If we start with the premise that you can type an energy field and direction into an object and have it spring into acceleration - is that a feasible premise irrespective of time? — MikeL

Suppose you type in "100 m/s " ..... 100 m/s relative to what though?

You don't type that in. You type in North, 20,000.... Joules, and the energy field of the atoms is no longer symetrically distributed about the nucleus, but pulled North to an equivalent of 20,000 Joules or MeV or whatever the unit would be. This would cause the ball to suddenly leap into acceleration, only ceasing its acceleration when the energy field was restored.

hmmmm ... OK..... but do you really mean leaping into continuous acceleration or do you mean leaping to a steady velocity?

You guys really know your philosophy, but I'd like to add to this boundary question the idea of 0.9 repeater. It goes on for infinity, but it never reaches 1. Surely 1 is a fuzzy boundary that is not crossed. — MikeL

The boundary question is one of quantum interpretation. Quantum theory rejects the idea of a particle, and instead has replaced it with the concept of wave-particle. This is because quanta will sometimes act as a wave, and at other times will behave like a particle depending upon the nature of the measurement being performed. So there is no longer a concept of particle in quanta physics. There hasn't been such a thing in 100 years. It is more like a cloud that has no boundary. What's more, these quantum clouds appear to be entangled (continuous) and are able to act upon each other non-locally at a distance (laboratory observed at the molecular level).

The philosophical issue is that there is no longer is there a real material particle anywhere in quantum theory. If there is an objective-reality, the current evidence heavily favors that objective reality are probabilistic waves that act upon each other non-locally at a distance. In other words, no particle (probably wave perturbations manifest as particles), no determinism, no boundaries anywhere. This is the objective-reality. It is not an epistemological issue.

All this directly impacts the Zeno Paradox issues because not only philosophically but also ontologically one should jettison all notions of divisibility whether it be time or space. The arrow can never stop moving at a point in time. There is no such thing.

In regard to what appears to us as boundaries, you may consider it as areas of the universe that become more substantial (dense) and the recede to less substantial, back and forth maybe like shading in a drawing (which is actually a great analogy of what the substrate of the universe looks like).

It was a real pleasure making a complete fool of you, but honestly, even for a beginner it wasn't that difficult. I hope you are spending some time ruminating over your autobiography. As always, you have a choice.

Reality is a wave.

Fair point, we would need a time value on our input boxes, say 20000 joules over 5 seconds. It would be leaping into acceleration. Once the energy was used, the energy symmetry of the atom would restore and constant velocity would result.
The basic premise is that the asymmetry of the energy of the atom creates the acceleration. This asymmetry would be resisted by the atom, which wants a relatively more steady state, causing it to restore the field around itself evenly resulting thereafter in a constant velocity.
You could even argue that the inputted energy was converted to the Einsteinian mass in order to restore equilibrium, but lets see if we can get past the first step first.

Thanks Rich, that clears it up a fair bit actually - and adds a bit more confusion. :0

Philosophers need to distinguish between ontology and symbols. Math, words, music notes, etc. are symbols not the real thing. They don't even come close to representing the real thing. The best way I've learned to study the nature of nature is by direct observation (the arts are a terrific learning grounds), seeking patterns of differences within similarities and similarities within differences (Bohm on Creativity), and then via intuition (Bergson) create an image that makes sense. This is philosophy.

But if you wish, there is also academic philosophy which is sort of a logic game that can be fun, or there is scientific philosophy which is more or less a complete mess loaded with biases that apparently take at least 400 years or more to shake off. I'm not kidding.

Most of all, be patient, take your time, and do your own inspection of everything. The rewards for a great explorer are enormous.

we would need a time value on our input boxes, say 20000 joules over 5 seconds. — MikeL

The problem is that kinetic energy, being based on speed, is relative, because speeds are relative. You can't escape having to think about what the final speed is relative to!

I want to get to that Jake, for the time being though, I can't see how its prohibitive to the thought experiment. We can still imagine an asymmetry in the field creating an acceleration right?

