Natural Philosophy

TIME and MOTION

2009-02-22T10:56:00.000-08:00

This essay will premise that TIME is nothing more than uniform MOTION. I argue that our current theory of TIME is wrong and that DURATION is impossible. I will explain that there is no such concept as TIME that could be a unique “Dimension” or define “Duration”. That TIME is just a miss-interpretation of the Earth’s rotation motion used in our attempts to relate a myriad of random and non-uniform motions.
In current physical theory and everyday practice, TIME is considered a fundamental property of the universe, without even being rigorously defined. As a “given” property of existence it is not properly scrutinized in its function. Length, mass, and TIME have been rendered relative and not absolute, by Einstein. This paper seeks to explain that TIME is not some universal dimension, but rather it is just a metric, similar to length and mass. In fact, TIME is simply the metric of motion; just as length is the metric of displacement and mass is the metric of inertia. The attributes of TIME are also attributes of motion, because TIME is derived from and limited to relationships with uniform motion.
The abundance of motions in our daily lives, many of which are routine and sequential, while others appear random and unrelated, cause us to believe that all of these motions should be related to each other through some universal property that envelopes all of Creation. And that such a property would be separate from our scientific calculations regarding such motions. This need arises from our concepts of rest, duration, inertial motion, acceleration, and deceleration as will be explained further on.
So we build an instrument to do the simple task of demonstrating a standard uniform motion, and we cause this instrument to record its accruing motion in some manner, which we then calibrate to mimic the Earth’s rotation motion. Since this instrument accomplishes no other task, but to move uniformly, we call it a clock and say it is measuring time. We then declare this TIME that we claim to be measuring, to be a universal property of nature and a separate dimension, though we have yet to define it meaningfully. We are violating Occam’s razor, because we are inventing a TIME concept that is unnecessary and confusing. Our motion-clock is not measuring Time; rather it is measuring Motion, its own Motion. That is why it confuses us, we are taught to think that it is measuring something separate from its own internal motion. Time is a human psychological creation arising from ignorance of a moving Earth in the past and ignorance of the workings of clocks today.
The construction and use of clocks does not give evidence that “Time” or “Duration” exist. Clock motions only suggest that relatively uniform motions exist and may be used to relate other uniform motions and all non-uniform motions to each other, through their relationship with our DEFINED uniform clock motion. After all, we use standard lengths to measure and compare all other lengths, and we use standard masses to measure and compare all other masses. Likewise, we use standard motions to measure and compare all other motions. We use clocks to measure relative motions; i.e., everything except the rotation of the Earth.
We have to be taught that the Sun does not rise in the East and set in the West, it is the Earth that rotates. And the Sun does not move annually amongst the stars and galaxies, it is the Earth that revolves about the Sun. Time is as erroneous as our common miss-perceptions of the relative motions of the Sun and stars as we commonly view them. Our sense of time is partly a presumption of existence without continuous motion (duration), from the days when the Earth was thought to be stationary. As uniform cyclic motions occur and re-occur we regulate our own motions to them, not being sufficiently aware that here on Earth it is only the Earth’s rotation and revolution motions that defines our days and years.
Because we move in a relatively uniform manner when we walk, or ride in a car, train, ship or plane; we are motion-clocks and we are constantly translating our own relatively uniform motion into comparisons with all of the relatively uniform motions going on around us. All of these motion-clocks create an illusion of connectedness for our activities, as well as rest, which is so powerful it begged for a name. We call it TIME and thereby limit our knowledge and understanding of what is. Though everything is connected to everything else via the interaction and exchange of motions, we do not correctly comprehend the relationship of motions defining and quantifying other motions. The universe is simpler than we are describing, because of the complications created by the application of the fictitious concept of TIME.
The concepts of “past” and “future” that we associate with fictitious time are just mental constructions associated with the memory of motions. The past is memories of a continuum of motion, sequentially related to the motions of the present. The future is an expectation of the continuance of motions that will become the present and connect with the past. The separation between past and future is the smallest increment of change that can be recorded in any motion. We can surmise that only the present exists and we can make our perception of the present as thin as we feel comfortable doing.
There are no absolute metrics in our universe. We know that length and mass are relative to frames of reference, but even more fundamentally, we do not know the length or mass of any object in an absolute sense. We can only know them in a relative sense. Every measured quantity is relative to a finite standard that is defined but not measurable; such that by definition, a Standard Metric is simply one (1) unit of Mass or Length or Motion.
Consider the standard meter and kilogram, by which we calibrate our instruments to measure and weigh all that surrounds us. The meter was initially defined as the distance between two marks on a metal rod kept in France. What is not obvious is that although any length may be measured to great accuracy as a part of, or a multiple of, this standard meter; we do not know, nor can we ever know, how long a meter is. We have created a random length and defined it to be one (1) unit of length, which we have come to call a METER. We have not and cannot measure it in an absolute sense. Since it is not possible to know the absolute length of the standard meter, it is not possible to know the absolute lengths or distances of objects and places in the Universe. We can determine how finite something is by comparing it with our defined unit of finite length.
Similarly for mass, we have taken a finite lump of earth and defined it to be one (1) unit of mass, which we call the standard kilogram. Through balance scales we can create duplicates, as well as measure the relative mass of all objects. But we must understand that we do not know, nor can we know, the mass of the standard kilogram. Similar to length, we can measure relative mass to a great accuracy, but we cannot measure any mass in an absolute sense, because the mass of our standard kilogram is unknown, outside of our definition (one kilogram).
We certainly have a sense of length with respect to our Standard Meter and a sense of mass with respect to our Standard Kilogram, and we constantly use these senses to estimate relative displacements and masses in our environment. Though it seems strange to view one meter as an unknown length, or one kilogram as an unknown mass, we must remember that when we measure distances, or sizes, or masses we do so in relationships wherein we seek to determine the difference in distance or size or mass of two or more objects, as well as changes in distance, or size, or mass. Since change is the focus of most of our inquiries, the standards by which we measure such changes do not need to be measurable in any isolated or absolute sense. Similarly for motions, we compare motions and changes in motion in a relative sense of change, and not in any absolute sense. There are no absolute scales of measure, because such scales are both impossible and unnecessary.
I am not saying that we are in error to define a standard length and mass, or that our standards lack precision in our earthly environment. Obviously we comprehend the function and applications of these standards in our societies, for the purposes of comparing relative size. The unhappy consequence of defining any fundamental characteristic is that we may only quantify it as an identity to itself. The standard meter is ONE meter; the standard kilogram is ONE kilogram. It would make no sense to try to measure a standard by a copy of itself or any other defined standard. They are not comparable to anything that could quantify them in an absolute sense.
Likewise for time, we define our days in terms of the motion of the rotating Earth, while we know nothing, in an absolute sense, about the Earth’s rotation. But then we also define time to be some universal property separate from the unknowable motion of our rotating Earth. In our calculations involving TIME as motion we use the comparable motion of the Earth’s rotation camouflaged in clocks, while in our descriptive verbiage about Time we use some confusing ideas that suggest a universal property or dimension.
Our current notion of time is a miss-interpretation of one particular motion as a measuring devise for phenomena that we believe is different from motion. To believe that our clocks can do anything but move in a uniform manner, or measure anything but their own motions, is to ignore the limitations of our construction. We have chosen the Earth’s rotation to be our most fundamental clock, to fulfill the social need of quantifying day, night and our activities. The Earth’s rotation motion is easily converted into a portion or multiple of any other uniform motion, and it can be used to measure random motions, or to measure the apparent duration of objects while they appear not to move. This makes the Earth’s rotation our (Identity) metric for all other motions.
Consider the story about the clock-maker and the factory foreman. Each day the factory foreman would pass the clock-maker’s store and set his watch to read the same as those showing in the window, so that he might start and stop the workers at the correct time. Little did the foreman know that the clock-maker would check and reset his clocks each day when the noon whistle blew at the factory. The motions of their respective clocks were relevant to their labors and reposes, but their clock motions were completely irrelevant to any perception of a universal dimension that we want to call time. If either the foreman’s clock or the clock-maker’s window clocks were operating faster or slower than the Earth’s rotation, it would become apparent to the community that the factory was beginning work earlier and earlier, with respect to the Earth’s rotation, if these clocks were fast; or later and later if they were slow. A simple Sundial would have to be used, along with its seasonal correction formula, to re-calibrate (synchronize) the community’s uniform motion clocks back to simulating the Earth’s rotation motion.
Motion only relates to motion. The verification of the quantity of motion of our clocks and the uniformity of that motion is limited to comparison with a chosen motion that cannot be calibrated in and of itself. Clock-makers are only privy to other error-prone motion-clocks to calibrate their clocks. The current use of atomic clocks or pulsars in space to obtain more uniform motion than the Earth’s rotation, allows us to relate motions with greater precision, but such precision does not create a dimension of time, it only provides a more consistent standard of motion for use in science. Even our atomic clocks are adjusted to remain in sync with the Earth’s slowly changing rotations. The more accurate motion-clock is changed to mimic the less accurate but unalterable standard motion-clock (the rotation of the Earth).
In science we use the concept of time to relate motions, displacements, and the forces that cause them, in a sequential manner with varying intervals of time (Earth rotation) between selected and defined events. There is no clock anywhere, no matter how crude or sophisticated, which is not simply some uniform motion and nothing else. So what we call Time is just motion, and not something separate from motion.
Science measures motions, whether it is astronomical, atomic, biological, or geological motion; and science uses motion clocks to measure, catalogue, and relate all of these other motions. But science does not use any dimension of time, or a concept of something “passing” to permit the false-concept of duration to be measured. Duration is the mother of the concept of universal time. But duration is also a myth. Nothing is at rest in any knowable universal reference frame and therefore nothing could enjoy duration. Change is omnipresent and omnipotent. To understand and predict motion and changes is to be omniscient.
An analogy that helps me understand our miss-perception regarding time goes as follows. Objects in a totally darkened room can be said to have no shadow. When we illuminate an object in this room with a light, such as a flashlight, our object reveals its shape to us for the part that is illuminated. It also illuminates a portion of the floor and/or walls and/or ceiling around our object, such that our object casts a shadow against that background, of a shape that is directly or by perspective the same shape as the illuminated portion of our object. This shadow is not real, it is not part of our object, it does not tell us anything about our object. It only tells us something about the walls and floor and ceiling, and it would not even appear to our sight if it were not for the presence of the floor and walls and ceiling. Our current notion of time is very much like this type of shadow. Because we use standard uniform motions to compare a myriad of extraneous activities and events going on around us, and because these uniform motions are continuous, such that they allow the measure of any and all events and activities before and after the event being studied. These extraneous activities (uncategorized motions) are like the floor and walls and ceiling in our darkened room, they give a backdrop against which a motion shadow appears while our events being measured are happening. It is this motion shadow that we have come to call time. But like other shadows, it does not exist, and is therefore not a part of our happenings. If we had no seemingly static objects or extraneous events going on in our laboratories, surrounding our experiments and our lives, there would be no backdrop of seemingly static and extraneous clutter to reflect the spurious relationship of our uniform motion clock to that clutter. Without that background, an event is only measurable by another event (motion of our clock), and no sense of duration (Time) could be established for any part of that system.
