Article 4. IT’S A STORY AND IT’S ABOUT TIME: The Tortoise and the Hare

Zeno: DO YOU HAVE A MENTAL PROBLEM? 

In other words, does your theory of motion make it IMPOSSIBLE for motion to occur?

Zeno’s “Achilles” Paradox asks: “If you can always divide distance into smaller increments, then if a slow-moving tortoise gets a head-start, how can a swifter runner like Achilles [the hare] catch the tortoise, since the distance between them can be infinitely subdivided, and therefore Achilles would have to make an infinite number of steps to catch the tortoise?”

And even more to the point the larger question Zeno forces us to ask is this:

“How is MOVEMENT even possible in the first place if you can always divide distance into smaller increments?”

That is Zeno’s INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX called the “Dichotomy.”

Wikipedia begins the discussion of the “Dichotomy” with a quote from Aristotle: 

“That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.”

Then Wikipedia further explains: 

“Suppose Atalanta wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before she can get there, she must get halfway there. Before she can get halfway there, she must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, she must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on….This description requires [Atalanta] to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility. This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to [walk], for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.”

THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS: 

We cannot replace a part of physical Reality with “thoughts” and then write-up a THEORY OF MOTION in which THINKING ABOUT MOTION (“math”) is the cause of PHYSICAL MOVEMENT.

ZENO PROVED that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to cause motion by “thinking about motion”—all you get when you try to move by “doing math” is THE INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX—so therefore your theory of motion is INVALID if it doesn’t state a logically-valid physical cause of motion.

The same problem: “Coming-up with a PHYSICALLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION for events” was also addressed by a philosophy professor in a college classroom in a movie I watched recently called “Spinning Man.” 

“Spinning Man” was about the philosophy professor, who had become confused between:

(1) HIS THOUGHTS ABOUT CRIMINAL ACTS 

and 

(2) HIS MEMORIES OF PHYSICAL EVENTS.

So the professor was naturally preoccupied with figuring-out how to prove what is REAL and what is an ILLUSION.  

But thinking-about THE INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX OF MOTION was not helping the professor at all!

Still, the “crime and punishment” question raised by the movie—“IS THINKING ABOUT COMMITTING CRIMES A PROBLEM THAT EXISTS OR NOT?”—is actually analogous to Zeno’s “does MOVEMENT EXIST or not?” question, because both questions depend-on understanding the difference between IMMATERIAL THOUGHTS and THE MATERIAL WORLD. 

The “Spinning Man” movie plot forces us to ask ourselves whether thoughts are “parts of people” that “exist” before the thoughts are “brought into the physical world” through acts?

If we say: “Yes, THOUGHTS EXIST IN THE WORLD separate from acts,” then the implication of that answer is that we would be in-support of the “Psychic Thought Police,” aka the “Precogs,” in the movie ”Minority Report.” 

The Precogs could psychically detect when anyone THOUGHT ABOUT MURDERING SOMEONE ELSE, so then according to the plot of the movie THE LAW was re-written to say that murderous thoughts detected by the Precogs would GIVE THE COPS LEGAL CAUSE TO IMPRISON A PERSON in a life-sized “test tube” in which the person could THINK BUT NOT MOVE.

On the other hand, if we say: “No, THOUGHTS DO NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD until they become acts,” then that would make THE MADE-UP LAW in the “Minority Report” movie—the law allowing Precog detections to be held against people—corrupt/invalid. 

So the next question is obviously: 

“Yeah but ‘Precogs’ are fictional, and IRL doesn’t every voluntary communication you make bring your thoughts into the world physically, e.g., through sound or movement or writing, thereby making every voluntary communication you make AN ACT, and allowing all voluntary communications to be held against you as physical evidence?”

Answer: I’m going to plead the 5th on that one.

JK

Jesus: [at Matthew 12:37)] For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. 

In other words, the answer is YES; if you quote Rene Descartes and say: “I think therefore I am,” then you are bringing your thoughts about yourself into the world through sound or movement or writing, and you are thereby proving your own existence.

So that’s the main Legal (LOGICAL) issue that the “Spinning Man” movie clarified for me. 