Let me change tact here to try and get rid of some clutter I've been introducing.
Imagine a magnet in an electromagnetic field. We control the strength of the electromagnet causing the magnet to accelerate toward it.
Would you agree it is logically sound to suggest that perhaps there is an assymetry in the magnetic field of the magnet that is causing the magnetic block it to move toward the electromagnet?

I am troubled that the field represents both velocity and acceleration
....

Hi Jake, the field only represents the velocity in that at its zero displacement from centre, it has zero velocity. The field represents acceleration.

I see Mike ... well I have to confess that my interest must wane then, because the issue for me is what is motion, rather than acceleration.....

Hi Jake, this topic is going to in a lot of directions, including the nature of velocity, but I just want to get a baseline of agreement to build on. There's no point in building a house on a weak foundation.

Mike, if you stick with your original question as it relates to current particle theory v it may provide you with some interesting insights.

After reading “Relativity in a Nutshell – Abridged Version” I came away with some ideas that for years I have let ruminate, only giving expression to them in this forum now. That there are actually other people who are into this stuff is awesome.
Now, I’m no maths wiz, but have let reason and logic beat out a path through the years, that is probably filled with holes and contradictions or obvious and well known conclusions. But, hey, it helped kill time while waiting at the bus stop. So here goes the chain of logic, or part thereof. I’d appreciate it if you jumped in where you can and showed me why the logic doesn’t hold.

We know that when energy acts directionally on mass it causes acceleration. We know that when we release the energy input, constant velocity results (unless in some other interference field). The magnitude of this constant velocity is dependent on the point of release during the acceleration. The more acceleration it acquired the higher the release velocity. Thus as it continues on ad infinitum at this higher velocity relative to its buddy that didn’t get accelerated, it must be now be holding something inside it that makes it different to its buddy. We know its mass has increased because of the acceleration, so what happened?
There’s not much to play with for a non-quantum mechanist such as myself. We have mass and we have energy. We gave energy, the object acquired mass. Somewhere along the line the energy we gave was swapped for mass.

We know acceleration is a vector. The object doesn’t accelerate in all directions. The energy we gave it was directional. We acted on the atoms. We acted on the energy fields, directionally.
Is it not reasonable to suggest therefore that by adding energy and direction to the field of an atom we should be able to create an acceleration of the atom? Or that after releasing our own energy input, the energy field should restore and acceleration should stop? How about that restoration of the energy field stops the acceleration?
The object thereafter travels at constant velocity. Velocity isn’t affected by the removal of the energy input - it doesn’t dwindle down.

I think it is also reasonable to argue that the increased mass may have occurred in an attempt by the atom to restore the energy field by converting the excess energy to mass. The idea of Relativity is that acceleration is resisted.
The first little branch I want to snap off from this observation if you’ve made it this far with me is that: We have all these objects whizzing about in space at constant velocity relative to each other in different directions. Imagine the scenario that they are identical objects moving away from each other - by comparing the mass of two identical objects (arrows or balls), it should be possible to determine which object has the highest velocity relative to the other, which one is moving away the fastest.
If this is possible, it should be also be possible to create a hierarchy of energy states for identical objects and perhaps even come out with a baseline energy configuration (lowest mass), therefore grounding relativity at reference point (Uh oh, points again).

The second little branch would be that by observing the internal energy state of an object it should be possible to determine the magnitude and direction of acceleration of an object without actually calculating it over a distance. We don’t need observed motion.

The next part of this I want to discuss is Time and motion.
I also find it interesting that Time does not interact with objects of constant velocity (except maybe to age them). The bending of space, the creation of mass, all has to do with Time and acceleration, and it acts to shut the acceleration down.

Time treats constant velocity object and stationary objects the same. It leaves them alone. To Time, both are moving through Time at the same speed. You could argue that to Time, both could be either moving or not moving and it wouldn’t know the difference. It can’t differentiate. If this is the case, then Time can’t sense the traversal of Space (spacing). We could therefore surmise that all non-accelerating objects may exist in the same location relative to Time (a point).

