical and wicked purpose.

Bob said...

I think you may be misinformed about the philosophical underpinnings of science. No physicist worth his salt would say that Newton's first law is true or that spacetime is actually continuous rather than discrete. They would only claim that these are two particular models of reality which have stood the test rather well. These assumptions yield conclusions that match the outcomes of experiments better than any of the alternatives.

I would suggest that the best thing you could do to further these ideas is to concoct at least one physical situation where your theory gives the more accurate prediction. There's nothing anyone wants to see more than a goat hovering over the White House lawn.

In fact, there are a lot of people currently trying to make a theory of physics where time and space is discrete. Most of these attempts fall under the heading of loop quantum gravity.



P.S. Newton's first law of motion which you repeatedly reference is no longer a widely accepted physical theory. It is only a classical approximation to the quantum laws of motion.

Sean said...

I have many questions/comments, but I'll start with you saying that "nothing is infinite". This makes me wonder the age old question - if I pick a direction and move in a straight line (assuming I'm immortal and have the means to propel myself indefinitely) will I ever stop or pass the same point twice?

Also, you said "there is a certain amount of uncertainty or unpredictability in the timing of interactions". This seems contrary to saying that only the absolute exists. Since you've already claimed that nothing is infinite, then there is of course a finite number of variables acting on any discreet phenomenon, which would seem to refute any possibility of true randomness. Everything is predictable, regardless of our limited ability to predict it.

Keep on rebelling, brotha! There's alot on here I don't quite follow, but your refutation of time travel is right on the money! I get an eye twitch whenever I hear someone seriously consider that idea.

Cillian said...

I find your ideas interesting (even though, honestly, I think you're a crackpot). I can see no problem with challenging existing widely believed theories. However, I think your ideas would be considered more credible (And a lot less painful to read) if you didn't continually insult theories, say things are childish, and the like.

Perhaps you should write a book.

Matthew B. Richards said...

@Cillian Or better yet, I would like to see some kind of prototype based on Louis's theories, something that would actually demonstrate and legitimize them in the real world.

Talk is cheap after all.

Bill said...

I am loving all of this. In reference to your explanation in the 4D lattice and how that provided the medium for the universe to expand into in the first place is radically awesome. It challenge my belief in the accepted Big Bang Theory. I am a firm believer in that you cannot get something from nothing. So you cannot expand without something beyond to expand into. Time travel is fiction IMO also, in addition to your explanations I also would like to add that if timetravel were possible, someone from the future from which it is "invented" would have come back into time to possibly change or prevent various disasters from happen for the attempted betterment of mankind? But also you have absolute positioning amongst your 4D lattice. Suppose in fiction you have a time traveler, when they initiate the travel, would they end up say 10 years in the past in the exact 3D absolute position negative 10 years in the 4th dimension amongst the Lattice, therfore they are no longer anywhere remotely close to the earth since the galaxy is moving in the expanding universe, the solar system is rotating around the galaxy, the earth is orbting the sun, and the earth is rotating relative to its axis relative to the orbital plane. And that is not including the possibility of the universe moving in some other mdeium bigger than that.
Thats my arguement against time travel.

a said...

Hi Louis. In this part (part 3) you claim that the cause for each jump and therefore the cause for motion is "an imbalance in nature, i.e., a violation of some conservation principle".

Yet in part 2 when someone mentioned the conservation of momentum you dismissed that by saying "You're kidding me. Conservation of momentum does not keep a body in motion. It is just an abstract mathematical description of it. This would be like saying, "motion is what keeps a body in motion". What keeps a body in in motion is something physical. A force or an interaction, for example. Anything else is just puffy little words."

To me you seem to be contradicting yourself here by claiming that the cause of motion is a violation of some conservation principle - as you say, a conservation principle is a mathematical construct. What is the real, physical cause?

Louis Savain said...

a wrote:

To me you seem to be contradicting yourself here by claiming that the cause of motion is a violation of some conservation principle - as you say, a conservation principle is a mathematical construct. What is the real, physical cause?

I guess I should have been more specific, sorry. I should have said that the cause of motion is a violation of a fundamental conservation principle. Conservation of momentum is not fundamental. It is an abstract principle that arises from a deeper, more fundamental physical principle: the conservation of nothing, the mother of all conservation principles. I hope to write an article about this topic soon.

Louis Savain said...

I now realize that my answer to a above is incomplete. I should have added that I was replying to a commenter who claimed that the conservation of momentum is the cause of motion. The fact is that a conservation principle is not the cause of anything. A cause is a violation of a conservation principle.

In the case of a body in inertial motion, there is no violation to the conservation of momentum. And yet, motion (a change in position) is an effect that must be caused by some violation somewhere. This is the reason that normal matter must be moving in an immense lattice of particles.

pokemon roks(my penguin name) and madaco said...

let me see if I get this straight. you say tht you think, that movement of particles is descrete(which I dont really see much of a problem with, except possibly the speed of a particle)

and that the reason something continues to move foward is because things are continously moving it fowards, rather than it simply not stopping without a reason(so it has a reason to keep moving, rather than having a reason to stop moving)

how is constantly being pushed to remain at the same speed different from remaining at the same speed because nothing is changing its speed?

I may have misunderstood what you said, and if so please address it, but as it stands I dont understand the difference between your theory and the main theory.

also by your theory, does everything move one unit of distance at a time, or can they skip units? is there a unit of time as well? if things only move 1 unit of space at a time, how do they have different speeds? di they have different chances of moving fowards or not? that could work I guess. This "paragraph" isnt a challenge, but rather looking for clarification, and this is the case for much of the other paragraphs too.