The plot of “Spinning Man” also clarified three more Legal issues for me: 

(1) Using “PSYCHIC TESTIMONY” against someone is always corrupt/invalid.

(2) There is a difference between “your verbatim communications” and “psychological analysis” of “your verbatim communications,” and the difference is “PSYCHIC TESTIMONY” against you, which is always corrupt/invalid.

(3) ERGO, “PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS” SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LEGAL EVIDENCE EXCEPT AS REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS or other litigants proffering the reports for the litigants’ own benefit.

But again, the main thing that I learned from the “Spinning Man” movie relates to Zeno’s INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX OF MOTION. 

JUST AS THOUGHTS are not “parts of people” that EXIST BEFORE the thoughts are “brought into the physical world” through physical acts, including communication (which means it’s impossible to commit a crime by “thinking-about committing a crime”), likewise, A VALID THEORY OF MOTION CANNOT EXIST if “thinking about moving” is what is theorized to be the cause of motion.

Maybe that still sounds confusing. 

But all I’m saying is what Zeno said: EVERY THEORY OF MOTION has to contain more than “thinking about moving” to state a REAL (TRUE) THEORY; if a THEORY OF MOTION is only “THINKING ABOUT MOTION” (if the theory of motion is MATH), THEN YOU MUST ALSO THINK-ABOUT—YOU MUST OVERCOME—ZENO’S INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX, then the problem becomes that THE INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARDOX is caused by thought (math), and it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a thought/math-based theory of motion to overcome the paradox, so therefore the entire theory of motion is “non-starting,” aka INVALID.  

So when the “Spinning Man” movie was over, I stopped to think about modern science’s answer to the question: 

“How is MOVEMENT possible if you can always divide distance into smaller increments?”

Then I said to myself: “Houston, we’ve had a problem!” because ALBERT EINSTEIN’S THEORIES DO NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION!

Check it out: 

According to modern sources (see, e.g., “Gravity Probe B Testing Einstein’s Universe”), “Einstein’s theory [of motion]…is often summed up in words as follows: ‘matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move’.”

The “invisible fabric” of spacetime. 

Woe. 

Isaac Newton would roll-over in his grave and Hans Christian Andersen would laugh!

Talk-about a “SPINNING MAN” (CIRCULAR REASONING) problem:

Einstein’s theory of motion is WORSE than asking the cart to pull the horse!

At least the cart and horse are MUTUALLY-RELATIVE! 

(Recall the discussion in Article 3 of the distinction between MUTUAL-RELATIVITY and ABSOLUTENESS in The Two-Part Thought Experiment About Relativity.) 

So while it might not be very HELPFUL for a cart to pull a horse (police officer on Vacation: “Do you know what the penalty for animal cruelty is in this state?”) at least it wouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE!

OTOH, to do what Einstein did and put matter (the 3rd dimension) in-command of how Space (the 4th dimension) moves is 100 NON-SENSICAL because it interchanges the RELATIVE and the ABSOLUTE, which is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

It’s like the jockey running the horse. 

It’s like the axe boasting over him who hews with it, or the rod wielding him who lifts it (see Isaiah 10:15.)

Question: HOW IN HECK did Albert Einstein manage to “overthrow” Isaac Newton with a “non-starting” theory of motion? 

Answer: Because Albert Einstein found a fatal flaw in Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, and SURPRISE! nobody except-for Albert Einstein had AN ENTIRELY NEW THEORY OF GRAVITY in their back pocket—and an entirely new theory of gravity was NECESSARY NOT OPTIONAL after Einstein proved that Newton’s theory of gravity was FALSE—and Newton wasn’t around to defend his motion-enabling ABSOLUTE SPACE and ABSOLUTE TIME assumptions (debunk Einstein’s motion-killing notions of RELATIVE SPACE and RELATIVE TIME, aka “spacetime”), so therefore the rest of science went-ahead and THREW-OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER. 

The BABY was Newton’s theory of motion (which, for reasons discussed below, was also non-starting, but the assumptions of Absolute Space and Absolute Time were valid, so tossing them out left science with an unsolvable problem) and THE BATHWATER was Newton’s mis-apprehension of the force of gravity, which flunked THE VANISHING SUN TEST. 

