Perception of Motion Vs. Actual Motion

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
A recent post by Keeb333 on the subject of Einstein's Equivalency Principle, and how we perceive motion, clicked in my brain on several other topics. One topic is one I have presented here at length, namely how the two concepts of MATTER and MOTION are what define our perception of Time. The other concept is a derivative of this concept, and it is if Time and Motion are so inextricably linked (as Einstein showed), then how can we REALLY be sure that when our perceptions are telling us something is in motion, that it really IS in motion? It may not seem like a big distinction, but I think it has huge implications to (a) Exceeeding the speed of light and (b) Time travel.

I have an excellent optical illusion that my brother sent to me just today, and it speaks to this in a way that words cannot. I will try to figure out a way to share it with you folks, most likely through posting on my website. However, this capability is deferred right now as I recover from an attack on my home computer. In the interim I will describe the basis of this illusion to make my point:

It is a color graphic of several multi-colored, banded concentric circles. When you look at the whole graphic you would swear that each of the circles is slowly rotating. However, when you focus your attention on one central point of one circle, you realize that it is NOT moving. You can move to each circle and verify that NONE of them are really moving. And yet your eyes are still relaying a falsehood to your brain that they are moving.

This is another fundamental piece of evidence for my claim that "things are not as we perceive them to be" and therefore the "concrete" definitions we have developed for what constitutes Mass, Space, and Time truly are illusions of our senses.

I will find a way to share this with the group as soon as I can.
RainmanTime
 
"This is another fundamental piece of evidence for my claim that "things are not as we perceive them to be" and therefore the "concrete" definitions we have developed for what constitutes Mass, Space, and Time truly are illusions of our senses."

Exactly! I think you are on to something with the Matter and Motion are what define our perception of time. I have been thinking that change and light are what define it (it, being our perception of time). Without either light or change our perception of "time" would be very different indeed. Then again, we'd all be blind, so to speak.
 
I think you are on to something with the Matter and Motion are what define our perception of time.
The best evidence for this is historical.... as EVERY form of time measurement device that mankind has developed has Matter-In-Motion as it basis. Sundial, Solar Calendar, Grandfather clock, digital (crystal-driven) clocks, and even atomic clocks. Without Moving Matter you cannot track time, in a scientific sense.

Damn... now it seem as if my WEBSITE is down. Can other users try to get to http://www.tree-o-life.org and PM me to tell me if you were able to get web pages dislpayed? I think whoever was attacking my home computer is now after my website! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Thanks,
RainmanTime
 
Motion is how we perceive the passage of time.

Time is used throughout the field of physics without truly being understood.

The second is defined as the period of time required for 9,192,631,770 vibrational transitions of Cesium-133.

I suppose the truly relevant question here is: How does time affect atomic nuclei? That is, how does time cause such things as radioactive decay? How does the atom know it's time to decay? I beleive that the nature of time lies in the answer.
 
Hi again Keeb,

Time is used throughout the field of physics without truly being understood.
Interesting you say this at this Time (pun intended). First, I believe you are correct and that we do not have a complete picture of Time in the sciences. Second, I just found an interesting paper that discusses this on the Arxiv server for quantum physics papers:

Is There More To T? (Why Time's Description In Modern Physics Is Still Incomplete)

ABSTRACT: "We present some novel results indicating that time's description in
present-day physics is deficient. We use Hawking's information-erasure hypothesis
to counter his own claim that time's arrow depends only on initial conditions. Next,
we propose quantum mechanical experiments that yield inconsistent histories, suggesting
that not only events but also entire histories might be governed by a more
fundamental dynamics."

It's a very good read. I highly recommend it to any of those folks who have been following my argument that "we live in the generation that will finally understand Time."

RainmanTime
 
RainmanTime, thanks for the link. I began reading the paper last night. Unfortunately, it was late and I am working today, so I'll have to finish it tonight. Also, I'm still trying to catch up on reading some of these threads, as I only found this place last week /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Hi RT,

I found it interesting that they mentioned the transactional interpretaion of quantum mechanics. I just recently read about this interpretaion for the first time. Apparently some recent experimental evidence has confirmed it, while at the same time providing evidence against the Copenhagen and Everett-Wheeler interpretations. I will try and find the link for you.

I'm still digesting the link you posted. It was a fascinating read. I'm not sure what the implications it are yet. Do you know if their experiments were actually carried out,or were they just calculated?

Keeb
 
Greetings Keeb,

I found it interesting that they mentioned the transactional interpretaion of quantum mechanics. I just recently read about this interpretaion for the first time. Apparently some recent experimental evidence has confirmed it, while at the same time providing evidence against the Copenhagen and Everett-Wheeler interpretations. I will try and find the link for you.
That would be nice of you. I will glady and eagerly examine and digest it!

I'm not sure what the implications it are yet. Do you know if their experiments were actually carried out,or were they just calculated?
If I read their subtle words at the end of section 1 correctly, they were simply calculated, with the implication that they should be actually performed.

CAUTION: The following are my thoughts on potential implications, and they are clearly shaped by my Massive SpaceTime thoughts and theory. You have been warned! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I have some inferred implications from the following two quotes from this paper:

1) "Consequently, if a subtle time-asymmetry is inherent to physical interactions themselves, the orthodox picture of time as a mere dimension looses much of its conviction."
AND
2) "Where we break new ground is in proposing that this spacetime is not static. Perhaps it, too, is subject to some subtle dynamics, that is changes affect not only events but also entire histories."

I am hopeful that they are "doing the science" to come to the realizations I have had with my theory. Namely, their idea that time is not simply a mere dimension (singular), and that it possesses dynamics, reflect a vectorized view of time as an orthogonal field. I also get this interpretation from their description of the advanced+retarded transactional QM model. It is terribly exciting to me if this is where they might be headed.

For those on the forum who may not have been able to "keep up" with this paper, or the concept of transactional QM they describe, let me try to explain in terms of the 3-D view of Time in my Massive SpaceTime Matrix theory:

As we know, a transaction always takes place between two people/entities. In this case, the transaction is taking place between PAST (retarded) and FUTURE (advanced). This also fits with classical dynamical concepts in that two forces (action+reaction) are required for dynamical situations to take place. So what we are saying is that the Time axis we call FUTURE and the Time axis we call PAST dynamically interact (the transaction) in order to create the observations of the PRESENT. Obviously, since observation is such a major key in these QM interpretations, then that means the observer is a crucial part of the process. This is what brings Mind (as distinct from Brain) into the picture. It would also support the thought that each of us, as distinct observers, possess our own "point state" of the PRESENT, which is different from everyone else's PRESENT.

If this is true, this has amazing implications to each of us with regard to how we think of our individual past and our future. When you think and rethink events that happened in your past, this is a form of revisionism that may play an important part in the dynamics of Time. For example: if in thinking about a past event, you come to new conclusions of WHY that event happened to you, and what it means to your future, you are enabling such an advanced+retarded transaction at the quantum level. This, in turn, changes your present, past, and future all at once.

I know some people think I am full of it (or full of myself). They may think I am proposing a much too simplistic model for reality. But I am one who has learned in my life to examine and follow the intuitions that I feel most strongly. This is in the best traditions of exemplary scientists such as Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. "Gut feel" has played a major part in scientific breakthroughs.

We live in a FASCINATING Time!
RainmanTime
 
OK, here's the link to the article which first introduced transactional QM to me.

It certainly implies that we have much left to learn about the nature of matter.

Keeb
 
Another good example would be of Motion v. Percieved Motion would be a spinning bike or car tire.
Seems to be moving one way but in fact it's moving another... but only when spinning fast.
 
Back
Top