Motion doesn't exist just reference frames of space

This goes back to the days of Zeno and Parmenides. I tend to agree with them. I think the only thing that moves is light and everything else is reference frames relative to the speed of light.

Light is extremely fast and it truly shows you how vast space is. The closest star, besides our sun, is Alpha Centauri which is 4.37 light years away or over 24 trillion miles away.

I think light is so fast that it gives us different reference frames of objects in space relative to the speed of light that we see these different reference frames as motion. Light just projects these different reference frames at a speed that makes them appear to be continuous. It's like the projector at the movies and each frame is motionless but when there projected at a certain rate per second they appear like they're flowing.

It's like light contains a scrapbook of every reference frame of space relative to the speed of light. We select one of these reference frames so we're living moment to moment. When you look at an object, light is projecting different reference frames of the object and these different reference frames are occuring so rapidly that we think that the object is moving but it's not.

Say you're at bat in a baseball game. There are 4 pictures lying on the table. First one you strike out, second one you get a base hit, third one you bunt the ball and the fourth on the catcher drops the ball. Light projects each reference frame so there's a wave of probable things that can happen. Say you get a bunt. This is like a snapshot of one of these reference frames.

So our worldine is like snapshot, snapshot, snaphot that comes from the scrapbook of light which contains every reference frame of an object in space relative to the speed of light. This would also mean that there should be twin earths or twin galaxy's where these other reference frames are occuring. We just don't see them because space is so vast.

Interesting little.. post.
Now with this, try to think of the concept of what the snapshot is, or what the concept of the scrapbook is.

To say that it's a piece in the scrap book is great, but how do we move on from there? Could we possibly reflect certain images into a loop chamber that will spiral forever and ever until we need it (kind of freeze it till we can use it) then when we have the technology to travel on light or in it, or send stuff into it, could we do something like that?
Well i don't think so, as the image reflected would have changed, or altered to a point where we cannot salvage it.

Funny thing light is. Light, space, time.

Anyways i think you're just putting into words some sort of.. well just trying to word an experience.
Yes every thing we see is a point in time (scrapbook) that is showing us that piece, there is no "One frame" however. That frame would have to contain infinite frames within that frame. My blink of an eye wouldn't capture a frame of light, it'd capture a (estimate) .3 second frame which could infinity be divided.

What would be interesting is to see an atom moving at the smallest frame possible with technology (similar to how we achieve absolute zero degrees, it's not the coldest, but it sure is the closest we can get. Or watching atoms split apart when collided together.

I think what i was trying to get at is, there is motion. The reference of frame to space is impossible as there is infinity smaller and smaller frames of reference.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Very cool concept!

But about this...

Say you're at bat in a baseball game. There are 4 pictures lying on the table. First one you strike out, second one you get a base hit, third one you bunt the ball and the fourth on the catcher drops the ball. Light projects each reference frame so there's a wave of probable things that can happen. Say you get a bunt. This is like a snapshot of one of these reference frames.

...why does it hurt when the ball appears to smack you in the face, if it's not really moving? And why does someone bleed when a bullet appears to tear their flesh, if it's not really moving?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Someone's been watching Through the Wormhole.

reply to post by new_here


Because if i remember correctly,light is controlled by (is sacred geometry terms) the spirit..a force or intelligence if you will,providing everything else the light cant..

Or i maybe wrong,its merely only a theory

indeed an interesting concept.
but what about momentum.
what is kinetic energy.
still interesting though

reply to post by Anttyk47


Good points, you said:

I think what i was trying to get at is, there is motion. The reference of frame to space is impossible as there is infinity smaller and smaller frames of reference.

I think there would be a smallest frame of reference and even the smallest particle would be separated by a planck's length of space. This would give everything relative size and distance and that's why I think the 3rd dimension is an illusion but that's another thread.

reply to post by new_here


Thanks and that's an interesting question. You said:

why does it hurt when the ball appears to smack you in the face, if it's not really moving? And why does someone bleed when a bullet appears to tear their flesh, if it's not really moving?

I suspect it's because nothing ever touches. Nobody has ever touched matter, the electrons from a hard table or a soft pillow just repel against the electrons from your hand and you percieve a hard or soft force. So when these reference frames gets close i.e. the reference frame of the ball and your face, you feel a force that could be strong enough to really hurt.

Think about a pitcher throwing a ball. At each point in space the ball is at rest, so there's no motion. Light is moving so fast, it projects a thousand different reference frames for the ball. So the motionless ball appears to be moving but the only things that's changing is the reference frame between you and the ball relative to the speed of light. Out of a thousand different reference frames we may only see 10 and those 10 we call "reality." So from our perspective it's strike 3 but from the perspective of light it's a base hit, a homerun, a fly ball and more.

reply to post by TV_Nation



I really like Through the Wormhole although I had some of these ideas before I saw any of these new episodes.

I used to walk from my apartment to the store across the street and I would always watch the moon as it followed me across the street. Now I know the moon isn't following me but I thought that each step I take must give me a different frame of reference between me and the moon.