The VANISHING SUN TEST went like this: 

Assume that Newton is correct that the force of gravity exerted directly by the sun upon the earth is holding the earth in-orbit, then ask yourself: 

“According to Newton’s theory of gravity, what would happen to the earth if the sun suddenly vanished?” 

The answer is that according to Newton’s theory, THE FORCE OF GRAVITY ACTS INSTANTANEOUSLY between two bodies, so therefore if the sun suddenly vanished, then the earth would leave orbit in the same instant that the sun vanished. 

But as Einstein noted, THE FATAL PROBLEM WITH THAT CONCLUSION is that it is now known that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS THE “SPEED LIMIT” OF THE UNIVERSE, and it takes light EIGHT (8) MINUTES to travel from the sun to the earth; this means LIGHT FROM THE SUN WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO SHINE ON THE EARTH FOR EIGHT (8) MINUTES AFTER THE SUN VANISHED. 

But according to Newton, the force of gravity would be lost instantaneously. 

Ergo, Einstein concluded, NEWTON’S THEORY OF GRAVITY MUST BE FALSE because it says that THE FORCE OF GRAVITY TRAVELS BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE EARTH FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. 

And EINSTEIN WAS CORRECT back-in-the-day that Newton’s theory of gravity must be FALSE. 

And EINSTEIN REMAINS CORRECT TODAY that Newton’s theory of gravity must be FALSE.

But the problem TODAY is that Einstein’s theory of gravity, which is inextricable from Einstein’s theory of motion, FLUNKS “THE ZENO TEST” in a way that CANNOT BE FIXED.

Zeno: DO YOU HAVE A MENTAL PROBLEM?

In other words, does your theory of motion make it IMPOSSIBLE for motion to occur?

In still other words, you cannot replace a part of physical Reality with “thoughts” and then write-up a THEORY OF MOTION in which THINKING ABOUT MOTION (“math”) is the cause of PHYSICAL MOVEMENT.

ZENO PROVED that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to cause motion by “thinking about motion”—all you get when you try to move by “doing math” is THE INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX—so therefore your theory of motion is INVALID if it doesn’t state a logically-valid physical explanation for motion.

And Einstein’s theory of gravity fails to state a logically-valid physical explanation for motion because it says that THE JOCKEY (the RELATIVE 3rd dimension, matter) RUNS THE HORSE (the ABSOLUTE 4th dimension, Space) by concluding:

‘[M]atter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move’.” 

As noted above, that is physically impossible, because to put matter (the 3rd dimension) in-command of how Space (the 4th dimension) curves is NON-SENSICAL, since it interchanges the RELATIVE and the ABSOLUTE, which cannot physically happen! 

Also, Einstein’s theory of gravity says that “gravitational waves” ARE NOT LIGHT but yet “gravitational waves” travel at the speed of light, and that is THE SAME EGREGIOUS ERROR of CALLING THE RELATIVE (anything that is NOT LIGHT, e.g., “gravitational waves”) ABSOLUTE (LIGHT.) 

Ergo, Einstein’s theory of gravity must be FALSE.

Question: But “gravitational waves” have been spotted in the wild! How is it possible to see something that isn’t REALLY THERE? 

Hans Christian Andersen might sardonically query: “Have you heard ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ story?”

But ERROR is also a possibility if we’re starting with false assumptions then looking-for evidence that is invisible to the naked eye, because when we’re looking for invisible things then we must “interpret collected data” to “build a picture” from information that has been gathered. 

So the ERROR possibility is explained as being like “a snipe hunt” errand that was started by Einstein, and the reason we continue to run Einstein’s “fool’s errand” to this day is because we are caught in the trap of CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Also, we can’t ever know “THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH,” so we have to be satisfied with approximations of the Truth that are LOGICALLY VALID, and illogic is an especially slippery beast, because as Mark Twain famously realized: “It’s easier to fool ourselves than to convince ourselves that we’ve been fooled.” 

OK fine. 

Einstein’s theory of gravity—which is inextricable from Einstein’s theory of motion—has proven to be a “fool’s errand,” and the Vanishing Sun Test killed Newton’s theory of gravity, so there’s no going back to that now either. 

But that’s also OK because in Article 3, we did a credible job of locating THE FORCE OF GRAVITY, Fg, as one part of God that is outside of the universe. 