Of all of the machines we build, clocks are somewhat of a paradox. Because they do nothing but move uniformly, which allows us to more rigidly synchronize or coordinate our individual and collective activities. But clocks do not feed, clothe, or shelter anyone; they do not design, build, or manufacture anything. They are unable to control their own motions and therefore they are unable to guarantee that what they tell us is valid. They are very much the metronomes in the orchestra of life, but they do not add any sound to the music of our social inter-actions. Because clocks are so important in helping us coordinate our social activities, we confuse ourselves about what they actually represent, and then attribute qualities to them that are non-existent. Clocks operate in our societies by convention and by construction, not by discovery. Their mundane service is admirable, but other attributes we assign them are illusion born of confusion.
If a clock errs by moving faster or slower than other clocks it does not admit error or proclaim truth, it only expresses its own accruing motion. If it becomes un-synchronized in its motion with respect to other clocks that remain synchronized to each other and the Earth, then we assume it to be in error because it is reporting a different Earth-Sun relationship than other clocks.
We measure the Earth-Sun relationship astronomically so that we might adjust and synchronize our clocks to accurately inform us about the Earth’s motion with respect to the Sun and stars. But we mistakenly ignore the simplicity of planetary rotation and create an illusion of objects that appear to be at rest (duration), which we define by inventing an illusion of “time” and, and mistakenly give it the attribute of dimension. Day and night and the regulation of our activities have to do with the motion of the Earth with respect to the Sun, no matter what that motion is. All clocks must synchronize to the Earth’s contemporary motion or fail to be useful on Earth, demonstrating that they only measure and express the Earth’s rotations and nothing else.
The catch-22 of motion is that it can only be quantified as a multiple of some other motion. Any single motion by itself is unknowable, because it is incomparable. Rather than creating a dimension of TIME, we have only established the Earth’s rotation as our standard metric of motion. Our confusion regarding time is that we have always considered the Earth’s motion as absolute and known with respect to a declared time period, such is not the case. We do not know how fast the Earth rotates. The Earth’s rotation motion is simply one (1), our fundamental unit of motion; just as the meter is one (1), our fundamental unit of displacement.
To demonstrate this proposition, consider that the Earth at 8,000 miles diameter has a circumference of 25,000 miles. We define a DAY to be one rotation of the Earth with respect to the Sun, and we divide the DAY into twenty-four equal rotation periods that we call HOURS. That is, a point on the equator will move a distance of 25,000 miles per rotation, or 1042 miles of rotation per hour of rotation. By using a day to represent both a defined Time-value and a motion value we confuse ourselves into believing that we can determine the Earth’s rotational velocity. When stating the velocity of the Earth’s rotation we use hours as our time increment and miles as our displacement increment, giving us the currently accepted (25,000 miles / 24 hours) or (1042 miles / hour) as a velocity. Although we are most comfortable in common usage to state velocities in miles per hour, or kilometers per hour, it is more difficult to understand the limitation of such usage when applied to the Earth’s rotation.
Let me simplify the (1042 miles / hour) by multiplying it by (24 divided by 24); this gives us our (25,000 miles / 24 hours), or (25,000 miles / day). However, by definition, 25,000 miles equals ONE rotation or ONE day, giving us an identity relationship for the velocity of rotation as (one day / day) or (25,000 miles / 25,000 miles); both of which are the identity one (1), which is why the Earth is our metric motion. All we are saying is that the Earth rotates once when it rotates once; in essence we are saying nothing. We certainly are not declaring any sort of velocity. 1042 miles per hour is itself an identity (1042 miles / 1042 miles), because one hour equals 1/24 of the circumference of Earth, which is 1042 miles. The earth rotates, but we will never know how fast it rotates; and we do not need to know how fast it rotates. Its daily rotation motion is sufficient and immensely useful as ONE (1).
The beauty and strength of our metrics is that we do not need any absolute values for them. We do not need to know a Meter's length, a Kilogram's mass, or the Earth's rotation velocity. Because all of our measurements using these metrics are for the purpose of measuring differences in length, mass and motion of all that surrounds us. For example, we can compare the size, mass, and motion of the Earth - Moon system by declaring the Moon's diameter to be one quarter of the Earth's; its mass to be 1/83rd of the Earth's, and the Moon revolves about the Earth once for every 27 rotations of the Earth. I have used approximate values here, knowing that we can be as precise as necessary for any scientific comparisons. My point is that we compare physical objects by noting specific metric differences directly between objects, or between any chosen standard metric and our object under study. Every length is a multiple or fraction of every other length, such is the continuum of length. Every mass is a multiple or fraction of every other mass, such is the continuum of mass. Every motion is a multiple or fraction of every other motion, such is the continuum of motion. Even more to the point, for our example above comparing the Earth and Moon, any metric of length, mass, and motion would provide the same ratios.
Certainly the Earth’s rotation motion is finite, and certainly there are both faster and slower motions surrounding us, but these facts do not allow us to state any absolute values about the Earth’s rotation. A Day is one unit of standard motion (by definition); an Hour is 1/24th of a unit of standard motion; a Minute is 1/60th of an hour, or 1/1440th of a unit of standard motion; and a Second is 1/60th of a minute, or 1/86400th of a unit of standard motion.
The terms Day, Hour, Minute, and Second are increments of the Earth’s rotation motion, and not units of fictitious Time. Such units have no meaning or definition outside of their context relative to motion, specifically the Earth’s motion. To attribute any qualities to clocks, other than simple uniform motion, is to violate Occam’s razor (To complicate in place of simplicity).
If we wish to quantify the Earth’s rotation-motion by saying it rotates 365.25 times per revolution about the Sun, then a revolution of the Earth would become our unknown motion metric (clock). And the rotation of the Earth would be quantified only in terms of its revolution motion, and nothing else. So on and so on. We can never know how fast the earth rotates except in comparison with other things that rotate or revolve. We know that the Earth revolves around the Sun once for each 365.25 rotations, but we do not know how fast it revolves separate from that or other relationships. Similarly for all of our motors and other machines, their speed of operation is relative to other motions only, and ultimately relative to a motion whose speed is unknowable. For us the Earth’s rotation speed is that great unknown, for which we have substituted a false dimension we call time.
If we were living on Mars and wished to communicate with Earth, we would need to operate two different motion-clocks. One to regulate our activities on Mars, by synchronizing our Martian clock to the rotation of Mars, and another to synchronize with Earth’s rotation, to be able to schedule communications with Earth. Both clocks would be limited to mimicking their reference planet’s rotation. Also, Martian seconds, hours, days and years would represent different amounts of motion than Earth seconds, hours, days and years.
We are not isolated or outside the order and workings of the universe, but rather connected to everything, within a hierarchy of motion. Whatever is, has its motion first perceptible as sub-particles, which combine in motions that produce atomic particles. These atomic particles combine via motions to produce atoms, which combine to form molecules, which further combine to form large groups of molecules that form rocks and planets. These planets form a hierarchy of motion systems, wherein moons are held by planets, which are held by stars, which form clusters, which are held by galaxies, which seem to also congregate in clusters. Central forces of motion accomplish all of this (fractal?) nesting of motion.
The motions of rotation and revolution of sub-atomic particles is converted to rotational (internal) and orbital (external) motions of the atomic systems they form. When atoms combine to form molecules, part of their motions are converted to changing their internal and external motions. The mathematics of Chemistry and Physics are describing the internal configuration of motion of matter or the transfer of motion between units of matter. What we call energy is just transferable motion; science continually uses the term Energy in place of Motion. What we call acceleration (an increase in relative motion) is motion being transferred, such that any acceleration of one part of a system must have an equivalent deceleration (a decrease in relative motion) of another part of that same system associated with it. What we call momentum is just uniform motion, the proper Rest State of matter. What we call force is a source of motion, to be distributed to masses that are available to receive a change in their internal or external motion. When a force acts, the source of exchanged motion loses the same amount of motion that the object acted upon gains. It is motion above all else that is conserved.
The immense amount of motion in the sub-atomic world, which increases as we probe deeper, is not available to our macro-scopic senses. We therefore use the illusion of time to facilitate our attempts to understand changes due to uncomprehended motions, whose actions and consequences are absorbed and defined, by that illusion.
We further make incorrect observations of things around us as being unchanging, i.e., having duration. We tend to view our Universe as being mostly at rest, and therefore having duration, such as must occur for objects at rest to continue in existence. This mistake also requires the illusion of time to define the amount of duration that appears to be occurring. For the un-educated, duration is a holy relic, worshipped everywhere, while change (aging) is despised. But for science the continuum of change is all there is, and duration is naught. A scientist may believe in duration at home among family and friends, but professionally, science can easily disprove duration for any and all things.
For any clock we choose to be our primary device to permit us to relate other motions, its own motions can only be measured as the continually increasing displacement (distance) covered by its moving parts. For example, with the Earth as our clock, a point on the equator moves through approximately 25,000 miles of rotation, before it repeats itself. While an atomic clock vibrates with a wavelength that is a measurable distance and finite frequency, which is always a multiple of any and all other uniform motions (accrued displacements). Therefore, the correct unit to use for motion-clocks is not seconds, which are fictitious, but cycles of definable LENGTH, that allow motion to quantify itself by relating relative changes in displacement; with cycles that accrue as our clock continues to move. Motion is all that exists and length, as a change in displacement (including rotation), is the only proper dimension to measure (quantify) motion. The use of clocks requires that we must declare the cycles or changing displacement of our clock-motion in order to make the accruing displacements of other motions comparable. We must be able to compare length with length in order to compare motion with motion.
Some things move more than other things; and it is from our perception of unequal motions that we derive velocity; wherein we do by convention relate all motions to our contrived clock motion and thereby derive velocities to describe the activities of the Universe that surrounds us.
Since we can only measure one motion and displacement by referencing some other motion and displacement, any value we compute to relate a specific motion to a baseline motion will obviously be a unit-less ratio. Knowing our position when a clock position is recorded, and then calculating the change in our position (displacement), while noting the change in displacement of our clock allows us to calculate average velocities. Our velocity is totally relative to the velocity of accruing displacement of our clock. This understanding forces us to examine the physical units we use to measure motion, force, etc. in a new way. Consider that velocity, which in the present system is feet per second, becomes feet per foot, or rather a pure number ratio in the motion system, because all motions are a fraction or multiple of our Earth rotation motion.