Louis Savain said...

pokemon wrote:

how is constantly being pushed to remain at the same speed different from remaining at the same speed because nothing is changing its speed?

The first statement is correct because it obeys the principle of cause and effect. The second is incorrect because "nothing" is not a cause of anything. It can cause neither motion nor a change in motion.

does everything move one unit of distance at a time, or can they skip units?

In my opinion, yes. I believe that in the future, we'll have technologies that will allow us to jump instantly from anywhere to anywhere. There is no reason that something cannot jump from Earth to Mars instantly, for example.

is there a unit of time as well?

Yes, of course.

if things only move 1 unit of space at a time, how do they have different speeds?

They really don't. As I explained in Part IV of this article, there is only one speed in nature and that is the speed of light. The reason that we think that things move slower is that, most of the time, they are not moving at all. Only light moves all the time.

di they have different chances of moving fowards or not?

Yes. Motion is a probabilistic process. At each instant, a particle has a given probability of making a jump. The probability is determined by the energy/mass ratio of the particle.

mrbell said...

First, I am not, as far as I am aware, a member of the "elitist, ivory tower academics" so I feel it's safe for me to read and post to your blog.
Second, sorry that I am several years late to this discussion, I just discovered it.
I notice very few mentions of energy in your posts and mostly where it is it is in regards to "free energy", with one exception. You state "The amount of energy contained in the sea is so huge as to defy description". It may defy conception in some peoples minds, and perhaps accurate measurement, but it does not outright defy description. That is not my point. What I gather from that line is that you do understand energy in it different forms, particularly potential and kinetic energy. Without going into a very deep regression, I want to explain why an arrow keeps moving after it is released from a bow, using cause and effect, that does not rely on your particular brand of "crackpottery":
An archer pulls on the bowstring. This is cause. Of course, if we wanted infinite regression, this would be an effect of a chemical reaction in the archer's muscles. That too, is an effect of a chemical reaction in the archer's brain. Which, itself is an effect of Mr. and Mrs. Archer having a good time one night and the political aspirations of an ill-bred noble person. You can see where that takes us.
Back on track, the effect of pulling on a bowstring is that potential energy is transferred from the archer to the bowstring. On release of the bowstring, the potential energy is transferred and transformed into kinetic energy to the bow(And, if we're being picky, the surrounding air, the bow and the archer, etc). The effect of this is that the arrow begins to move. In a vacuum, the arrow can now travel infinitely because there is nothing to remove the kinetic energy. There is no cause, there is no effect. In an atmosphere, the arrow gradually loses speed(effect) as the air interferes(cause) with the arrow. There is cause and effect.

Why did I go about describing this situation? Because you have claimed that physicists understanding of motion denies causality and have gone on to give an alternative explanation. Unfortunately, your explanation does not appear to have any application, nor evidence. I am not a physicist, but I would like you to find a elitist, ivory tower physicist who disagrees significantly with my description. Absent that, I would like to know what about what I have said denies causality?

Ashish Yeole said...

I would go with newton theory of objects in motion. But what Aristotle said about the causality is also correct as long as we consider gravitation force acting on the moving object. Because only because of gravity the object will come to halt. If a body is moving in zero gravity then it will keep on moving and it needs no force to keep it moving (as said earlier by Newton). And it holds true, if you go with Aristotle here then the force required for an object to keep moving infinitely will be infinity and such amount of force to be generated is not possible. So here Newtons theory is correct. And if gravity is in picture then Aristotle's understanding is correct.

John Middlemas said...

You use "discrete position" in your arguments. This cannot be defined. There is no such thing as a point object so no position can defined where it is. For a discrete position you need a point object as marker but there are none.

Also, since no positions can be defined neither can any interval between positions. Distance is therefore also undefinable.

Equally there are no instants of time as Peter Lynds has shown see http://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1025361725408

Because there are no instants of time there can be no durations either as they would require start and end instants to be defined.

We can localise objects and motion by direct experience but not time and space. I therefore suggest that only motion and objects exist.

Of course this means most of physics is wrong and even the Schrodinger wave equation which uses position and time in it. As you say it looks like these scientists are using magic only but in some ways I don't think you have gone far enough criticising them.

marcus ramolefo said...

The author of the article contradicts himself when he says there is no such thing as continuity, at the same time he says only acceleration exists at the microscopic level. He also states that particles jump on discrete positions yet for a particle to get from one point to another acceleration away from the previous point and decceleration towards the next point is required. His statement goes "A
jump consists of two things: a positive acceleration
away from the position of origin and a negative
acceleration toward the destination". Given that, he uses continuity to explain the discreteness of the universe. In a discrete universe platform, it takes an instant to move from one point to another, acceleration is invalid. But why do we get different velocities? Because other particles stay longer on one point than others. Simple..

Louis Savain said...

marcus wrote: His statement goes "A
jump consists of two things: a positive acceleration
away from the position of origin and a negative
acceleration toward the destination". Given that, he uses continuity to explain the discreteness of the universe. In a discrete universe platform, it takes an instant to move from one point to another, acceleration is invalid. But why do we get different velocities? Because other particles stay longer on one point than others. Simple..


You have a valid point about the acceleration explanation but I was using it metaphorically to describe a discrete change in position. It cannot be explained as a non-accelerated change.

As far as your claim that the jump happens instantaneously, I completely disagree. Every discrete change in position lasts exactly 1 discrete fundamental interval. Otherwise, photons would move at infinite speed because they never rest.