Einstein’s Vanishing Sun Test is IRRELEVANT to THE REAL force of gravity, Fg, which is a part of God outside of the universe, because as it turns out, the sun is NOT directly (via applied force) or indirectly (via curved spacetime fabric) exerting the force of gravity upon the earth to hold the earth in-orbit!

Both Newton and Einstein were WRONG that the force of gravity is exerted by one object on another. 

WE NOW KNOW that the force of gravity, Fg, is “holding-on” to everything in the universe, both matter and light, and “pulling down” on everything individually. 

We might be tempted to conclude that Fg acts “internally,” but that’s not actually what’s happening. 

In actuality, Fg must act on the COM (the “origin,” and Backward-most part) of matter and light, and Fg is AN EXTERNAL FORCE on every COM in the universe because Fg is applied-from the 5th dimension.  

Still, the identification of the source of the force of gravity and a super-general description of how the force of gravity works is by no stretch of the imagination A VALID THEORY OF GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION; what we’ve got so far does not survive Zeno’s paradox test, so we definitely need to explain HOW MOTION—including gravitational acceleration—ACTUALLY WORKS before we can claim to have A THEORY OF MOTION.  

And we definitely don’t want to re-invent the wheel if we don’t have to!

So NOW THE QUESTION IS: What about the remainder of Newton’s theory of motion, aka “classical mechanics,” aka “Newtonian Mechanics”? 

Can we ignore the parts of Newton’s theory about the cause/source of gravity but continue to use the rest of Newton’s teachings?? 

Does any of “classical mechanics” survive Zeno’s paradox???

Let’s put “classical mechanics,” aka “Newtonian Mechanics,” to the test by SUMMONING ZENO to be our advocate while we are pretending that we have to use “Newton’s Laws of Motion” to traverse THE ENTIRE DISTANCE from where we are now (POINT A) to where we want to go (POINT B.) 

Zeno: [in my imagination, speaking to Isaac Newton] What are Newton’s Laws of Motion?

Isaac Newton: [citing Livescience.com] 

Also Newton: [citing Wikipedia] “Various sources have proposed elevating other ideas used in classical mechanics to the status of Newton’s laws. For example….[a] candidate for a ‘zeroth law’ is the fact that at any instant, a body reacts to the forces applied to it at that instant. Likewise, the idea that forces add like vectors…and the idea that forces change the energy of a body, have both been described as a ‘fourth law’.”

Zeno: Oh OK so you’re telling me that the way I’m going to get into motion from where I’m at-rest, at Point A, is if A FORCE is applied to my body to cause my body’s acceleration per Newton’s Second Law of Motion, F = ma (the rate at which my body’s momentum is changing with time.)

Newton: Yes.

Zeno: No yeah that’s interesting, mate, but it’s UNCLEAR TO ME HOW, EXACTLY, that is going to get me into motion? For example, what SPECIFICALLY does my body do after THE FORCE is applied to it that gets me going in the right DIRECTION and keeps me going THE ENTIRE DISTANCE from where I am at-rest now (Point A) to Point B?

Newton: Well according to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, after the force is applied to your body, your body generates an equal force in the opposite direction. 

Zeno: How long does that take? 

Newton: According to the proposed “zeroth law,” it happens in the same instant as the applied force. 

Zeno: So every applied force lasts one instant?

Newton: 

Zeno: OK let me ask an easier question: How long is one instant? Do I have a watch or something to tell time?

Newton: Well you don’t need a watch because Time is Absolute, which means that God makes Time flow at a consistent pace everywhere in the universe.

Albert Einstein: [interrupting] WRONG! Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live; the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Zeno: [to Einstein] So what you’re saying is that when a force is applied to me I can’t ever generate an equal force in the opposite direction because time is an illusion (there is no universal watch), and not having a watch I can never exactly replicate the duration of the force? 

Einstein: Well you don’t need a watch because when a force is applied to your body then your body will automatically tell spacetime how to curve and then curved spacetime will automatically tell your body how to move. 

Zeno: Isn’t that special?! 

Einstein: No, that is the GENERAL Theory of Relativity, the SPECIAL Theory of Relativity is something different.