When we describe position and motion we use units of displacement, velocity, and changing velocity. We currently use a time unit that is treated separate from motion. However, in the system I am proposing, all position changes of ourselves and all that surrounds us must be relative to our chosen clock motion. For example, if we convert our current Earth clocks to units of Earth motion, keeping the familiar notation of 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour and 24 hours per rotation; then one hour represents a displacement of 1042 miles of rotation, one minute represents a displacement of 17.39 miles of rotation, and one second represents a displacement of .289 miles of rotation, at the equator of course; where 1-mile equals 1/25000th of one rotation of the Earth.
We can convert the unit of miles into any other linear measure such as feet or meters to provide consistency with the linear measure of objects that have our attention. If we are walking along a street at four miles per hour, our motion relative to our Earth-clock is four miles of displacement for us and 1042 miles displacement for a point on the Earth’s equator. Four miles per one thousand and forty-two miles, as relative motion can be divided to show that we are moving .00384; approximately one-third of one percent as fast as the Earth rotates at the equator. The most important fact in this motion relationship is that it is a pure number, without units. Motion is relative only to other motion, so the number that we derive to describe one motion can only be a percentage or multiple of another motion. In our current system four miles per hour is a velocity with units, i.e., miles and hours. In my system four miles per hour is a velocity (.00384) with no units. But it is necessary to identify the unknown uniform motion that we are comparing our own motion too. If we identify the Earth’s rotation as E R, then .00384 E R, identifies this scalar as a velocity relationship to the Earth’s motion only.
In central force physics all motions and changes in motions are relative to the focus of the force under investigation. All trajectories are conic sections and all bodies move in orbits that are hyperbolas, parabolas, ellipses, or circles. Each of these is a one-dimension orbit about a focus point. Any attempt to create a three-perpendicular axis frame of reference does not create three absolute dimensions of displacement. They are rather, three sub-dimensions of one relative dimension of displacement. Central forces are described in equations that typically use radius displacements from a focus to describe position and changes in the angle displacements of the radius to describe motion in the central force field. And each is compared to a defined standard. Although it is possible and sometimes practical to describe position and motion by using the three perpendicular sub-dimensions, it is not necessary, and often confuses the issue that objects move along single dimension trajectories; wherein any change in motion can only occur through the conservation of motion and any increase or decrease in the relative motion of one object must be connected to the decrease or increase in the relative motion of other objects.
It is common in science to describe repetitive motion with the term frequency. If we do not wish to use an accruing clock motion to compare and relate motions and calculate velocities, we can declare the rotation of the Earth to have frequency ONE, per rotation distance of 25,000 miles (one day). A revolution about the Sun then has the Earth-frequency of 365.25 (one year), while our 4-mph pedestrian (96 miles per day) has the Earth-frequency of .00384; a car doing 60-mph (1440 miles per day) has the Earth-frequency of .0576; and a satellite doing 17,000-mph (408,000 miles per day) has the Earth-frequency of 16.135. The total motion of an object in displacement can be summed from whatever unit of frequency we choose.
Exploring our units further, with displacement as its usual length unit, mass in kilograms, and velocity as a pure number in the Earth-rotation system; momentum, acceleration, force and energy require that we substitute Earth Rotation (E.R.) for Time (t) in these concepts. Momentum, as mass times velocity, becomes kilograms times a scalar Earth-rotation number and a motion direction vector. For a mass moving on Earth its momentum is just a multiple (greater than one) of its rest mass with respect to the Earth. Since any mass moving on the Earth is part of the Earth system, it can only increase its momentum if some other part of the system loses an equivalent amount of momentum (motion). Momentum is relative to our selected clock and the motion reference frame it belongs to. Similarly for acceleration, it would have the unit of momentum change, or (per E.R.), simply describing any acceleration as a change in motion relative to the Earth’s rotation motion; and a gain in motion for an object (acceleration) would result in a loss of motion for the system it belongs to (Earth in this case).
For science, a more fundamental metric system would be derived from electro-magnetic radiation. If we assume that the velocity of light is the same for all observers, then we may choose a given photon, at a known frequency, to be our metric for length, mass, and motion. The photon’s energy can be our mass metric; and its invariable velocity in a vacuum (c) can be divided by its frequency, giving its wavelength, in a reference frame at rest, can be our length-metric; its energy can be converted to a frequency, to provide a uniform motion-metric. Even these photon metrics as standards do not proclaim absolute values; they only provide a means to communicate our understanding of the universe via a presumed universal invariant motion.
Conversing with alien societies about our modes and velocities of transportation would first require that we define our clock-motion in terms of a motion that we and they could relate too, which would facilitate conversion of our clock-motion into their clock-motion. There is no universal motion or time that any or all planets could be privy to. In deep space all clocks are arbitrary; certainly to the rest of the universe our choice of the Earth’s rotation as a motion metric is arbitrary. To devise an instrument to provide a uniform motion, by which we may measure and relate various other motions to each other, is all well and good; but to attach the unit of seconds to the uniform motion, while using displacement to quantify changes in all other motions is bad science.
Consider two space ships meeting in deep space. Let one be from Earth. Both ships would have some sort of chronometers (uniform motion clocks) to coordinate their activities and responsibilities on each ship. They could even be using the same mechanical, chemical, or atomic materials to build their respective chronometers. But each ship would have intervals of activity directly related to intervals of activity on their home planet. For the Earth-based ship, it would use 24-hour days and 365-day years to catalogue events and accrue records for history. Even in deep space the rotation and revolution motion of the Earth would control the flow of activity on the Earth-based ship, because all explorers would require a metric to compare their research activity. For the other ship, its home planet motion would control its activities and record keeping. And only when each ship could relate the motions of their respective planets could their clocks and calendars be reconciled and their HISTORIES of MOTION be meaningful to each other; because their histories are relative only to the motion of their respective home planet.
The Earth does not rotate in twenty-four hours, by virtue of its creation. Twenty-four hours as a rotation description is superfluous, except to contemporary Earthlings. If we wanted to send a signal throughout the galaxy and give it a signature of origin and identity, we would have to refer to the Earth as a planet being third in placement from its central sun. Having one moon whose diameter is one quarter of the Earth’s and whose period of revolution in equal to 27 rotations of the Earth; and the Earth rotates 365.25 times for each revolution around its solar orbit, and whose diameter is 1% as large as its sun. These relative size and motion characteristics of our solar system are true for us and true for astronomers with 100-mile diameter telescopes, looking at us from the other side of the Galaxy. These characteristics would be unique enough for us to be listed in a star chart anywhere in the Galaxy, and have that chart deciphered by any alien explorers that happened upon it. And yet these motions and sizes are only relative to each other. We may be one small piece in a very big puzzle, but we are identifiable, because we can relate a few relative sizes, displacements, and motions that make us statistically unique. And yet we are only relating these motions to each other using arithmetic. Since these motions and positions are changing over millions of cycles, sending our identifying characteristics across the Galaxy by radio could miss-lead explorers who might pass by millions of years hence, and not find a planet to match the description given. There is no universal clock, whose present reading could be attached to our message so that future explorers could locate us by computing our past signature from the current motions and predictable causes of the characteristics associated with Earth and its solar system, when such explorers came upon it. We could certainly help such explorers by also including the rates and directions of change in our characteristic motions that we are able to measure; making us more identifiable as motion goes on. But there still would not be any meaningful aging or “time” information that we could include in any message to others; only more and more relative measurements of current known motions and displacements of planets and stars in our Galactic neighborhood. Understanding the continuum of motion and the causes of motion will allow us to relate to the past and the future.
All is motion. All mass, all energy, all radiation, all vibration, and all particles; motion within motion. Relative motion is the fundamental dimension. Things move, inter-action results, and initiates re-action motions. All that we can record and call history are displacements and the relative motions that produced them. Rather than view the material universe as a plethora of particles interacting, we should view it as motion in different forms exchanging motion with other forms. With just four known forces to control the exchange of motion, and all of them being Central Forces, we must explore the possibilities and limitations of motion exchange. Central forces allow rotation about an axis and revolution (orbiting) about a central body; and of course orbiting particles may also rotate. The four central forces may only exchange motion between particles interacting in limited ways.
All is motion, everything else is illusion. The prime attribute of all that is, is that it moves. How it moves creates’ mass, force, other motions; which provide the theater we call our Universe. The second attribute is that only differences in motion facilitate the exchanging of motion. The third attribute is that how “what is” forms attraction and repulsion, translates the micro-motions of “parts” into the macro-motions of a “system”.
Motion is universal, but constrained by fundamental forces to be rotation and revolution of something, within rotation and revolution of other things; up and down the scale of central forces. As there are no straight trajectories in gravitational fields, there are no straight trajectories in electro-magnetic fields and nuclear fields; with correspondingly stronger forces over shorter distances to create the curvatures necessary to maintain rotations and revolutions, and allow motion exchanges.
Relativistic interpretations of high velocity effects of persons and things include our clocks, because our clocks are us and we are our clocks. They are constructs of physical substances that have parts that move with respect to other parts; and clock motion is subject to relativistic changes in the perception and measurement of motion just as all motion is subject to relativistic effects. Relativity and its possible paradoxes of perceived discord in measuring motions in two different reference frames does not imply that persons in different reference frames have more opportunities to accomplish more motions while undergoing relativity transformations. One reference frame does not live longer than another from the standpoint of being able to make more widgets over their lifetime than another. Slowing down, or for that matter speeding up, whole reference frames (motion systems) does not decrease or increase efficiencies. Any system will eventually produce all of the entropy that it is capable of producing; no more, no less.
Clocks are hypothesized to act very un-clock like when they are subjected to acceleration, leading to some funny and erroneous conjectures. Any uniform motion is affected by any and all accelerated motions that the system it belongs to experiences (motion affects motion). In other words acceleration (change of motion) of a reference frame affects the measurement of perceived rest, momentum, and accelerated motion within that reference frame. Since motion is accruing displacement from some reference point, accelerating motion affects the measurement of displacement from that reference point. Which for some reference frames will lead to the concept called length contraction and motion contraction. But time does not exist; not Universally, not isolated, not incidentally; and therefore time dilation is as much a fantasy as time itself.
Consider that length contraction and the assumed time dilation occur only in the direction of motion. I believe that time dilation is just motion contraction of our clock displacements. Motion is in one direction, based on the principle of reaction to action, which in a continuum of motion becomes the action that spawns further reactions. It is both absurd and contradictory of the above principle to suppose that we could travel forward or backward in what is called time, and change the actions which had created the past that we came from. Such notions, are not only absurd, they are intellectually demeaning.
Within the framework of Physics, and particularly Dynamics, we are limited to describing positions as relative displacements from a defined center of our frame of reference. For central forces this would be the axis of rotation or the center of gravity. We are further limited in describing motion as relative changes in displacement from a previous position, as a multiple or portion of some defined uniform motion; this we call relative velocity. And with the use of position measurements with respect to our uniform motion clock we may also describe changes in our velocities, which we call acceleration. All of our physics must be derived from relative position, relative motion, and relative change in motion.
