Saturday, April 25, 2015

Motion and Time

Consider Motion

Motion refers to an object or a set of objects taking on a succession of locations. Notice right away that object (syn. thing, entity, etc.) is essential to the definition of motion. Without an object or set of objects motion is inconceivable. All objects of the Universe, all stars including all atoms are always taking on a succession of locations in relation to one another. They induce one another to move. A basic manner in which they accomplish this feat is by way of the fundamental object that connects them all and inheres to all atoms. Without this fundamental object motion, in terms of physics, would be impossible. Objects do not rely on an idea called space in order to move. We use the concept of space to conceive motion.  But in terms of reality, in a most basic analysis objects, specifically atoms, rely on a fundamental object always and everywhere, in order to assume a succession of locations.

We observe or imagine some of these objects and conceive thousands of modes in which they take on a succession of locations. This is a brain work, a conception, a thought, an intellection, (insert your synonym). A category we use to file our names for various modes of motion we conceived is called verb. Some examples of verbs are wave, jump, orbit, thrust, light, electricity, dilate, etc. A synonym for ‘verb’ is ‘moving relation’ or ‘dynamic concept’ or ‘event’ or ‘phenomenon’ ‘incident’ ‘happening’.

Consider that sense organs and brain, together working out a manner in which an object or set of objects assume two or more locations . . . references a motion performed by nerves, neurons, and ultimately atomic body and brain activity. We can call these activities perception and conception. And perhaps we could call an abstract ‘super’ verb which includes perception and conception happening via a set of organs working together in harmony: consciousness. Perception and conception is ultimately traced back to all the living objects of the body completing these motions in harmony. A central object harmonizing all the organs involved in the super verb called consciousness could be rooted somewhere in the brain

But, regardless of whether or not a human conceives motion, the stars, the moon, all atoms and fundamental objects mediating activity between all atoms . . . took on locations in relation to one another. Their collective succession of locations does not rely on our act of perceiving via sense organs or conceiving via brain or measuring or any other human activity. The stars, the Moon, all atoms had form, existed, had location and assumed countless locations in reference to one another prior to the arrival of the first human.

Consider Time

And once upon a time humans came along and they became infatuated with their own conceptions. Humans come and they conceive thousands of motions. And they begin to recall, forecast as well as rate successions of locations taken on by objects. This process is called time. Time refers to a brain process in which a human recalls or forecasts an object (or set of objects) taking on a succession of locations. The human may or may not choose to rate this succession in comparison to other motions in a variety of pre-defined scalar quantities and aid of tools. So we can also include the act of tracing and all sorts of other human tools in an abstraction of time.

But notice that time is of human origin. Before humans there were a collection of objects. They were always assuming locations in relation to one another. But after Adam and Eve there is suddenly this abstract concept called time. And worse, there creeps up inconsistent, confusing and contradictory philosophical systems about this notion called Time. Time is one of the great whores of the philosophers and of weak minds (space serving as the other one). If you don’t mind me using the figure of speech, space and time are like two breasts which the intellectual charlatans continually feed on. In the world we have a breed of baby men who have never undergone intellectual maturation. They are desperate to make adults take them seriously, so much so that they spend billions of dollars of other people’s money to verify irrational ideas.

But anyway, time refers to an abstraction which nests together concepts of motion and the act of memory. A human recalls an object or set of objects succession of locations. He may also conceptually forecast an object’s succession of locations. Each location is a still frame. And these are rapidly related together by the brain in a harmonious series of neural motions. Then a human may use various concepts and tools to rate this motion. And quite frankly he confuses the hell out of himself. And now there are devices to keep track of an object’s motion in relation to these pre-conceived scalar quantities such as year, day, hour, minute, etc. Even the atom is used to trace motion. But time is subjective. Add a human . . .he or she has the ability to conceive an object’s location in a still mental picture and then recall these together in a series. And then use an atom to rate. Yet, time refers to a process of the brain aided and abetted by pre-conceived scalar quantities, tracings, devices, etc. Time is subjective.

Time references our brain’s ability and complex to trace an object's succession of locations. One can recall or even forecast an object's (or set of objects) succession of locations via brain, sense organs, etc. That is all. Time is subjective. Maybe if one was moving at the speed of light (and miraculously remain alive) then one's brain would conceive an object's succession of locations differently than at the speeds we presently move on Earth. But this is all subjective. This subjective conception does not influence the objects in motion extraneous to the subject working this all out through his brain.

If an atom moves a little differently closer to the Earth than when it is further away from the Earth this has nothing to do with our subjective conception of Time. This has to do with a stated fact in assumption that at a location closer to Earth’s surface there is a greater numbers of fundamental mediators of light & gravity converging pursuant to inverse square laws. . . as opposed to further away from Earth’s surface, for example in orbit. These fundamental objects which serve as mediators of light and gravity may serve to increase the probability that a light or an electrical event will be turned out by the atom.  Or there may be a little more resistance to motion of the atom closer to the Earth's surface than further away.  However these incidents have nothing to do with a concept Time and everything to do with a fundamental object interconnecting and inhering to all atoms, as well as it's mechanics. This hypothetical object is not called time or space. Space and time or spacetime refer to abstract conceptions used by humans not objects in reality.