It is not until you disturb the energy field of an object that Time sees it move. Perhaps to Time, a constant acceleration is akin to a constant velocity (this is a similar situation to that which occurs when we differentiate or integrate an x out of the equation).
Another way to look at it is: We know that to an accelerating object Time slows, so to Time, an accelerating object must move.

This different action of Time on identical objects (accelerating v non-accelerating), suggests that Time has more than one dimension. We (you and me) are receiving the watered down version of it that allows us to age as our systems break down, but the real action of Time is on acceleration.
Because it seems we can reach this state by supposing some differential or integration has occurred, it makes me wonder what else would appear or disappear if we did the same thing again at either one of these levels?

If acceleration is seen by Time as velocity, then what would be the equivalent of acceleration? If Time is a watered down version for us, then what is it if we water it down further? What disappears?


Just a short note on our previous discussion of time and its divisibility:

I've tried to think of infinitely sharp razors cutting the infinitely divisible time and it's got me nowhere, so like Rich suggested, I've jettisoned the idea for now.

But Time is continuous not like a flowing river, but like a piece of string. The stationary arrow or the shot arrow both move along the string at the same speed relative to Time (except when the arrow was accelerating). If I can swap out the stationary arrow, why can’t I swap out the moving arrow?

We know that when energy acts directionally on mass it causes acceleration. We know that when we release the energy input, constant velocity results (unless in some other interference field). The magnitude of this constant velocity is dependent on the point of release during the acceleration. The more acceleration it acquired the higher the release velocity. Thus as it continues on ad infinitum at this higher velocity relative to its buddy that didn’t get accelerated, it must be now be holding something inside it that makes it different to its buddy. We know its mass has increased because of the acceleration, so what happened?
There’s not much to play with for a non-quantum mechanist such as myself. We have mass and we have energy. We gave energy, the object acquired mass. Somewhere along the line the energy we gave was swapped for mass. — MikeL

Let me put this in Newtonian terms so that I can understand. To begin with, it is not energy which acts on the object, it is force. The amount of force is equivalent to mass times acceleration. At a constant velocity the object has momentum, which is mass times velocity. If you insist on saying that the object must "now be holding something inside", when it has momentum, you could say that it has kinetic energy. But you could just say that it's holding momentum inside. How do you conclude that acceleration causes the mass of the object to increase?

https://futurism.com/why-do-objects-increase-in-mass-as-they-get-faster-2/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-energy-and-force.7356/

Fair enough. You could say it is holding momentum, kinetic energy, a Jedi Forcefield. I don't care. What is it? Can you point inside the atoms and say, other there is the kinetic energy?

These terms describe properties of the moving object. They don't explain the object itself.

If you are interested in a deeper level explanation of inertial motion, then the standard physics route is spelt out by Noether's theorem.

Note that both constant motion in a straight line is inertial, and so is a steady rotation. And both reflect the basic symmetries of space - translations and rotations. So energy is conserved - it costs nothing to keep on moving forever in these ways - as essentially the motions make no difference in the world. They look the same if you somehow shifted your moving line or spinning point a little to the left or right. That is, it is all Galilean relative. It could be that the background spatial frame moved as a whole rather than your line or dot.

So inertial motion is intimately connected to the fundamental fact of symmetry maths that differences that don't make a difference ... well, don't make a difference. They are cost less or energy conserving. The rolling ball can roll forever, the spinning top can spin forever, as really - within their inertial frame - no one can tell which is really moving, the ball/top or the space that is the background. It is all (Galileanly) relative.

it should be possible to determine which object has the highest velocity relative to the other, which one is moving away the fastest.
If this is possible, it should be also be possible to create a hierarchy of energy states for identical objects and perhaps even come out with a baseline energy configuration (lowest mass), therefore grounding relativity at reference point — MikeL

Nice try to restore classical physics but space and time don't work like that in the large. Locally, and relative to one observer - yes. I am a beginner on relativity, but I think it is essential to try and grasp what the implications for space and time not being absolute are. (Bertie Russell does a good job IMO in one of his Sceptical Essays - the one called "Philosophy in the 20th century). It's a tricky journey and I am still making it!