The first error of motion perception is to believe that there are non-moving objects in any reference frame. That two or more objects can exist in a reference frame and not move with respect to each other, does not define rest, rather it defines equivalent motion and capacity with respect to other reference frames. The condition that we perceive as rest occurs when we establish structures and systems that are treated as if they were a single solid inelastic particle of various immense sizes, as compared to the atomic world. We should avoid the pitfall of attributing qualities and capacities to objects without perceiving the agglomeration of motions, and only motions, that occupy a tiny portion of the atomic volumes that are attributed to all objects. In our universe of central forces there is no rest, or state of rest, or reference frame of rest.
All things interact, exchanging motion. Acceleration and deceleration cause a change in velocity and therefore a change in motion, this is the only way energy may transfer and clock motion may dilate; something must undergo a change in motion to exchange what we call energy. Motion is how energy is stored and changes in motion are how energy is transferred; therefore a better definition of energy would be that all forms of energy are only different forms of relative motion. Force implies that motion will transfer between masses; that relative motion of a mass or interacting masses will change within the central force system that conserves motion.
The exchange of motion, of energy, infers that a force is at work, and therefore accelerations will occur for the bodies involved. Experiment has shown that acceleration will cause time dilation (motion retardation) within the frame of reference of such acceleration. What is important is that accelerations are part of a system, the system that defines the frame of reference, and in which motion is conserved. A body accelerated away from Earth, for example, to any place in the universe is still in the Earth frame of reference if the energy (motion) used throughout its flight was all provided from the Earth system. Motion is conserved within the system; whatever motion is gained by one part is taken from the other parts of that system.
For a body undergoing acceleration, the atomic and molecular motions of all parts of that body are affected, which for a clock on a spaceship means that its uniform motion clock is slowed during accelerations. A uniform motion undergoing acceleration will be retarded, because acceleration enhances such motion in the part of its revolution where it moves in the same direction as the acceleration, while it will be retarded when it moves opposite the acceleration. But since the time of retardation will be greater than the time of enhancement, the motion will be slowed and therefore as a clock it will physically slow sown. Since all atoms and systems of atoms will be subject to the same effect they will all move less than the parts of the system that are not accelerated.
This is somewhat analogous to the flight-time for aircraft under different wind conditions. In still air, the round trip time between two cities for a flight at constant air-speed is always less than other trips which have a head-wind for the first part of the trip and a tail-wind for the return part. And the greater the wind speed, the longer the flight will take, until at a wind-speed equal to or greater than the air speed of the aircraft, the flight will never be completed. For time dilation this means that uniform motion is maximized (undisturbed) in inertial reference frames, and retarded in accelerated reference frames.
Our laws of motion and laws of conservation of energy (be it mechanical, chemical, or nuclear), are really subsets of the conservation of motion. We should be pleasantly surprised to be able to account for the conservation of mechanical, chemical, and nuclear energy and any state of action-reaction that translates one form of energy into another, by inferring conservation of motion. Whatever the Universe turns out to be, it should ultimately be revealed to be made of stuff; stuff that moves; with conservation through translation from one state of motion to others.
With the absence of a time dimension we must also do away with intervals (of time) and events. Events are our attempts to create subsets of a continuum. Something that is impossible to do with point-precision, simply because uncertainties of position and motion (infinite possibilities) deny us of ever having the opportunity to be precise.
When I say there are no intervals or events, that everything is part of a continuum; I mean to say that there is no beginning or ending of any action. Whatever occurs is prefaced, then acknowledged, then super-ceded. The subsequent reactions (changes in motion) that follow any action (motion) are not discontinuous. That actions and reactions build until our perception is aware of change and then subside or build until other perceived changes occur; the ebb and flow of activity is without beginning or ending.
As an example, consider an event such as an explosion. This sort of thing would certainly seem to have a beginning and an end, which would lend itself to being an isolated event. Such that two explosions, say one in the morning and one in the afternoon, would be considered to be separated by a definite interval. If the setting for our explosions is in a coal mine, we would find the miners living and moving in a continuum of activity, whose beginning we cannot trace. But in their continuum they are mining coal, and to loosen it they blast it out of the ground. As the miners drill holes for dynamite, fit blasting detonators and the wires to detonate it, we can see that one action leads to another; eventually an electric current is sent through the wires causing the detonators to explode, which causes the dynamite to explode, breaking loose tons of coal. The loose coal is removed and the whole process starts over. For the miners, all of their activities appear to be events separated by different intervals; but this is owing to flaws in our ability to observe and comprehend the relationship of the myriad activities going on around them. To understand these activities as a continuum let’s examine, in detail, just the explosion part of these activities. With all of the hardware in place, our foreman gives an order to detonate the dynamite; at which point a worker throws a switch allowing electricity to flow. But none of these acts are instantaneous. As the switch begins to make contact, electrical pressure (voltage) causes atoms at the battery end of the wire to release electrons (building current), which move down the wire away from the switch and the source of electricity. These moving electrons create a voltage pressure on other atoms further down the wire causing a wave of activity, moving electrons, to build and flow into the detonators; whose resistance to electron flow causes them to be captured by the molecules within the detonator, such that chemical reactions take place, building until pressure inside the detonator overcomes the chemical bonds of its casing, causing a rupture to take place, releasing mechanical motion into the molecules of dynamite, which become unstable and react with more chemical action, releasing more mechanical energy (motion) to the coal around it, which causes the coal to move while it absorbs the energy (motion) released from the dynamite.
The point of my argument is this; all of these actions and reactions, and all of the past that led up to them, or the future that followed them are part of an uninterruptible continuum of motion. There is no instant at which we can say electricity is not flowing through the wire and then in a subsequent instant say that electricity is flowing. Similarly for the exploding of the dynamite; there is no instant when it can be said to be exploding, which in a previous instant it was fully intact. Motion is continuous, especially in the sub-atomic environment, causative and reactive to other motion. Without instantaneous beginnings or endings of any actions or reactions. In our example, chemical motion in a battery is converted into electron motion in a wire, which is converted into chemical motion within molecules in the detonator, which is converted into motion within the explosive, which is converted into moving the coal, such motion is never lost, only transferred to other objects or converted to different motion within an object. The motion stored in the battery, detonator and explosives were summed together and transferred into changing the motion and position of a portion of the Earth; and into frictional heat that caused the motions of molecules of air and rock and coal to increase in relative vibration. Such motion increases transfer throughout many mass systems, and ultimately throughout the universe.
Similarly for intervals between events, since events are part of a continuum and do not have beginnings or endings, there are no intervals that can exist. Two explosions can occur in succession, but there is no interval between them. A continuum cannot be broken into intervals.
It is certainly useful for us to quantify and qualify our activities with mechanical devices like clocks; and to invent events and intervals between events, because our perceptions of when things occur and when they do not occur are limited. But our conventions do not determine what is.
Consider the notion of time-travel, wherein it is postulated that a person could travel back in time and be able to affect events in the past. If this were true today, it would also be true in the future, which forces us to conclude that the probability of interference in the past would become 100% as the future unfolds, altering, and thereby denying, the development of that particular future that gave rise to the alteration. A complete absurdity. Nor does entropy allow us to have lumpy changes in potential and kinetic energies (continuous motions) that would be necessary in such time-travel notions. A continuum dis-allows would be time-travelers the ability to choose a point from which to depart, or to choose a point at which to arrive; because in a continuum departure points and arrival points cannot exist. That is, continuums are devoid of chooseable points and therefore devoid of real intervals.
All of these arguments follow from the mathematical construction we call a line. We can select any two points on a continuous line, no matter how close, and there will still be an infinite number of other points on that continuous line, in-between those two points. Similarly for the continuum of our activities; if we inspect our actions at two very close instants, there is still an infinite number of other instants that can be inspected, in-between the two we have chosen. There is no beginning or ending of anything. Did our dynamite begin exploding ten years ago, 1 million years ago, 20 billion years ago? Some would argue that since it was not present in the form we recognize as dynamite years ago, it could not begin to explode then. But we are acting and reacting in a continuum and the energy (motion) that was concentrated in the dynamite through our manufacturing and then released, is all energy (motion) that has always been and always will be with us. Since time and instants do not exist, all actions and reactions are a continuing culmination of all of the actions that preceded them, with the possible interference of our conscious will. Energy-motion may exchange position of itself or macro objects in quantum units, but the actions and motions that cause and result from such energy-motion transfers are still a part of the continuum.
We are said to live in a three-dimensional physical universe with time as a fourth dimension, and conjecture of many other dimensions. However, we should not only dispense with time as a dimension, but also in the physics of motion, we can dispense with the second and third dimensions. Since motions of bodies are calculated as center of gravity points moving along central force trajectories described by the sum of singular forces acting upon them. It is certainly useful in many ways to measure our universe in two, three, four, or more dimensions, since this allows us to compute our macro-motions, without having to sum-in an infinite number of micro-motions. But we need to be cautious not to extrapolate absurdities as realities when using macro interpretations of our derived mathematics and laws of physics.
What we call a space-time continuum should really be called a displacement-motion continuum. Because time is only uniform motion, and space is irrelevant outside of it serving as a backdrop for position and displacement of all that is. The small “space” between the surface molecules of our skin and molecules of air around us, or the large space between our eyes and the nearest star, does not serve us, physically or intellectually. In the continuum of the motions of all of creation, position and displacement are constantly changing; making space scientifically irrelevant.
I readily admit that my notions about time may have little or no impact on today’s science. To measure objects and events occurring around us using devices that have uniform motion as our source of data to quantify the motions of those objects and events may not yield any significantly different answers than science is currently producing. But for clarity’s sake, we should at least define and understand our measuring devices in the simplest terms of what they really are.
I close by saying, yes I do use clocks, but I perceive their function in a different way; and I ask the readers to examine the devices we use to measure what we call “Time”. No clock is anything but uniform motion, and no uniform motion is anything but accruing displacement from the reference point that defines its uniformity. The universe has stuff; and that stuff has presence in the form of motions; and such motions undergo continual transfer. There is no standing still, or being at rest, or resisting change. Thank you for the Earth-turn you have invested in reading this document.

