Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

# Thread: Motion Theory

1. ## Motion Theory

Greetings everyone,

I have been thinking lately, how is movement possible? Zenos' paradox involving Achilles and the tortoise revolves around the same question i believe. How can an object move, if the distance between any 2 different points can be divided to infinity? One solution i came up with a few years back was that, the infinite dissection of the physical universe or of space for that matter probably requires that the universe be infinite itself and that the fact that you CAN actually move from A to B proves that the nature of the universe is not related to infinity (my phrasing here is probably bad, but I hope you get what i mean. If you could rephrase it better, please do so).

But now, i came up with something even better (I think) although it makes reality much more complex than we are probably willing to accept. I am also having trouble phrasing this so i will go with the following example:

Look at image A

IMAGE A :

Now image B

IMAGE B :

The black box (or bullet) seems like it has moved and the red space behind it has been occupied by air, while the red front has been occupied the bullet molecules. But what if reality works like the electrons on your screen? We know that the back end of the bullet, that appears black on the first image and the red colored area on the second are the same electrons, only in the second image they give off a different color. The bullet has never moved in reality, but the electrons in the back and in the front have changed in a way that gives off the illusion of motion. What if when a real bullet is shot, the matter that we perceive as a bullet traveling, is in reality a chain of changing primordial matter? Assuming that all manifestation arises from ONE MATTER ALONE, and that this matter takes the clothing of all that is visible and invisible, it is logical that one thing could change into another. The space "occupied" by the air molecule, is a place where the PRIME MATTER exists with the form of that molecule and then swiftly changes into a lead molecule and then back into an air molecule. And that simple back and forth change happens for all so called "motion" in existence. The effects that we then perceive, like the slowing down of the bullet etc. are simply the laws or rules that this PRIME MATTER applies to itself to regulate or determine the velocity of the change.

What do you think about it, I would love to hear your thoughts. I would go on with this but unfortunately I lost my train of thought. I also think that this second explanation, if plausible at all requires us to admit that information is non matter related and travels INSTANTLY from one place to another, thus being OUT OF SPACE in a way. I don't recall how i concluded there but I hope I will.
Last edited by Andro; 05-10-2017 at 06:58 PM. Reason: Pix Fix

2. Originally Posted by Amon
How can an object move, if the distance between any 2 different points can be divided to infinity?
Maybe this proves that the physical distance is "quantized" (contrary to the "mathematical" distance that can be divided infinitely).

On the idea that movement can be explained as a changing of a medium and it is not "real" movement:

In the previous century the aether theory was predominant. Light was explained as waves of aether and not as particles moving. You propose that movement of matter can be explained as aether changing as I understand it.

Can you explain the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment (length contraction) with this theory? Why would a "moving" matter in that medium contract in length. Why would it never reach the speed of the "aether waves".

What is the "inertial mass" and why we need to consume energy in order to accelerate something. Why "just moving" consumes no energy.

3. An interesting article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

Somewhere there, there is a theory postulating that the apparent mass of a body is
radiation bouncing around a cavity
It predicts the mass-energy relation and other effects. The theory is valid, it is just not used in modern times.

4. Originally Posted by theFool
Maybe this proves that the physical distance is "quantized" (contrary to the "mathematical" distance that can be divided infinitely).

On the idea that movement can be explained as a changing of a medium and it is not "real" movement:

In the previous century the aether theory was predominant. Light was explained as waves of aether and not as particles moving. You propose that movement of matter can be explained as aether changing as I understand it.

Can you explain the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment (length contraction) with this theory? Why would a "moving" matter in that medium contract in length. Why would it never reach the speed of the "aether waves".

What is the "inertial mass" and why we need to consume energy in order to accelerate something. Why "just moving" consumes no energy.
The Michelson-Morley experiment assumes aether acts like water or air if i recall correctly. My suggestion never attributed any such qualities to the aether. I am merely suggesting that all that we call motion is but an illusion and the true nature of it is a constantly changing prime matter (a.k.a. aether or whatever you want to call it).

5. 3 things puzzled the Ancient Greeks and some of their heirs:

1) Movement
2) The idea of Infinite
3) The idea of a beginning and an end.

The paradox of Zeno and Achilles and the Turtle is simply one example of the first two things that puzzled the Greeks.
Being myself a lover of Greek philosophy (LOL... I just found out how bizarre is the expression "a lover of philosophy"... because it can be translated as "a lover of the love for wisdom"), I find it amusing how this paradox kept on showing up.

The Sophist Gorgias somehow used a similar logic to demonstrate that the Universe doesn't exist. His logic was somehow:

-The universe always existed (uncreated universe) or it had a beginning (created universe)
If it is uncreated, then it makes no sense, because it doesn't have any beginning and something that doesn't have a beginning is nowhere.
If it is created, then it has a beginning, but it doesn't make sense either, because it means that something didn't exist and then it existed.

-The universe is either infinite or finite
if it is infinite, it has no limits, but if it has no limits it is nowhere, which is impossible.
if it is finite, then it has a limit and it is contained into something, but that something has to be infinite or be contained into something else, which doesn't make sense either.

So his conclusion was that the Universe can't exist. https://users.wfu.edu/~zulick/300/gorgias/negative.html

It is surprising how these ideas endured... Plotinus in his enneads, written more or less 600 years after the paradoxes of Zeno, still kept the same reasoning when he criticized the Christian Gnostics. The Christian Gnostics had the idea that there were 30 Aeons divided in 15 "couples", but one of them, Sophia, decided to create something (the Demiurge) without his couple and descended from "Heaven" to Earth. Plotinus has a big objection against such idea:
Sophia necessarily must have ALWAYS been in "Heaven"... or ALWAYS in the Earth, but the idea that she was in "Heaven" and then in Earth does not make sense. How can something be in one place and then in a different place??? (I adore both Plotinus and the Gnostics).

If we go to Zeno, maybe we should visit Gorgias too, who gets more radical in his first thesis (which is not simply the impossibility of movement, but the impossibility of the existence of the Universe). I mean his first thesis which is ontological (his other two thesis are gnoseological, but less related to this issue).

There have been mathematical, philosophical and physical solutions to the riddle. The one I like the most is the one by Herni Bergson.

Jean-Luc Godard stated: "Cinema is the truth twenty-four times per second" (24 frames per second was the standard for analog films).

Bergson disliked cinema, but he had his own reasons, he was very interested in movement and his idea was that movement can't be divided (thus cinema offered an "optical illusion" of movement, but it didn't show the reality of the movement). His idea involves that we have a historical confusion about what time is and that we give it a spatial representation, but that you can't divide time (except artificially, i.e, a clock divides time in seconds).