With the modern era a human’s conception called time is refined so much so that he or she may become confused over that which time refers to. Time refers to an abstract concept. Objects are constantly taking on two or more locations and the human works like a dog to recall or forecast these locations and rate them. So in the analysis of time we see a synthesis of two motions: motion of the brain and a motion of any or all objects of Mother Nature used by the brain in a conception. The objects used by the brain to work a memory are extraneous to the brain yet no less fundamentally connected. However thinking about them cannot possibly influence them other than in a basic manner of relaying light or electrical signals radially to encircling objects.

Because time refers to an abstract notion nesting together a series of motions performed by the human, time cannot possibly

a. move

To think or state that time moves is akin to thinking or saying that “motion moves”, “run jumps”, ‘fly walks”, “orbit thrusts”, “radiation radiates” etc. This sort of ontological contradiction can be called matterless motion.

and because time already references two motions time cannot possibly

b. induce a motion in relation to another object. Time cannot cause stars or atoms to move . . . nor can stars or atoms cause time to move. Time does not refer to an object. Time has no form, has no location, etc. Time refers to a higher order abstract concept come out of humans. Time began when Adam and Eve came along. Prior to Adam and Eve there was no time unless you are talking God and angels thinking about objects taking on a succession of locations.

So in summary time refers to an abstract concept. There is no existing object called time. Time has no form, no nature, no presence, etc. Time has never assumed a succession of locations. Time has never imparted a causal relation to another object or undergone a change effect from another object. Time is not a mediator or a medium. Time is not fundamental to all atoms. Atoms are not physically connected by this abstract concept called time. There is no arrow of time. This is make believe. Objects taking on a succession of locations precede concepts of motion and of time. Time is a higher order concept a motion of extraneous objects and a motion of our brains. Time refers to a mental construct. Time is ALL IN YOUR HEAD.  Time is all about thinking.  One can manipulate the hell out of an atom, but with time there is nothing to work with.

If I were to give advice I would say enjoy the idea and use it well. I enjoy songs about time, looking forward to a better future, science fiction, etc. But I don't let intellectual charlatans make me feel ignorant, dumb or lowly with their irrational, inconsistent and impossible descriptions of time. And I don't let others enslave me with their notions of time. When one comes to understand the difference between an object and a concept, an awakening occurs and then one begins to see how humans use concepts to enslave and manipulate others.

The English Word 'Consider'

The English word 'consider' may not seem like much and yet its word origin is pretty neat! The Latin is considerare. You break it up into 'con' + 'sider'.

'Con' is variation from the Latin 'com' or 'cum'. Literally: together, with, jointly, etc.

'Siderare' or 'sider' ultimately stems from the Latin 'sidius' meaning star group or constellation. The Latin 'sidereus' means star. And you get another English word 'sidereal' from this stem which literally means 'belonging to the stars'.

You mix 'con' and 'sider' so to get literally 'with the stars' or 'with the star group'.

So the idea is that when one performs the verb to consider, one thinks in a manner from above 'with the stars'. As if looking down from your majestic, lofty and detached brain!

Well hopefully!

Ontological Contradictions in Physics Communication (featuring Gravity)

An ontological contraction embodies a phrase or a statement in which the communicator unwittingly converts a concept into an object and assigns motion, causal relations or change effects to that concept. Unfortunately one finds many ontological contradictions in mainstream physics communication.

A classic example is the phrase "gravity pulls". Gravity pulled the apple to the Earth. What an innocent statement! And yet what an unlearned tongue! Gravity is a name referencing a relation between two objects namely the Earth and the apple. Our concept is worked out by the brain. Earth and apple both refer to objects. They have form. And they, i.e. Earth and apple are in a singular relation we conceived and named gravity.

Gravity refers to a concept, a relation of two or more objects: worked out by the brain. And we assume that all the atoms of the Universe are in an inseparable relation called gravity. This is why we modify gravity with 'universal'. But gravity does not refer to an object that could possibly perform causal relations or undergo change effects. There are no objects out there called gravity pulling on other objects such as Earth or apple. The Earth and the apple pull on each other. They are in a constant tension with one another that exponentially increases as their distance decreases. As an explanation it would seem that they do this by way of an assumed object or thing or entity that is inherent to all the atoms of the Universe. We can call this object a mediator or a nexus. We assume that it is there connecting Earth and apple, even all atoms to each other so that Earth and apple and all stars can complete this universal relation called gravity. This object is not discrete to the atom or a background to the atom, rather it is inherent, intrinsic, inseparable, fundamental, essential, constitutional (choose your synonym) TO THE ATOM AND ALL ATOMS. So much so that the atom literally takes on its form or derives its form from this SAME OBJECT. This object has many unique properties and behaviors that we could describe for example it is continuous, tense, rectilinear, the finest object in existence (tiniest width and height), inordinately long, has the ability to superpose while retaining its form. And this is somewhat a mystery. How an atom is held together and constantly reforms itself via this object is a great mystery described by fiendishly difficult mathematical ideas.

But the aim of this post is that only objects can enact causal relations such as gravity. In terms of Mother Nature and reality, gravity has never pulled a single object in the entire history of the Universe! Gravity refers to a causal relation between objects which perform the work via an assumed object which serves as mediator or nexus. The fact that so many use this redundant ontological contradictions such as "gravity pulls" reveals a lack of understanding. And there are many other examples. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Now you might smile and say that I am playing semantics games. However this use of language is alarming since we have no other way of reading minds. How else am I suppose to know what is happening in another person's brain unless I use his language and possibly his illustrations as criteria?