Last update May 2008. © 2008

Comments on this article can be e-mailed to the author at craigdhanks@aol.com

Other blogs by this author can be found at http://beyondfarenough.blogspot.com/

Below is a photo of a book by the author that addresses general misconceptions regarding the socio-economic model that our society and economy follow. To view a larger photo just click on it. For more information about this book click on the following link --> SOCIAL BENCHMARKS

Universal Expansion

2009-02-02T16:31:00.000-08:00

The Principle of Locality and Unintended Consequences

Universal expansion was postulated in the 1920’s to explain the red-shifting of light coming from distant galaxies. Wherein the further away a galaxy was located the greater was the red-shifting of its light; indicating a greater recessionary velocity. This theory then led to the big bang theory by the mind experiment of reversing the process of expansion to theorizing a smaller and smaller universe further and further in the past; to a beginning point where all mass and energy was concentrated to a single infinitesimal point. This theory is now widely accepted and even considered by most scientists to be proven.

Theories arise in science to explain general observations and to associate predictions with physical measurements. The mathematics of one theory allows us to relate the principles of that theory with the fundamental principles underlying other physical theories. When a theory predicts how matter and energy will interact in such a way that the requirements and restrictions of the theory are obeyed, it must also be checked for compliance with the encompassing fundamental principles that allow us to theorize in the first place. Universal expansion, at cosmological distances, has consequences that fail to obey a few key principles of our domestic physics; CONSERVATION of energy and CONSERVATION of mass in the form of motion (velocity); CONSERVATION of momentum; CONSERVATION of gravitational potential energy; and the limiting of motion between two objects to being less than or equal to the velocity of light.

The conservation laws of physics are considered inviolate. Whenever a physical system exhibits a potential violation of a conservation law, the error is attributed to the physical system.

However, there exists a situation in the greater universe where energy, mass, and momentum are not conserved; and the physical system involved is the entire KNOWN Universe.

The forces of nature that are subject to the conservation laws are the central forces of Gravity, Electrostatics, and Nuclear binding. The conservation of energy holds up both internally to interactions within each force and to interactions that incorporate energy exchange where more than one of these forces is affecting matter and motion. Universal expansion as a circumstance or as a force is not central; in fact by definition it is centered for any and every observer at that observers present location. The effects of universal expansion on our knowable universe are such that there is no cross over between universal expansion and the central forces to conserve mass or energy. Universal expansion, by its nature, works against any such conservation.