I then thought about the speed of light and light can travel 24 trillion miles in 4 years. So I thought, what if light is constantly changing the frame of reference of everything and nothing is really moving. So I'm not changing the reference frame between me and the moon, light is changing it. I then saw Through the Wormhole and I was glad to see I wasn't going nutty because other people had similar ideas.

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
indeed an interesting concept.
but what about momentum.
what is kinetic energy.
still interesting though

I agree.

With respect to the OP, calculus seems to prove this as false though.

A conundrum given to first year maths students is "Zeno's paradox" to explain limits.

This is from wikipedia and explains it pretty well...

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 metres. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 metres. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.

en.wikipedia.org...

Theoretically Achilles can never out run the tortoise but in reality, we know that this doesn't happen.

Still an interesting post though....S&F

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Thanks and that's an interesting question. You said:

why does it hurt when the ball appears to smack you in the face, if it's not really moving? And why does someone bleed when a bullet appears to tear their flesh, if it's not really moving?



I suspect it's because nothing ever touches. Nobody has ever touched matter, the electrons from a hard table or a soft pillow just repel against the electrons from your hand and you percieve a hard or soft force. So when these reference frames gets close i.e. the reference frame of the ball and your face, you feel a force that could be strong enough to really hurt.

Think about a pitcher throwing a ball. At each point in space the ball is at rest, so there's no motion. Light is moving so fast, it projects a thousand different reference frames for the ball. So the motionless ball appears to be moving but the only things that's changing is the reference frame between you and the ball relative to the speed of light. Out of a thousand different reference frames we may only see 10 and those 10 we call "reality." So from our perspective it's strike 3 but from the perspective of light it's a base hit, a homerun, a fly ball and more.

This concept you're talking about really resonates with me, and that's why I keep challenging you with questions. I love the part about the electrons repelling and creating a force we feel when we "touch" something. But what about eating a piece of brocolli. It enters our digestive tract, no? It must move.

Also, back to the pitcher throwing the baseball... the ball is in his hand, then it's traveling, then it either gets smacked by the bat, or missed, so surely the baseball is in motion??? (I was always the kind of student who made teachers pull their hair out b/c of my 'but what about...' questions when I was on the verge of grasping a cool concept. Can you tell? Do you have any hair left? LoL

Edit to add: ...or is the baseball always everywhere, and THAT is the 4th dimension???

Originally posted by Winged-Sphinx
reply to post by new_here

 

"Because if i remember correctly,light is controlled by (in sacred geometry terms) the spirit..a force or intelligence if you will..."

That is... really... intriguing.

Can you recommend some links to read about 'sacred geometry' ? I mean, I could google it, but not sure what the reliable ones may be. Would you suggest wikipedia?

Thanks for catching on...

reply to post by Matrix Rising
Ok, now I'm really about to get annoying...

About this...

So I thought, what if light is constantly changing the frame of reference of everything and nothing is really moving. So I'm not changing the reference frame between me and the moon, light is changing it. "

WHAT IF... Light is always and forever pervasive, completely static/never moving, but infuses everything else with intense energy to zoom all around IT at the 'speed of light.' Talk about frame of reference. Also, I just made my brain hurt.

Very interesting post. I'm wondering however, if our present understanding of mathematics has an answer for this. The reason I say this is that when I was in prison, there was a story going around about some guys who had pulled off a scam using math. They had eventually gotten caught and were serving time. The inmates told the story like this...
There were three salesmen going to a convention, and to save money, they decided to share a room at a motel. The clerk told them the room was 30 dollars, so each salesman gave the clerk 10 dollars. A little later, the clerk realized that it was Tuesday, and rooms were discounted on Tuesdays to 25 dollars. He told his assistant to take 5 one dollar bills to the salesman's room and explain the situation, refunding the 5 dollars. The salesman decided that because they couldn't split the 5 dollars equally, they would keep one dollar each and give the other two dollars to the assistant as a tip.
Each salesman originally spent ten dollars each for a total of thirty dollars. After receiving one dollar each back, they had spent only nine dollars each. 3 times 9 is 27, plus the two dollar tip equals 29 dollars. What happened to the other dollar. It's said these guys made a fortune fooling people with this scam. I don't honestly know that it's true, but it does show how average people can be fooled with mathematics.
I hope there is someone out there who has a greater understanding of the mathematics of motion, but I can assure you that it's not me.

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
Very interesting post. I'm wondering however, if our present understanding of mathematics has an answer for this. The reason I say this is that when I was in prison, there was a story going around about some guys who had pulled off a scam using math. They had eventually gotten caught and were serving time. The inmates told the story like this...
There were three salesmen going to a convention, and to save money, they decided to share a room at a motel. The clerk told them the room was 30 dollars, so each salesman gave the clerk 10 dollars. A little later, the clerk realized that it was Tuesday, and rooms were discounted on Tuesdays to 25 dollars. He told his assistant to take 5 one dollar bills to the salesman's room and explain the situation, refunding the 5 dollars. The salesman decided that because they couldn't split the 5 dollars equally, they would keep one dollar each and give the other two dollars to the assistant as a tip.
Each salesman originally spent ten dollars each for a total of thirty dollars. After receiving one dollar each back, they had spent only nine dollars each. 3 times 9 is 27, plus the two dollar tip equals 29 dollars. What happened to the other dollar. It's said these guys made a fortune fooling people with this scam. I don't honestly know that it's true, but it does show how average people can be fooled with mathematics.
I hope there is someone out there who has a greater understanding of the mathematics of motion, but I can assure you that it's not me.