Zeno: I assume that spacetime is in the 3rd dimension with my body that is bossing spacetime around? 

Einstein: No, spacetime is the 4th-dimension. 

Zeno: That’s not thinking, that’s “doublethinking”!

George Orwell: [“1984”] Doublethinking is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct: “[T]o forget whatever it [is] necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it [is] needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself….” 

Zeno: [to Einstein] Check it out: First you’re forgetting about the definitions of Relative and Absolute so that you can call the Absolute Relative and the Relative Absolute when you conclude that your body tells spacetime how to curve, then you’re suddenly remembering the correct definitions when you conclude that spacetime tells your body how to move, then you’re forgetting the definitions again when you conclude that “forgetting the definitions of Relative and Absolute” was the cause of your body’s movement, and then above all YOU ARE APPLYING THAT SAME DOUBLETHINKING PROCESS TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, aka REALITY itself! NEXT!!

Also Zeno: We can NEVER ESCAPE from THE INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX while we say that TIME (or CRIME) is what we THINK and not what we DO.

Newton: Hell-o! Don’t forget about Mr. Absolute Time over here!

Zeno: [to Newton] Yes, Sir, but I’m still having trouble figuring-out how to start moving with your theory, and here’s where I’m getting stuck: If a force applied to me lasts for one instant, then my equal force in the opposite direction would also have to last for one instant, and that is two instants; ok fine, but even assuming that I began responding to the applied force “upon force detection,” it would still take some portion of one instant to detect the applied force, right? So the question is: How could I experience an applied force and respond to it IN THE SAME INSTANT? And if that’s impossible, then HOW IS MOTION POSSIBLE if I am following “Newton’s Laws of Motion”?

Newton:  Well can’t you just FORGET ABOUT THE EXACT TIMING and THINK-ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE?

Zeno: Like what else should I “move on” to think about instead-of why it’s impossible for me to move by following your theory of motion? 

Newton: PRETEND that you got into motion somehow after the force was applied, then think-about Newton’s Second Law of Motion, i.e., the rate at which your body’s MOMENTUM (momentum = mass*velocity) is changing over time as you move from point A to point B. 

Zeno: MOMENTUM, MOMENTUM, WHEREFORE ART THOU, MOMENTUM?

Newton: What are you talking about?

Zeno: What, exactly, is “MOMENTUM”?

Newton: [citing Encyclopedia Britannica] The online encyclopedia Britannica says that momentum is equivalent to a force required to bring an object to a stop in a unit length of time. 

Also Newton: The online encyclopedia Britannica also says that there is a “general law of physics” called “conservation of momentum,” according to which law the “quantity” called “momentum” is “motion,” and the existence of this “quantity” of “motion” guarantees us that “the total momentum of a system remains constant.”

Zeno: Good afternoon! My lord, let’s focus on an easier question: WHAT IS A SYSTEM?

Me: [interjecting] I know this one! A system is a “quantity” of “resources” that is “mobilized” by a “general legal entity” pursuant to the principles of law that are followed by the “general legal entity” in such a manner as to guarantee us that “the total liability of the system remains constant.” 

Zeno: [to Newton] My dude! We are not fixing the stock market, we are at the starting line of a walk in the park, and the “SYSTEM” jargon sounds suspiciously like what you’re saying about MOMENTUM: It sounds like you’re saying that MOMENTUM is a “quantity” of “motion” that “remains constant in your THOUGHTS,” i.e., wherever you draw an IMAGINARY BOX around a group of “moving” objects, insofar as you know THE LAWS OF DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS!

Newton: Well don’t forget about Newton’s Third Law of Motion! It describes actual physical behavior of individual objects!

Zeno: Thank you! And that is my point exactly: According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, every object has to react to an applied force via its own mass, SO HOW CAN I APPLY NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION TO OBJECTS IN A “SYSTEM”? Trying to do that would destroy TIME and DISTANCE (POSITION) altogether and replace physical Reality with MATH, but MATH can’t cause movement, so therefore when you tell me that “MOMENTUM” is merely “thinking” (math) masquerading as a law of physics (Reality), then you’re saying that your theory of motion makes movement impossible!