The expansion of the universe and the increasing velocity of expansion with increasing distance bring about this loss of mass and energy conservation situation. Once a photon or mass is outside any galaxy’s local group, all cosmological reference frames are receding from every point of observation in a radial manner, due to universal expansion. Whether it be cosmic particles or cosmic rays; as compared to their initial frame of reference, their energy, mass, or momentum will be diminished in any frame of reference in which they are absorbed, according to the velocity transformation equation for a receding reference frame.

Einstein’s famous equation, [E=M(C)squared] , which for an initiating laboratory Frame of Reference can also be written as [M=E/(C)squared], must also be altered by the transformation equations of relativity for a receding reference frame. Such that if [Mc=Ec/(C)squared] represents a mass that is converted to energy Ec in the initial frame of reference; and that energy is later absorbed and converted back to mass in a receding frame of reference, then for a reference frame receding (r) with velocity (V),

[Er = Ec {1-(V)squared/(C)squared}-2]

And therefore, [Mr = Er /(C)squared] or,

[Mr=Ec {(1-(V)squared/(C)squared)-2 } /(C)squared ]

Mr tends to zero as V -> C

where Mr equals the mass increase received in a receding frame of reference, of energy Ec as released in the initial reference frame and subsequently absorbed as Er in the receding reference frame.

This could be interpreted as another form of entropy, because the increase in disorder that results in a release of cosmic particles or cosmic rays in one reference frame will not be fully available, in a receding reference frame, to contribute an equivalent increase in the order within that receding reference frame. Whatever mass or momentum is represented by the velocity-energy of a cosmic ray is diminished by Universal expansion, regardless of whether or not it is absorbed by another physical system receding from its source.

The mass represented by both the energy of photons and initial velocities of atomic particles is reduced in the recessive motion of universal expansion. Red shifts of photons arriving at earth indicate non-conservation of energy and non-conservation of the mass represented by that energy. However we may calculate the total mass and energy of a distant system such as a galaxy, the effective mass and energy of that system that can influence our galaxy is diminished by the velocity of recession between these galaxies.

If velocity-energy is diminished by the increasing cosmological distance of universal expansion, then the gravity that is represented by receding mass-velocity-energy is also diminished by cosmological distance, relative to the velocity of expansion for any declared cosmological distance. Universal expansion reduces the force of gravity simply by the distance increases resulting from that expansion; and this in turn reduces the gravitational potential energy throughout the universe. This may account for some of the dark matter and dark energy thought necessary to make the universe behave in the manner that we measure. If gravity is instantaneous it violates every other aspect of universal expansion, because as matter recedes at Velocity greater than C and becomes unknowable via electro-magnetic photons, instantaneous gravity would still make its presence knowable by its attraction. Is the entire mass of the universe (knowable and unknowable) acting upon all parts uniformly? Or is there a gravitational disconnect for distant and receding matter, that make gravity subject to velocity transformation equations of relativity?

This phenomenon begs the question, when we accelerate particles to relativistic velocities, are they gaining mass consistent with the energy expended to cause acceleration or is their increased velocity relative to the force applied a recessionary velocity where the force is increasingly ineffective at adding additional energy and momentum to the particle?

We know that there is no absolute reference frame and that we currently measure red-shifts and blue-shifts of photon energy coming from different sources. Though we might use our laboratory reference frame as the frame from which to calculate the energy expended to accelerate objects, we cannot use that reference frame to calculate the amount of energy transferred to any object that is moving relative to our laboratory. Every Particle's local reference frame is the proper frame to measure the energy (additional motion) it receives from outside sources. As a particle receding from us approaches the velocity (C), any photons sent by us, that could increase the particle's relative velocity or mass, will approach a frequency of zero and an infinite wavelength (infinitely small energy), such that at velocity (C) the receding particle would not absorb them because it would take an eternity to absorb an infinitely long photon (zero frequency). From the reference frame of the receding particle, the expanding universe does not look like a place to gain additional energy and mass, only a place in which to lose energy and mass.

Although it is true that we cannot accelerate even a tiny Electron to velocity (C), because its inertial mass increases to an infinite amount by the very energy exchange that was accelerating it, we are leaving out an important perspective of energy exchanges that affects all reference frames.

Consider a large plain on the Earth, with yourself in a “Bumper Car”. Consider also that there are innumerable horses moving about this plain, in all directions, and all moving at the same velocity 'H' with respect to the plain. If you simply sit in your carriage on this plain, horses will bump into you from all directions giving you random changes in velocity and momentum. However, if you found yourself in a region where all of the horses were moving in one direction, you would experience each collision with a horse as imparting part of its momentum to your bumper car according to the difference in mass and velocity between your car and the velocity-H of the horses. As your car increases in velocity relative to the plain, it decreases in velocity relative to the horses. Such that as your car approaches velocity-H, the velocity of the horses approaches zero with respect to your bumper car, making it impossible for them to continue transferring additional velocity and momentum (energy) to your bumper car; and thereby making it impossible for your bumper car to ever reach velocity-H. For masses colliding with other masses this analogy works directly, and Physics has always recognized this. It is not the case that your bumper car is more massive with respect to the horses as your velocity relative to the plain increases; your mass has only increased an infinitesimal amount at velocity-H, as compared to the velocity of light. It is the case that your bumper car and the horses are approaching a state of rest relative to each other; i.e., a state of zero potential energy difference between the bumper car and the horses.

What the above analogy expresses as an immense, almost infinite amount of energy (motion) being released in one reference frame (such as Earth) can turn out to be almost no energy (motion) when it is absorbed in another reference frame; such as another Locality at a cosmological distance that is moving at a high relative velocity due to universal expansion. Mass does not increase in a moving frame of reference according to calculations made relative to the frame of reference in which energy is released, but rather according to calculations that include the transformation equations of relative motion of the frame of reference in which energy is absorbed, i.e., the locality of absorption.

Within the confines of any two reference frames moving relative to each other, the conservation of energy is violated, because the energy of any photon absorbed in a receding frame of reference will be less than its initial energy in the initiating rest frame of reference; likewise, when mass is converted into photons in one reference frame and those photons converted back to mass in a receding reference frame, the conservation of mass is also violated. Unless all reference frames eventually associate into one rest frame of reference, the Law of Conservation of Energy is invalid on a universal scale. The expanding universe and the necessary application of the transformation equations of Relativity (relative motion) demonstrate and require that the conservation of inertia, mass and energy (motion) is NOT VALID. The Principle of Locality both defines and is additionally expressed in the concept of reference frame Entropy, which is caused by relative motion and our expanding universe. Increasing entropy via increasing universal expansion invalidates the conservation of energy and mass principles.

The important distinction with respect to Mr is that the figure {[(1-(V)squared]/[(C)squared])-2}, which appears in the denominator in conventional physics to describe the mass-energy that is created in the Rest reference frame, is in the numerator here to measure the mass-energy that is absorbed in the receding reference frame. Since this figure tends to zero as velocity-V increases, it would make the receding mass approach an infinite amount as measured in the initiating rest frame of reference in conventional physics, which has been the common interpretation to date and is fine relative to that rest frame of reference. While in my interpretation it simply means that less and less energy is being converted into mass that is moving, as its own frame of reference, at a greater and greater velocity with respect to the defined Rest frame of reference. That is, as V approaches (C), Mr approaches zero regardless of the value Ec that is expended in the rest frame of reference.

Since the conversion of mass to energy and back again is done through the creation and absorption of Electro-Magnetic photons, it is necessary to measure their energy relative to the frame of reference in which they are produced and then transform that energy relative to the frame of reference in which they are absorbed. Though a photon’s velocity is calculated to remain constant at (C) for all reference frames, its frequency (energy) is diminished in a relativistic manner, as measured in a receding frame of reference, as its relative velocity of recession increases.

The ramifications of an expanding universe, combined with the reduced energy absorption in receding reference frames, demonstrates that when mass is converted into electro-magnetic radiation in one reference frame it progresses toward the outer reaches of its universe with the prospect that it will never be absorbed in a manner that again becomes mass, or it will be absorbed by some receding matter such that its contribution as mass is forever reduced with respect to its previous history by the receding velocity of the absorbing matter. In essence the expansion of the universe is allowing mass and electro-magnetic energy to evaporate out of existence and thereby reducing its gravitational effect throughout the universe.

Recent evidence that the universe is expanding faster now than in the past has led to the conjecture that a form of energy, called “Dark Energy”, is responsible for expanding the space in-between galaxies. Besides the reduction in gravity due to the expansion of space, we must also consider that there is a significant reduction in gravity on an inter-galactic scale because of mass loss in stars. The average star will loose more than half of its mass by the time it becomes a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole; due to mass conversion from fusion, constant stellar wind, corona mass ejections and stellar explosions such as novas and super-novas. The majority of this mass loss will be ejected mass, moving with extra-galactic velocities, such that it will become inter-galactic and be subject to the effects of universal expansion. Each 10-14 billion year generation of stars throughout the galaxies will diminish the gravitational mass of the universe by approximately one-half. Therefore the amount of Dark Energy necessary to accelerate the expansion would be less than is presently assumed. Universal expansion by increasing the distance between masses, as well as increasing the velocities of separation of masses will decrease the effect of gravity of any mass on any other mass at cosmological distances. If universal expansion and gravity are in a tug of war, a static situation is impossible. Either gravity would concentrate mass and thereby increase the effect of gravity over universal expansion, over time, to collapse the universe, or universal expansion would separate mass to dilute its gravitational attraction, allowing universal expansion to accelerate; which now appears to be the case.