They spent 27 dollars, two of which went to the assistant. 27 - 2 = 25. They've paid the $25 dollars, and the two other dollars went as tip. The way it's worded makes it confusing.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I think light is so fast that it gives us different reference frames of objects in space relative to the speed of light that we see these different reference frames as motion.

It’s a little difficult to understand what you’re saying here unless we know what you mean by a frame of reference. Could you explain, please, in your own words? Please don’t point us to a link; it’s your definition we need, not a standard scientific one, which would not be helpful here.

I don't want to sound dense, but I don't understand. Are you saying that our sense of sight takes place at a still point and everything around us is a movie which changes as some other thing changes its speed relative to the speed of light, or that the reality around us is a constant and that our perceptions of it change as our 'sense of sight' moves relative to that constant reality? Or maybe neither of those? Sorry for the confusion! It sounded like an interesting concept, so I wanted to understand it.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I have a few fundamental issues of "motion" being non-existant...

1) if motion doesn't exist then how would a light photon MOVE through space for anyone or anything to even percieve?

2) if motion doesn't exist then what happens to the "concept" of energy and how can you rework it into existence without considering the movement of mass through space ie: MOTION


Questions:

If object (A) is travelling the speed of light in a direction opposite of object (B), and object (B) is also traveling light speed in the opposite direction of (A) what speed do the objects experience?

Isn't light just a reflection? as in the moon gives off no photons of its own that it doesn't reflect from the sun. since light then is a reflection how could it "contain" any information OTHER than what it origionally bounced off of?? In other words how could the light coming from alpha cent contain any information other than what its truly looks like?

Don't get me wrong I don't believe in a "linear" universe...just a "linear" experience of a "dynamic" universe.

Nothing moves as everything is everywhere at the same time, but time is just an illusion.

There is nowhere to go because you, it, we are already there. It is full already. Full as an egg.

Energy is the essence of activity but as this world is cursed with dualism and separation, we view this as ''motion'' .

Originally posted by Beyond Creation

Nothing moves as everything is everywhere at the same time, but time is just an illusion.

There is nowhere to go because you, it, we are already there. It is full already. Full as an egg.

Energy is the essence of activity but as this world is cursed with dualism and separation, we view this as ''motion'' .

Sort of like neurons firing in the brain? The brain is full of everything it knows, but thought travels (like light travels) in a linear-like, if branching, direction. I wonder... if every single neuron of brain-knowledge fired at once, would we see past, present, future and all experiences/possibilities at once, or just have a mental breakdown, lol.

Man, this thread is deep.

I have just started reading a free book on physics Motion Mountain, this has only been touched on slightly.

All methods for the definition of time are thus based on comparisons of motions.
In order to make the concept as precise and as useful as possible, a standard reference
motion is chosen, and with it a standard sequence and a standard duration is defined.
The device that performs this task is called a clock. We can thus answer the question of
the section title:

⊳ Time is what we read from a clock.

Note that all definitions of time used in the various branches of physics are equivalent
to this one; no ‘deeper’ or more fundamental definition is possible.** Note that the word
‘moment’ is indeed derived from the word ‘movement’. Language follows physics in this
case. Astonishingly, the definition of time just given is final; it will never be changed,
not even at the top of Motion Mountain. This is surprising at first sight, because many
bookshave beenwrittenonthe nature of time. Instead, they should investigate thenature
of motion! But this is the aim of our walk anyhow. We are thus set to discover all the
secrets of time as a side result of our adventure. Every clock reminds us that in order to
understand time, we need to understand motion.
A clock is thus a moving systemwhose position can be read. Of course, a precise clock
is a system moving as regularly as possible, with as little outside disturbance as possible.
Is there a perfect clock in nature? Do clocks exist at all? We will continue to study these
questions throughout this work and eventually reach a surprising conclusion. At this
point, however, we state a simple intermediate result: since clocks do exist, somehow
Challenge 38 s there is in nature an intrinsic, natural and ideal way to measure time. Can you see it?

The answer is light so goes with this thread somewhat

It seems Physics would say it is time that does not exist, only motion. Without motion, there is no time. Think about it.

Do you know how small those frames would have to be?

Shortest measurable time 10−44 s = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds
Shortest time ever measured 10 ys = 0.000000000000000000000001 seconds (ys = 10 - 24s)
Time for light to cross a typical atom 0.1 to 10 as (as = 10 -18s)
Shortest laser light pulse produced so far 200 as

You should read this book, these sort of problems are abound.

You have a theory, how would you test it?