Newton: Well OK forget MOMENTUM, but don’t forget that Newton’s Second Law of Motion—the F = ma equation—tells you exactly how much force is required to move your body (your mass) a certain distance, and then you can also think-about how fast you will accelerate when that force is applied.

Zeno: I haven’t got TIME for this!

Also Zeno: I mean I’M STILL STUCK AT POINT A if all you’re giving me is Newton’s Second Law of Motion, F = ma, to get me into motion, because what you’re saying is that “acceleration” is my change in speed over TIME, but then you’re also saying that the movement-causing applied force lasts ONE INSTANT! SO THE PROBLEM I’M HAVING is this: My motion is happening per Newton’s Second Law of Motion, F = ma, but the applied force only lasted for one instant, so WHY AM I ACCELERATING OVER TIME? How does a ONE-INSTANT FORCE APPLICATION cause acceleration for MULTIPLE INSTANTS?

Newton: Well maybe you’re only accelerating for SOME OF THE TIME (the DISTANCE) you’re moving, not ALL OF THE TIME (the DISTANCE) you’re moving, then after the acceleration is over, you begin to follow Newton’s First Law of Motion, which means that you’re moving at a constant velocity with “inertia”?

Zeno: But that’s not specifically what your theory of motion says, is it? (No.) And even if that’s accurate, you still can’t tell me FOR WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME I’m accelerating after a ONE-INSTANT FORCE is applied, can you?

Newton:

Zeno: I think I’m getting the picture. I AM NOT GETTING ANYWHERE with Newton’s Laws of Motion. I CANNOT MOVE from Point A to Point B by following Newton’s Laws of Motion because Newton’s Laws of Motion make motion IMPOSSIBLE. 

Also Zeno: Still, I want to PRETEND for argument’s sake that I got into motion by first following Newton’s Third Law of Motion, and then I followed Newton’s Second Law of Motion (I accelerated for some TIME), and finally I began following Newton’s First Law of Motion (I began traveling at a constant speed with “inertia” in the same direction I was moving previously, when I was accelerating.)

Still Zeno: Now here’s THE NEXT PROBLEM I’m about to have: The one-instant applied force that got me moving is long-gone, so WHAT IS THE FORCE that is causing my inertial (constant-velocity) motion, according to Newton’s First Law of Motion?

Newton: There is NO FORCE that causes inertial (constant-velocity) motion.  

Zeno:

Zeno: Are you joking? 

Newton: No, this is serious business! Scientists looked for an inertial force for 2,000 years—since the days of Aristotle in 300-something BC—but no one could find an inertial force, so after awhile everybody stopped thinking about it, and now scientists just tell everybody: “You don’t have to worry about FINDING THE FORCE THAT CAUSES INERTIAL MOVEMENT, because we’ve looked and WE CAN’T FIND IT SO IT PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST, and in any event WE DON’T NEED IT! All we have to do is THINK ABOUT INERTIAL MOTION (constant-velocity motion) and remember that it always happens according to Newton’s First Law of Motion, which says that: ‘An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and direction UNTIL A NEW UNBALANCED FORCE ACTS ON THE OBJECT.’” Capiche?

Zeno: 

Zeno: Just to be sure I’m hearing you right: You’re telling me that inertial motion—which is described by Newton’s First Law of Motion—has NO FORCE that KEEPS THE MOTION GOING?

Newton: Correct. 

Zeno: Then that makes inertial motion—following Newton’s First Law of Motion—IMPOSSIBLE!

Newton: That’s nonsense! 

Zeno: Now you see what I’m saying! Just kill me with a veg-o-matic!!

Newton: Do you want to talk-about “kinetic energy”?

Zeno: Not REALLY, because that is a NON-SPECIFIC TERM! It is ENERGY that is DEVOID OF *A SOURCE*, so it’s impossible RESPOND to it PHYSICALLY! It’s merely a MATHEMATICAL concept NOT A PHYSICAL THING.

FIL Phil: [“Demolition”] Did you take-apart the washroom stall?

Davis: That was my work, yes.

FIL Phil: *Why*?

Davis: That’s a little harder to answer.  