What are the ramifications of the principle of locality and the conservation laws? In short, the conservation laws are violated; according to the adjustment dictated by relative velocity between the reference frame that emits mass or photons and the reference frame that captures such mass or photons.

Universal expansion must also violate the universal speed limit C. In a static universe the rest frame of reference can always know (calculate) the velocities and forces affecting a mass that has been deliberately accelerated away from the laboratory frame of reference. The initial mass and velocity allow us to predict future positions and velocities and directions relative to other masses as well as our Laboratory frame of reference. We do this all of the time in our little corner of our galaxy. But if we fire an electron into space at .99999C such that it leaves our galaxy and our local group of galaxies; it ceases to be dependent on our laboratory frame of reference for the physics that will describe its future position and velocity. Universal expansion (actually accelerating expansion) will carry our electron well beyond the velocity C relative to the earth frame of reference that fired it into space. Universal expansion will increase the distance between that electron and the earth such that it will be moving faster than C relative to earth. This does not mean the electron gains energy or mass as I have already shown. It simply means that the electron is beyond any influence or connection with the earth; sort of a different type of event horizon. For every speed of departure from earth, that will be increased by universal expansion over and above any gravitational effects, there is a distance from earth (event horizon) at which the relative velocity of any departing mass will exceed C; and that mass will be beyond earthly knowledge and influence. Universal expansion causes a communication and interaction disconnect for both masses and photons at cosmological distances. Relative to earth, photons leaving our planet for intergalactic regions will exceed velocity C very soon after leaving the galaxy and they will continue to increase in velocity via universal expansion. Contrastingly, for any galaxy at cosmological distances and in the path of those same photons, that same light will be red-shifted to lower frequency and energy than they had upon leaving earth, due to the same universal expansion. The relativity of universal expansion is that mass and energy are blue-shifted relative to their origin and red-shifted relative to every cosmological destination.

It is interesting that a spaceship traveling into inter-galactic space would have to consider how far, how fast, and how long it would coast, as it traveled from its home galaxy; if it intended to return some day. Because universal expansion would continually increase the distance (relative velocity) between the ship and its home galaxy over time, such that for example, a ship using 45% of its fuel to achieve a velocity of .45C relative to its home would have to use another 45% of its fuel to reduce its relative velocity to equal the velocity of universal expansion for its distance from its home; and if the velocity of universal expansion happened to be more than .1C for the location between ship and home, the ship would not have enough fuel to lesson the distance between it and its home galaxy. Spaceships aside, a great deal of the mass of stars is leaving their native galaxies and will achieve cosmological distances, such that this mass will fail to become part of any organized mass structure again; it is simply receding from measurable interactive existence due to universal expansion.

HUBBLE CONSTANT

The postulated expansion of the universe is presented as a constant velocity known as the Hubble Constant; and is considered to be very close to 60 kilometers per second per mega-parsec. This very definition is however a verification that the velocity of separation of any two bodies is increasing (changing) with distance. So the Hubble Constant is a constant of acceleration, which makes it not very surprising that research is indicating that the velocity of expansion is greater now than in the past. Obviously, if an object at a distance of one mega-parsec is receding at a velocity of 60 kilometers per second, and after a period of time it has receded to two mega-parsec distance and is measured to be receding at 120 kilometers per second, something (even this continuous creation of space) is accelerating that object away from us. Just as gravity at the earth’s surface adds 32 ft/sec increase in velocity each second, the Hubble Constant adds 60 km/sec increase in universal expansion velocity each 3.26 million light years distance. Although the Hubble Constant is a velocity increase over distance, for photons and particles traveling at relativistic velocities, the Hubble distance of 3.26 mega parsecs could also be viewed as a time-scale of 3.26 million years at velocity C; such that intergalactic photons and cosmic rays will be accelerated by 60 km/sec over each incremental period of 3.26 million years; or 60km/sec/3.26 million years. Since gravity diminishes with increased distance and the Hubble Constant portends accelerated universal expansion, then universal expansion must be a force working against gravity. The change in velocity over the time of recession being proportional to the acceleration postulated. Since the change of velocity is 60 km/sec/3.26 million years.

If in fact no force is applied to the universe to separate two objects experiencing universal expansion; that is, if they are simply further apart over time, but essentially static in relative motion, then the Hubble Constant is a misapplication of increased distance representing relative motion. In this case then, since two objects at cosmological distances would not receive light from each other that had been red-shifted; it should in fact have no frequency shift unless there is validity in the tired-light hypothesis. But universal expansion is not simply increasing the distance between galaxies at cosmological distances; it is increasing their velocities away from each other, increasing distance is a consequence of that velocity; velocity that is ever increasing as recession continues.

A consequence of universal expansion is that matter receding from us at higher and higher velocities has intrinsically more momentum and energy relative to the earth. If we sent a probe out into space to a cosmological distance, say 168 million light years distant, equal to a Hubble velocity of .1C and then had the probe move toward earth with a velocity of .1C to negate universal expansion such that the probe would be stationary relative to earth, then any matter from earth directed at the probe would be blue-shifted by .1C for an observer located at the probe; such that electrons departing earth at .9999C would impact the probe at 1.0999C. Although we would measure such impact as .9999C with a higher mass to explain the higher energy transfer. At a greater distance our probe would measure a greater blue-shifting of velocity or mass, however we chose to measure it, because we would have to induce a greater velocity in our probe, toward earth to negate a greater Hubble expansion velocity at greater distance. The convention is to limit velocity and increase mass, or frequency in non-mass photons, to satisfy the physical and mathematical requirements; but such conventions limit our understanding because they constrain our interpretations of phenomena to our conventions. Transit time for the fast moving electrons would be able to confirm the higher velocity, because universal expansion would increase the distance between the electrons and earth, while the probe as a target would be fixed in space relative to earth.

The Hubble constant or velocity of universal expansion, at 60km/sec/megaparsec, is not the same type of velocity we measure in central force collisions or inter-actions. The Hubble velocity is an interpretive consequence of expanding space at cosmological distances; and as such this interpreted velocity is not subject to relativity transformation equations. It is a separate velocity component for cosmological distant matter that is unbounded; such that at a specific distance all matter is receding at velocity C, and beyond that distance all matter is receding at a velocity greater than C; because universal expansion is creating sufficient space between ourselves and such matter that the interpreted velocity can increase unbounded, and certainly become greater than C.

It is interesting that we postulate that the galaxies in their totality are moving away from us at calculable velocities, which are contemporary velocities whose validity is meaningful to us here on earth today; while the information that comes to us from these galaxies in the form of light radiation ranges from millions of years old to billions of years old. We are able to view and record a history of distant and ancient galaxies that they are not privy too. But similarly, we know very little about our ancient galactic history, whereas distant galaxies are seeing our early history unfold for them as time goes on.

Consider two identical ships leaving earth at identical acceleration on trajectories that are 60 degrees apart, traveling 1-mega parsec in distance, making them 1-mega parsec from each other (equal lateral triangle). At this point universal expansion has them moving away from the earth and themselves at approximately 60 km/sec. Even if they decelerate the same amount as their original acceleration, their trajectories from earth are not straight; universal expansion is pushing them apart and they will eventually diverge away from their initial directions until they are traveling in opposite directions. The velocity of universal expansion will eventually dwarf their internally induced velocities to separate them beyond relativistic velocities.
Similarly, two snapshots taken one second apart of the same galaxy at one mega-parsec distance will originate from two positions of that galaxy being 60 km apart. While for a galaxy at a distance of ten mega-parsecs two snapshots taken one second apart will originate from two positions of that galaxy being 600 km apart. This velocity of separation increases with distance until it reaches the velocity of light (300,000 km / sec) at a distance of 5000 mega-parsecs and a light travel time of 16.3 billion light years; at this point no light reaches us to inform us of the activities, or even existence of galaxies, beyond this distance. The knowable universe is 5000 mega parsecs in radius for a Hubble Constant of 60 km/sec/mega parsec; about 16.3 billion light years. This is also the disconnect distance for mass that is static relative to earth except for universal expansion. Since the Hubble expansion is a simple property of velocity increase over distance it is not subject to the requirements of relativity, such that galaxies at a distance of 10,000 mega-parsecs would be moving away at twice the velocity of light.

The violations of these fundamental conservation laws of physics certainly are unintended consequences, but they are also inescapable consequences of universal expansion.

