Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    Is our Universe static or dynamic? Is there motion in the Universe?

    Newton believed in a homogeneous, infinite, and static Universe, reasoning that only infinite mass and volume could
    counteract the gravitational attraction of stars and keep them essentially in place. In contrast, Einstein's relativity champions
    a dynamic Universe characterized by self-creation and inflation:

    “ the universe started with a big bang singularity (p. 50)… At the big bang itself the
       universe is thought to have had zero size (p. 117)… [General Relativity’s] prediction
       that the universe started off with infinite density at the big bang singularity...
       Space-time would have a boundary – a beginning at the big bang. (p. 122)”  [1]

    “ The inflationary epoch is the term used in physical cosmology to describe the brief
       time in the very early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe was
       expanding exponentially.”  [2]

    However, Newton’s universe is not motionless either. The Newtonian cosmos consists of stars pulling on planets and
    galaxies on stars. Under his peculiar version of ‘static,’ the Moon still orbits a spinning planet and a log sleeping quietly
    here on Earth nevertheless moves with respect to Jupiter. If the plain meaning of the word static is ‘having no motion,’ the
    classical universe is ill-conceived.

    So let’s distinguish clearly between these mutually exclusive scenarios and reformulate the ageless inquiry using the
    rigorous definition of static. Is there any movement whatsoever in the Universe? Does the Moon move at all?

    In light of the rigorous definition of static, the reply seems almost academic. To thaw a frozen Universe it suffices to move
    a single object; the remaining ones automatically adjust their distances to it. Since it is a matter of fact that at least your
    hand moves, we can proceed to synthesize the undeniable reality of motion into a law:


    The First Law of Physics or The Dynamic Universe

    An object moves with respect to at least one other object in the Universe.

    However, before we certify our conclusion, it would seem elementary to begin by defining what we mean by move.

    Newton considered motion to be so self-evident that he thought it trivial to bother with a definition, casually remarking:

    “ I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.” (p. 81)  [3]

    [No kidding? Yeah, why take the trouble, Newt? Let’s just decree laws of motion without
      understanding what we’re talking about!]

    His definitions of absolute and relative motion leave us in even greater doubt as to his understanding:

    “ Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place to another;
       and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another.” [4]

    Translation and motion are synonyms, and we end up learning nothing from Newton’s circular attempt.

    This is actually quite stunning considering that this autistic individual is credited with having 'discovered' the three laws
    of motion. It is important to note that in a preliminary work, Newton had already realized that certain words of Physics
    were difficult to define:

    “ Place is a part of space which something fills evenly…Body is that which fills place…
       Rest is remaining in the same place…Motion is change of place.”  [5]

    So after fiddling around with definitions he knew nothing about,Newton eventually realized that it was best to tell the world
    that since everyone already knew what space and time and motion meant there was no need to define them these words.
    Thus, this famous prosecutor delegated the task of interpreting what he was talking about to the jurors. The deliberate
    omission of these definitions shows just how dishonest Newton was during his life. This is an individual who would later
    claim that he was the inventor of the calculus and use his power as Director of the Mint to send people to the gallows.

    Indeed, Locke had already dismissed the atomists’ version of motion as a circular definition:

    “ what do they more than put one synonymous word for another? For what is passage
       other than motion? And if they were asked what passage was, how would they better
       define it than by motion? For is it not at least as proper and significant to say, Passage
       is a motion from one place to another, as to say, Motion is a passage, &c.? …Nor will
       the ‘successive application of the parts of the superficies of one body to those of
       another,’ which the Cartesians give us, prove a much better definition of motion, when
       well examined.” [6]
      
    Evidently, Newton was wrong! Apparently, motion is not 'well known to all' in his generation. Newton concedes so much
    n some of his writings:

    “ This point about Descartes's relationalism might be considered an internal criticism of
       Descartes's system for two reasons. Descartes himself attempts to distinguish between
       true — or “proper” [proprie/propre] — motion and motion in a “vulgar” or “ordinary”
       sense [vulgarem/commun], and does so in what we might call a relationalist fashion. For
       Descartes, whereas motion in the vulgar sense is “the action by which a body travels
       from one place to another,” motion in the proper sense is “the transfer of one piece of
       matter, or one body, from the vicinity of the other bodies which immediately touch it, and
       which we consider to be at rest, to the vicinity of other bodies” (Principles of Philosophy,
       Part Two, sections 24-25| Descartes 1644/1982, 53-4). Indeed, in the Scholium to the
       Principia, it seems that Descartes's “proper” motion, defined in terms of the relations of
       bodies contiguous to a given body, becomes Newton's relative motion. That is, Newton
       remarkably refashions Descartes's own distinction between the “ordinary” and the
      'proper' definitions of motion by contending that the latter is sufficiently precise for
       ordinary affairs, but not for physics. The second reason is this: Newton takes the
       fashioning of the distinction between true and merely apparent motion to be one of the
       primary goals not just of his physics, but also of Cartesian physics. So in De
       Gravitatione, Newton seems to conclude that Cartesian physics fails on its own terms.” [7]

    The result is that the experts incongruously credit Newton with discovering the alleged Three Laws of Motion, yet they
    have failed to define the strategic word motion unambiguously. They have no clue as to how significant this term is in
    Physics, and they end up using whatever definition they concoct inconsistently throughout their dissertations anyways:

    “ In physics, motion means a continuous change in the location of a body.” " [8]

    a•      Continuous?

    For the purposes of Science, continuous is exclusively an adjective. This word may
    only be used in the context of physical objects. For example, the prosecutor may say
    that a wall is continuous. The prosecutor may not say that jumping is continuous.
    Jumping can perhaps be incessant, perpetual, or constant, but never continuous.

    •        Change?

    For the purposes of Science, the word change is a synonym of motion. Translated
    to scientific language, the proponent is saying that motion means a continuous
    motion. Great! What have we learned?

    •        Location?

    The day that a  location changes location is the day you had too much to drink. On that fine
    day, God comes to Earth and all of Apocalypse breaks loose... for you.   
The definition of the
word motion
Don't you worry one
bit, Newt. I'll never let
them get to you.


    What does this say about the conclusions of relativity? Can a theorist assert that a particle collided in an accelerator or that
    light travels at 300,000 km/sec if he hasn’t formally defined the word motion? Can quantum regard indeterminacy to be a
    ‘principle’ if advocates haven’t first distinguished between position and momentum? Can we take for granted that the
    Universe is dynamic if we have but vague notions of words such as location and translate?

    Leibniz was not much more successful than Descartes, Newton, or Locke at concocting definitions. He defined place and
    space loosely as:

    “ place is that, which is the same in different moments to different existent things…
       space is that, which results from places taken together” (p. 122)  [9] [10]

    In Leibniz’s version, place is the position occupied by an object, and space a group of positions taken together by an
    observer. Thus, in Leibniz’s view, space is contingent upon an observer, which implies that, before there was life on
    Earth, space did not exist between the Moon and the Earth. According to Leibniz, Man created space. Some people simply
    can’t overcome bringing testimonials into their theories. The error consists in converting space into a concept. The
    mathematicians have no choice but to force space to suffer this metamorphosis if they want to use space in a way
    meaningful to them. In Science, however, the difference between space and concepts is that the latter are artificial.
    Space was there before any of us came on board.

    So where does this leave motion?

    If a single frame in a movie is static and we build a movie with many frames, it follows that the definitions of static
    concepts must precede the definitions of dynamic concepts. Before we can define the word motion, we first need
    to understand the difference between static concepts such as position and location.
Bill, I believe I just saw a
location move to another.
I think I'd better have
another of these!

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008