Zeno: But the issue is WHAT IS *A PART* of REALITY that an object in its present location can SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY, and WHAT IS MASQUERADING AS (OR BEING MISTAKEN-FOR) *A PART* of REALITY? “KINETIC ENERGY” is a HOT POTATO ping-ponging around IN EQUATIONS that violate all common sense; it is merely a made-up description of observations of an object’s (or a collection of objects’) motion over some “timeframe” measured in “units” like “seconds”! Uhhhuh, NO, we cannot replace Time (a part of Reality) with “thoughts” and then write-up a theory of MOTION in which THINKING ABOUT MOVING OVER TIME is the cause of PHYSICAL MOVEMENT. That makes MOTION IMPOSSIBLE, because once your theory of motion loses-touch with physical Reality, then you cannot avoid THINKING about the INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX, and you cannot solve that sucker by THINKING, you’ve got to find a PHYSICAL PART OF REALITY to get every body MOVING. Also, “KINETIC ENERGY” does not tell us anything about WHAT DISTANCE an object is in the process of traveling, WHERE (in what DIRECTION) an object is going, or WHY an object is in motion (like HOW DOES THE OBJECT KNOW HOW FAR TO GO, WHERE TO GO, AND WHEN?) EVERY OBJECT IN THE UNIVERSE MUST SATISFY NEWTON’S LAWS OF MOTION ALL BY ITSELF AT ALL TIMES, and Time has to flow at a consistent pace that everything in the universe “knows” or else motion itself is impossible. In sum,“KINETIC ENERGY” IS ONE ENORMOUS ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!

Newton: Do you want to continue talking about ELEPHANT NUMBER TWO 💩?

Zeno: Quantum Physics, aka Quantum Mechanics?

Newton: I am UNCERTAIN about the PRINCIPLE to which you are referring? I actually just wanted to talk-about the PROOF that the theory of MOMENTUM (and by extension the theory of KINETIC ENERGY) makes physical movement impossible. But if you want to talk-about Quantum Physics first, then be my guest!

Zeno: “The Uncertainty Principle” of Quantum Physics raises UNCERTAINTY ABOUT DISTANCE (object position) to the status of A LAW OF PHYSICS, which says (and here I quote the timeless wisdom of physics professor Larry Gopnik): “The Uncertainty Principle: It proves that we can’t ever really know what’s going on. But even though you can’t figure anything out, you will be responsible for it on the mid-term.”

Newton: Is that the work of A SERIOUS MAN of science almost 300 years after my demise?

Zeno: Yes, and you haven’t even met PHOTONS yet!

Newton: No, I have not, but if you can bag them, then you’ll have enough elephants in the room for your own THREE-RING CIRCUS 🎪.

Zeno: Don’t look at me, just watch Quantum Physics DESTROY ITSELF: See “Scientists Just Unveiled The First-Ever Photo of Quantum Entanglement” 

Einstein: [poking his head through the big-top curtain and sticking-out his tongue] That is some spooky action at a distance right there!

Newton: I don’t understand the humor - what’s so frightening about the photon theory? 

Wikipedia: [“Photon”] “A photon…is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless particles that can move no faster than the speed of light…./….The modern photon concept originated during the first two decades of the 20th century with the work of Albert Einstein….To explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy. In 1926, Gilbert N. Lewis popularized the term PHOTON for these energy units.”

Zeno: [to Newton] Can the Absolute be Relative? 

Newton: No, and if we said that it could, then that would be like saying that a thing could cause itself to not exist.

Zeno: Can the Absolute be Relative-to itself?

Newton: No, that is the same thing as causing the Absolute to be Relative; it’s nonsensical.

Zeno: Can two things become “ENTANGLED” WITH EACH OTHER without being RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER? 

Newton: No, because entanglement implies mutual dependence, and mutual dependence only exists with MUTUALLY-RELATIVE things; an Absolute thing does not exhibit dependence upon what is Relative-to it, by definition (and again, it is nonsense to say that an Absolute thing can be Relative-to itself.) 