One final unintended consequence of universal expansion that must also be addressed when we look back to the beginning of the expansion concerns angular momentum. The difficulty of all matter and energy located in an infinitesimal singularity is the problem of motion. Motion, according to the laws of physics, is neither created nor destroyed; only transferred from one bit of matter to another, or ejected from matter as photons; all through the actions of the central forces. Even if these forces are not present in the singularity, the motion must be; it cannot come from nothing. The momentum and angular momentum of matter in the universe is an incomprehensible quantity that cannot reside in a dimensionless point. It is one thing to compress all matter to a single infinitesimal point; and quite another thing to compress all of matter’s momentum into that same point. Angular momentum tends to zero for even the largest conglomeration of mass that is spinning or orbiting, as either its rotational radius or its orbital radius approach zero. For mass to be ejected from a singularity in a big bang scenario we are forced to consider that both momentum and angular momentum are being created as the universe expands, not merely exchanged, as occurs within our conservation laws of physics; leaving us to ask, how or whom is doing the creating?

© May 2008
Craig D. Hanks

Comments on this article can be e-mailed to the author at craigdhanks@aol.com

Other blogs by this author can be found at http://beyondfarenough.blogspot.com/

Global Warming & The Calorie Buffer

2009-01-26T08:47:00.000-08:00

In the public discussion of Global Warming, much is said about disappearing continental ice sheets and mountain glaciers, as well as growing deserts; with more droughts in some areas and more flooding in other areas. With new research indicating the acceleration of these processes, I would like to add a few thoughts on important aspects of increasing environmental heat that is not generally discussed with respect to this issue.

I need to preface my remarks with a few necessary facts for the reader’s understanding. The average temperature of the oceans throughout their depths is 4° Centigrade; the average temperature of ice in the continental ice sheets and glaciers is about minus-17°Centigrade. One scientific measure of heat is the CALORIE (different than the food Calorie, which is 1000 times greater). By definition, one calorie is equal to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of WATER from 14.5°C to 15.5°C at standard atmospheric pressure. After water is frozen, the cooling of ice below 0°C actually requires only removing one-half calorie of heat to gain a drop in temperature of 1°C per gram of ice. So, reversing this process and raising the temperature of the continental ice from its average of –17°C to the 4°C average temperature of the oceans requires adding (8.5 + 4) calories of heat per gram of ice; thus a total of 12.5-calories of heat over this range. EXCEPT FOR ONE SURPRISING FACT!

What is not commonly known is that it requires 80-calories of heat to convert 1-gram of ice at 0°C into 1-gram of water at 0°C. Just to melt ice, without raising its temperature, requires about 6.5 times the amount of heat needed to raise the average temperature of the continental ice and glaciers to the average temperature of the oceans. The melting of environmental ice is a huge heat-sink that is presently buffering the effect of global warming; until we run out of ice.

Equally important for the production of snow and ice, it requires the removal of 80-calories of heat per gram of water-vapor at 0°C to produce 1-gram of snow at 0°C. This heat has essentially two places it can go, to avoid contributing to global warming; it can be radiated into space if the increasing greenhouse gases will let it, or it can be bound up by vegetation to produce woody fibers, as has happened in the past, when a tropical Earth produced the huge forests that became our present day coal and oil supplies (stored Heat). Of course we are presently over-harvesting the forests needed to do this job; we may be running out of trees as well as ice.

Although the fully melted glaciers and ice sheets would only add about 200 feet to the 12,600 foot average depth of the oceans, or about 1.6% by volume; the quantity of heat that would go into melting all of the environmental ice would raise the average temperature of the oceans 1.5° C if it were not for that ice. Actually most of the heat buildup in the oceans will be in the top 100 meters of seawater and very little heat will migrate to depths below 500 meters. So the heating of the oceans surface water would have been several degrees higher even now if it were not for the melting ice buffer. The environmental disaster of very warm ocean surfaces can only be guessed at.

Since the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are shrinking and glaciers world wide are receding, the environmental ice that has been present for millennia is proving to be insufficient to do anything but mask the current buildup of heat input into the environment. As more ice melts, reducing the overall surface area of ice exposed to increasing heat from the air and water; more of our heat input will remain in the air, water and soil; and the process of global warming will accelerate.

We must remember that, especially in the northern hemisphere, wintertime can bring enormous amounts of snow to mountains and valleys. The melting of this snow removes significant heat from our springtime environment. If the amount of winter snow declines, because it falls as rain instead, heat will build up earlier in the year and reach higher temperatures in the summer, because the air and ground will retain heat that would have gone into the 80-calorie buffer of melting snow. Late spring is much cooler than early fall, even though the sun angle in the sky is the same, because the heat flowing into the environment in the Spring is being absorbed in the melting of snow and the evaporation of winter and spring moisture, rather than heating the ground we live on.

Similar to the loss of ice sheets and glaciers, the millions of square miles of permafrost in the soils of northern Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska, and Canada are absorbing 80 calories of heat per gram of ice and melting, reducing their overall area and heat buffering capacity, which will also accelerate the effect of Global Warming as this ice source disappears.

We are not running out of oil, or money, or time; we are running out of ice. There are significant consequences in daily and seasonal weather that will be impacted by warmer air and the 80-calorie factor of water to ice to produce snow high in the atmosphere. As the Earth’s atmosphere heats up, it will hold more water as vapor to higher altitudes, forcing clouds and condensation to occur at even higher altitudes (or to not occur at all). The effect of this, in the temperate zones, will be an increase in the type of rain called Virga, rain that evaporates while falling and does not reach the ground. Rain that does reach the ground will be falling over longer distances through warmer air and will also evaporate more, so less will reach the ground and therefore rivers, lakes, oceans, and lands will receive less.

There is another heat buffer at work in our oceans; and that is the converting of water to a vapor. Typically we vaporize water in our kitchens by boiling it. Once we have boiling water (100°C), we must add another 540 calories per gram to convert it into water vapor at 100°C, almost 7-times the heat required to melt ice. Vaporization (evaporation by another name) does not require that all of a given quantity of water be raised to 100°C before vaporization occurs. With billions of water molecules in a gram of water, all colliding with each other thousands and millions of times per second, those water molecules on the surface of the land and oceans will have continuous opportunity to have their energy increased to become water vapor in the atmosphere. Global warming will increase the amount of vaporization and therefore increase the amount of moisture in the atmosphere.

As the ice, snow, and perma-frost disappear, the ongoing heat input that cannot find ice to melt will find water to vaporize. Since it requires less and less heat to evaporate water droplets as altitude increases, a buildup of greenhouse gases and increasing atmospheric heat will both tend toward a lot more water remaining as vapor in the atmosphere, rather than condensing into droplets necessary to form clouds and rain. Similar to the formation of ice from water, the condensing of water vapor into water droplets in the atmosphere requires the removal of heat from each gram of water vapor. This heat must be radiated into space or it will most likely be absorbed by the land and oceans, resulting in increasingly warmer and dryer soils and parts of the oceans that may become too warm to support the food chain.

There is a secondary effect, in the loss of ice and snow and cloud reflectivity that could accelerate global warming. Since ice and snow reflect nearly 100% of the radiation they receive, while rocks and oceans and vegetation absorb a very large portion of the radiation they receive. The reduction of ice and snow will add significant heat to the Polar Regions and mountains ranges; some of which will then be redistributed by the winds to all parts of the Earth. Today the Earth is to a considerable percentage cloaked in clouds and fog continually, a great deal of solar radiation is reflected back into space by clouds. It is very likely that there is a tipping point for the quantity of ice available to absorb heat and for the surface area of clouds, snow and ice to reflect sunlight into space, such that beyond that tipping point global warming could accelerate to an extreme of no ice whatsoever and very little cloud cover; and this could occur in a relatively short time-span.

One final thought on the acceleration of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic regions and loss of ice shelves near Antarctica, concerns the action of salt in seawater. We are all familiar with the use of salt to melt snow and ice on our roads and sidewalks. Those who live in areas that receive a lot of snow and ice each winter also know that salt is very active and efficient at melting ice when the temperature is around the freezing mark, but that salt is not useful or efficient at melting ice when the temperature drops below minus 15°C. How this affects sea ice that is in contact with seawater is this; when the Arctic and Antarctic oceans are very cold, the salt has little or no ability to accelerate the melting of the ice it comes in contact with. But as these oceans rise in temperature, due to global warming, the salt in seawater becomes much more effective at melting sea ice. Rising ocean temperatures that are still below freezing can accelerate the loss of sea ice, because of the effect of salt. And this is exactly what we are experiencing today. The ice in these regions is disappearing faster than anyone had calculated based solely on temperature increases to date; it is the increased effectiveness of salt from rising ocean temperatures that is responsible for the accelerating loss of sea ice.

Of course we may think that we are in dire straights, but it’s not really that bad; compared to the year 2108, when everyone is living and working 20 feet or more underground, to minimize requirements for heating, cooling, avoiding ultra-violet radiation, freak storms, and other calamities. At least we can keep cool today with iced beverages and refrigerated air, while we leave it to our children to ask, what happens after the ice is gone?

© May 2008
Craig D. Hanks

Comments about this blog can be made directly to the author at craigdhanks@aol.com

Other blogs by this author can be found at http://beyondfarenough.blogspot.com/

The picture below is the cover of my book Social Benchmarks which is available at Amazon .com. To learn more about this book click on the Social Benchmarks link above.

To see a larger image of the cover just click on it.