electricity and e motors

[stivep]

...

[ourunity]

Hi Verpies

I think it is quite evident that without a wave there is no motion or matter. Centripetal force takes matter from without and squeezes it to the center. Centrifugal force pushes it from the center to the opposite side.
This is zero energy in action.
Statement about aether is there so that the reader can see  its role is in the second place. Aether has length and width. When electricity acts on it, it extends it adding thickness. Thus 3D is created.
Nothing in nature has only one dimension.
Zero point energy has no physical properties so it cannot be called first dimension.
If motion cannot be created without zero then zero is always always first.

I hope this clears up all misconceptions.

Best Regards

PS In my opinion, we are one century behind with this discussion.

[Verpies]

I think it is quite evident that without a wave there is no motion or matter.

It is not evident at all.

Waves move. So motion seems to be prerequisite to a wave, not the other way around.
As a side note: motion cannot exist without space or time.

Centripetal force takes matter from without and squeezes it to the center. Centrifugal force pushes it from the center to the opposite side.

You have not defined the cause of the force.  You have not explained how matter arises from these waves.

Aether has length and width.

That is the way to do it !
Finally someone is defining properties of an axiomatic object.
Length and width are perpendicular to each other by definition so this is tantamount to making it 2-dimensional ..like a plane.
There is a lot missing here though: Is it a single unbounded plane or multiple bounded planes ?  In case of the latter - what is their orientation to each other ?

When electricity acts on it, it extends it adding thickness. Thus 3D is created.

Do you have a mechanism by which this extension occurs or is it a separate axiom ?
Even then, electric current has direction, the aforementioned plane/planes have them, too.  Thus there is an angle between them.  How does "extending the thickness" depend on this angle ?

Nothing in nature has only one dimension.

So you disallow lines but allow planes and volumes.
Do you gave any justification for such preferential treatment ?

Zero point energy has no physical properties so it cannot be called first dimension.

Does it have non-physical properties ?
Is it an axiom or is it defined in terms of mass and force (i.e. centripetal) ?

If motion cannot be created without zero...

Why not?
Why can't motion at the speed of light be the natural datum, from which all other speeds are measured ?

I hope this clears up all misconceptions.

Absolutely not!
It raises even more questions. Just count my question marks.
It presupposes space and time, too.

PS In my opinion, we are one century behind with this discussion.

Is there anyone further ahead who we are behind ?

[Allcanadian]

verpies

Waves move. So motion seem prerequisite to a wave, not the other way around.
As a side note: motion cannot exist without space or time.

I would agree something must be moving first or the notion of a wave is meaningless.

On a side note, motion defines space and time not vice versa. In fact time is just a measure of motion first based on Sun/season cycles which then evolved to mass/inertia systems ie. clocks. Time and space are not something they are a measure of something, motion/change always comes first. The first principal or first cause is motion and everything else we know is deduced from this. This must be true because if nothing moved then the notion of time and space would be meaningless.

I suspect a truly advanced civilization wouldn't use our primitive notion of time. Universal time must be able to be applied universally not based on something as primitive as the Sun cycles of one planet. A universal unit of time would probably use atomic oscillations or the speed of light as it's base. That's the thing isn't it, we are still so primitive we don't even realize how primitive we are.

I suspect that once more people start traveling in space and occupying other planets most of our primitive conventions will be abandoned. I mean the notion of a day is almost as absurd as the notion of weight in outer space. Everything is "weightless" in space and only mass-inertia has any relevance.

You see, if were going to become an advanced civilization then we are going to have to start thinking on a more advanced level.

AC

[Verpies]

On a side note, motion defines space and time not vice versa.

I could agree with that, but I would like to propose that this relationship is bidirectional.

How about space and time being two different aspects of motion, just like two sides of the same coin.
Additionally, notice that a simple mathematical relationship can be defined between space and time in the equation of motion. Would you like to jot it down ?

The first principal or first cause is motion and everything else we know is deduced from this.

I agree

This must be true because if nothing moved then the notion of time and space would be meaningless.

Yes, when you think about it this way, there appears to be an absolute requirement for "something" to move, for "something" to define that motion  ...and then you are left with the insurmountable task of finding that elusive "something"...which brings you back to the proverbial square one.

we are going to have to start thinking on a more advanced level.

Indeed there is a way to think on such an advanced level. I reveal it in the next paragraph:

I would agree something must be moving first ...

Here, I would like to propose a novel idea to you. It might be hard for your mind to wrap around it at first, but please give it a chance.  Here it goes: "On the most fundamental level, motion is just a relationship between a quantity of space and time ...and a moving object is not necessary to define this relationship." In other words: an objectless motion exists.

Did you experience an epiphany or revulsion when reading the above ?

[Allcanadian]

verpies

I could agree with that, but I would like to propose that this relationship is bidirectional.
How about space and time being two different aspects of motion, just like two sides of the same coin.
Additionally, notice that a simple mathematical relationship can be defined between space and time in the equation of motion. Would you like to jot it down ?

Space and time are properties used to describe motion. Space the distance traveled, time the period it takes to move through said distance to calculate the velocity or extent of motion.

Yes, when you think about it this way, there appears to be an absolute requirement for "something" to move, for "something" to define that motion  ...and then you are left with the insurmountable task of finding that elusive "something"...which brings you back to the proverbial square one.

Not at all and it's not that difficult to understand. High energy bodies like stars emit massive amounts of moving particles and changing EM waves which saturate the vacuum of space. The particles in atoms also interact with each others motional EM fields through the vacuum between the particles. The common thread is obviously the changing fields which constitutes motion, a motional field as a wave. So we have energy as moving particles or moving fields and it is the motion/change which constitutes all energy.

Here, I would like to propose a novel idea to you. It might be hard for your mind to wrap around it at first, but please give it a chance.  Here it goes: "On the most fundamental level, motion is just a relationship between a quantity of space and time ...and a moving object is not necessary to define this relationship." In other words: an objectless motion exists.

I think you highlighted the problem, "motion is just a relationship between a quantity of space and time" which is false. Motion is tangible, it is real and observable. Space(distance) and time are simply measures we use to calculate the extent of motion. Like many your confusing a measure of something with the thing being measured. I mean, according to your logic, a 2x4 is just the relationship between the spaces on my tape measure not a piece of lumber. I think we need to get back to reality and common sense.

AC