Motion is the result of ...

[bahman]

Motion is the result of change of two variables, the first being whatever and the second one being time.

[Age]

Motion is the result of change of two variables, the first being whatever and the second one being time.

Motion is the just result of the two fundamental 'things' of the Universe. They are, 'matter' and the distance, or 'space', between and around matter.

This 'space' is what allows ALL 'matter' to move about FREELY, and continuously, FOREVER. And, this is just what 'motion', itself, ACTUALLY IS.

'Time' was just the word invented to measure the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

When one UNDERSTANDS this FULLY, then they can START SEEING how this fits in PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else.

[bahman]

Motion is the result of change of two variables, the first being whatever and the second one being time.

Motion is the just result of the two fundamental 'things' of the Universe. They are, 'matter' and the distance, or 'space', between and around matter.

This 'space' is what allows ALL 'matter' to move about FREELY, and continuously, FOREVER. And, this is just what 'motion', itself, ACTUALLY IS.

You are mixing change with motion.

'Time' was just the word invented to measure the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

The clock was invented not time.

When one UNDERSTANDS this FULLY, then they can START SEEING how this fits in PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else.

Ahan.

[commonsense]

'Time' was just the word invented to measure the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

The clock was invented not time.

I read that sentence differently. I see that a word was invented.

[bahman]

'Time' was just the word invented to measure the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

The clock was invented not time.

I read that sentence differently. I see that a word was invented.

You are right. I missed "word". The sentence is confusing now.

[Age]

'Time' was just the word invented to measure the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

The clock was invented not time.

I read that sentence differently. I see that a word was invented.

Thank you.

[Age]

The clock was invented not time.

I read that sentence differently. I see that a word was invented.

You are right. I missed "word". The sentence is confusing now.

WHY is that sentence confusing now, to 'you'?

Honestly I could have written it more clearly and far more accurately.

To 'me', 'Time' was just the word invented to describe the measuring of the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

[bahman]

I read that sentence differently. I see that a word was invented.

You are right. I missed "word". The sentence is confusing now.

WHY is that sentence confusing now, to 'you'?

Honestly I could have written it more clearly and far more accurately.

To 'me', 'Time' was just the word invented to describe the measuring of the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

Ahan, you are saying that time is a word/concept. I must say that I disagree if it is so.

[Age]

You are right. I missed "word". The sentence is confusing now.

WHY is that sentence confusing now, to 'you'?

Honestly I could have written it more clearly and far more accurately.

To 'me', 'Time' was just the word invented to describe the measuring of the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

Ahan, you are saying that time is a word/concept. I must say that I disagree if it is so.

If you disagree that the word/concept 'time' is NOT a word/concept, then what IS 'time', EXACTLY?

[bahman]

WHY is that sentence confusing now, to 'you'?

Honestly I could have written it more clearly and far more accurately.

To 'me', 'Time' was just the word invented to describe the measuring of the duration, or the length of motion, between two perceived "events".

Ahan, you are saying that time is a word/concept. I must say that I disagree if it is so.

If you disagree that the word/concept 'time' is NOT a word/concept, then what IS 'time', EXACTLY?

Time is a substance. It exists.

[Age]

Ahan, you are saying that time is a word/concept. I must say that I disagree if it is so.

If you disagree that the word/concept 'time' is NOT a word/concept, then what IS 'time', EXACTLY?

Time is a substance. It exists.

I suggest that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make the CLAIM, then it would be far better for 'you' to NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Obviously discussing this ANY further with you is NOT going to get us ANYWHERE.

You OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE what you say and CLAIM here is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, even though what you say and CLAIM here is OBVIOUSLY NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. Other than YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS of what is true, OF COURSE.

[commonsense]

bahman,

Be more open.

[bahman]

If you disagree that the word/concept 'time' is NOT a word/concept, then what IS 'time', EXACTLY?

Time is a substance. It exists.

I suggest that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make the CLAIM, then it would be far better for 'you' to NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Obviously discussing this ANY further with you is NOT going to get us ANYWHERE.

You OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE what you say and CLAIM here is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, even though what you say and CLAIM here is OBVIOUSLY NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. Other than YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS of what is true, OF COURSE.

Ok, there are two arguments for that: 1) The existence of Planck time and 2) The existence of the gravitational waves. (1) is dealing with the existence of the smallest time duration being 10^(−44) seconds (time is not continuous but discrete). This means that there is something between two consecutive points in time since otherwise there would be nothing between two points and two points would be one and you cannot have any change in time. Therefore, time is something. (2) is related to the fact that space-time bends near heavy objects. In the case of two heavy rotating around each other like two black holes, there could be a gravitational wave that spreads with the speed of light and can be detected. You can read more about gravitational waves here. You can read more about general relativity here.

[bahman]

bahman,

Be more open.

I try dude.

[Age]

Time is a substance. It exists.

I suggest that if you can NOT back up and support YOUR CLAIMS BEFORE you make the CLAIM, then it would be far better for 'you' to NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE.

Obviously discussing this ANY further with you is NOT going to get us ANYWHERE.

You OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE what you say and CLAIM here is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, even though what you say and CLAIM here is OBVIOUSLY NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. Other than YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS of what is true, OF COURSE.

Ok, there are two arguments for that: 1) The existence of Planck time and 2) The existence of the gravitational waves. (1) is dealing with the existence of the smallest time duration being 10^(−44) seconds (time is not continuous but discrete).

Now you will have to deal with the existence of a SMALLER time duration, which I will call and label "bahman time". "bahman time" is half of what is called and labeled "planck time". So, now we are dealing with the existence of the ACTUAL 'smallest time'.

'you', human beings, REALLY ARE BLINDED to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Just because 'you' call and label some human being constructed 'thing', then this does NOT mean that 'that' is the ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

You can say that "time is not continuous but discrete" till the day cannot any more. But this is NO way means that it is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.

This means that there is something between two consecutive points in time since otherwise there would be nothing between two points and two points would be one and you cannot have any change in time.

As I have POINTED OUT before, you human beings will say just about ANY thing, which you hope and BELIEVE backs up and supports your ALREADY obtained ASSUMPTIONS about what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. And here, my fellow readers, is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being doing JUST THIS.

Since you BELIEVE Existence, Itself, is NOT continuous, and so MUST BE "popping into and out of Itself", then can you and will you SHOW and/or EXPLAIN how this could even be a POSSIBILITY? Then we will LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this' to SEE if this is an ACTUALITY.

Therefore, time is something. (2) is related to the fact that space-time bends near heavy objects. In the case of two heavy rotating around each other like two black holes, there could be a gravitational wave that spreads with the speed of light and can be detected. You can read more about gravitational waves here. You can read more about general relativity here.

And a LOT of other human beings also, supposedly and allegedly, "find", so called, "evidence" and/or "proof" for what their 'hero's' have previously stated/theorized is true, right, and correct? "christians" and "scientists" alike have been doing this for ages.

If you want to BELIEVE that 'time', itself, is a substance, then go on right ahead. But just like EVERY other, so called, "scientist", in the days of when this is being written, what is said CONTRADICTS and CONFLICTS with itself. OBVIOUSLY, 'you', human beings, had NOT YET discovered the ACTUAL UNIFIED Truth of 'things', and part of the reason for this was that 'you', ALL, continued to say and state what you ALREADY BELIEVED was thee Truth of 'things'.

OBVIOUSLY what you are saying and stating is NOT thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', this is because they do NOT UNIFY together as One, so SURELY this would be a SURE SIGN to START to LOOK AT 'things' differently. One would think.