If you are interested in a deeper level explanation of inertial motion, then the standard physics route is spelt out by Noether's theorem. — apokrisis

It's a useful insight i guess but doesn't really help explain whether velocity is intrinsically encoded within an object, rather than measured as an effect over time.

I will certainly check out those references. I am building quite a long list of things to check out, thanks to these discussions.

I had a quick look at Noether's theorem on YouTube, and I don't think my ideas violate any conservation rules. And I realise that mass increase is relative to the observer, but everyone is the observer, which means it mass increased, period.

I as of yet can't see why my logic doesn't hold.

And I realise that mass increase is relative to the observer, but everyone is the observer, which means it mass increased, period. — MikeL

You may not realize it, but you have hit upon the reason Special Relativity has no ontological relevance. There is no Twin Paradox because there is no preferred frame of reference.

This may make no sense to you right now, because you are beginning your investigations. Just remember your insight because it is on the right track. In a nutshell, Relativity addresses transformation of measurements and its description of space and time are not real space and time. They are only symbolic. Just remember this. I think it may be too early for you to entirely grasp it.

It's all relative as they say. Motion doesn't make sense without space and time, and space and time don't make sense without motion.

That is why symmetry principles are the deeper level of explanation for physics. It is about the very way a symmetry could even be broken.

The simplest notion of space has those two irreducible symmetries - translations and rotations. Those define the motions that don't make a (relative) difference in the global scheme of things. They are inertial and energy conserving. And so they are the baseline of any action.

The misconception probably at work in this thread is the usual folk physics idea that the natural state of things is to be at rest. You start by assuming stillness to be the rule, motion to be the exception. No motion without a cause, as Aristotle famously argued.

But since Newton made it explicit, any "rest" or zero velocity is just a relative state of inertial motion. To see a body as standing still is an observation that requires fixing the global context that could make it so.

It is like watching a car go past. I can make that car stationary relative to me by running just as fast alongside it. A lack of motion is just a point of view.

This then became really obvious after mechanics was relativised and spacetime united. It was shown that lightspeed was an upper bound on motion. So rest became relative to c. That is, scaled by 1/c.

The idea of "being at absolute rest" as the baseline metaphysical condition of things has been replaced by the understanding that rest is just another relative state of motion. It is the least amount of motion possible, just like c is the most, for any object with inertial mass.

So the invariance people sought in the concept of absolute rest is now found in the more basic question of what could even disturb the state of a spatiotemporal system in a way that is detectable. And translations and rotations are intrinsically undetectable. You can't look at a point and tell if it is spinning or moving, or instead, if it is standing still and you are the one doing the moving and the rotating.

It now takes an acceleration - some relative energy change - for this symmetry between an observer and the observed to be broken in a way both can experience.

Fair enough. You could say it is holding momentum, kinetic energy, a Jedi Forcefield. I don't care. What is it? Can you point inside the atoms and say, other there is the kinetic energy? — MikeL

OK, here is one way of looking at this: "The object has momentum". Here is another way of looking at this: "The object has kinetic energy". Each of these is a statement which relays information about the object. It is not necessary to believe that the information is intrinsic to the object, because the information is purely conceptual. In one case the information concerns the concept of "momentum" and in the other case it is the concept of "kinetic energy". Each of these is a concept within human minds, "momentum" and "kinetic energy", so it would appear that it is impossible that this information is inherent within the object,

However, it may be the case that the "object" itself is purely conceptual. Then we would have to say that the concept "object" inheres within the concept of "momentum", and also within the concept of "kinetic energy". Whenever we refer to momentum or kinetic energy it is implied that there is an object which has this property. So we can say that "object" is within the definition of "momentum", and "kinetic energy", just like "animal" is within "man". This is Aristotelian logic. Object is within kinetic energy like animal is within man.

Thanks guys, time to hit the books for a while.

Motion doesn't make sense without space and time, and space and time don't make sense without motion. — apokrisis

Is that physics or metaphysics, may I ask? I mean, it is possible from string theory to have universes of space without time I believe ... and 4 dimensional universes with 2 dimensions of time ...

It is the metaphysics of physics.