Zeno: OK great, so now RECALL (see Article 1) that the entity of God is comprised-of THREE PARTS in DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS, and the universe must have been made from the LIGHT part of God in the 4th dimension, which must have moved AWAY from THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE when it went BANG! Also RECALL (see Article 3) that light is a FORWARD-ACTING FORCE, Ff, which is another name for THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE. And as we just verified, Ff cannot be relative to itself. SO THAT IS THE END OF THE STORY! “PHOTONS” DO NOT EXIST BECAUSE “PHOTONS” ARE DEFINED AS BEING CARRIERS FOR THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE *AND* AS BEING RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER (capable of becoming “ENTANGLED” with each other), and Quantum Physics doesn’t exist without PHOTONS, so Quantum Physics has DESTROYED ITSELF by telling us that PHOTONS BECOME ENTANGLED. 

Einstein: You’re welcome! 

Zeno: ROCK A BYE-BYE HOT-POTATO BABY: Now let’s PROVE that the theory of MOMENTUM (and by extension the theory of KINETIC ENERGY) makes physical movement impossible. The problem with MOMENTUM is the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. After an object “gets momentum” as momentum is currently conceptualized, the momentum is said to be “conserved” in INTERACTIONS between objects. Momentum is supposedly “transferred” from one object to another like a HOT POTATO! According to “conservation of momentum,” the object that “receives” the energy of momentum has “consumed” (read: “conserved”) the energy of the momentum source, leaving the momentum source with less energy as a result of that “consumer transaction.” But that violates common sense by saying that a source of energy can “give” the energy away! And even more to the point, it is saying that a moving object can DEPLETE/STEAL energy from an energy source; that *must* be false! Oh, I know, I know, someone is going to try to argue me down by CHANGING THE SUBJECT from objects that are MOVING to objects that are BEING MOVED, so therefore one thing we’ve got to do is to DEFINE “MOVING.” Every young child knows that there’s a difference between “MOVING” and “BEING MOVED,” which is the difference between WALKING and RIDING. OK so let’s say that MOVING OBJECTS are objects that have to satisfy Newton’s Third Law of Motion when they physically interact with each other or when another external force is applied to them. When we’re talking about the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM, we’re talking about MOVING OBJECTS. The SPECIFIC PROBLEM with the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM is the INDISPUTABLE FACT that under Newton’s Third Law of Motion, every object MUST USE ITS OWN MASS to produce an equal-and-opposite force to every APPLIED force it experiences, and the production of the equal-and-opposite force IS THE FUEL SOURCE FOR THE OBJECT’S MOVEMENT. That’s the known principle of mass-energy equivalence! Also, it’s COMMON SENSE: Where else is the equal-and-opposite force going to come-from EXCEPT THE MASS OF THE OBJECT that is generating it? The force—the energy— applied to an object is NOT the FUEL SOURCE for the object’s movement! To repeat: When Newton’s Third Law of Motion must be satisfied, then the energy that is APPLIED to an object by a source of force MUST BE *DIFFERENT* ENERGY than the energy that is USED to cause the object’s motion, not *THE SAME* ENERGY, as science currently envisions the concept of “conservation of energy.” NO “HOT POTATO” of “momentum” or “kinetic energy” IS BEING PASSED-AROUND—bought and sold!—between objects in “a system”! Every object acts and reacts to applied forces via its own mass and THERE IS NO SYSTEM; every object follows the laws of physics all by itself; every object SATISFIES NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION ALL BY ITSELF. There is no way for a “system analysis” to account-for TIME-AND-POSITION SPECIFIC CAUSE-AND-EFFECT that must occur to make the MOTION of any object possible.

Newton: What theory of motion are we left-with now? Is there anything about “Newtonian Mechanics” that survives Zeno’s Paradoxes?

Zeno: Well, with the exceptions of the gravity problem and the “momentum” HOT POTATO problem, neither of which problems can be solved, the issue with Newton’s THREE basic Laws of Motion is that they are not specific enough to get or keep any body moving without PRETENDING that there is a valid physical cause of motion present. And as we’ve seen, once you’ve got to PRETEND—once your theory of how some body gets into motion is THINKING, not ACTION/REACTION—then you automatically have to THINK ABOUT DIVIDING DISTANCE, and that leads you inexorably into the INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX. So the challenge now is to IDENTIFY the physical cause(s) of motion that are currently missing from “Newtonian Mechanics.”  

Me: Now I’ve got to “put my money where my mouth is” and state a valid theory of motion, including gravity, and I’ve got to BEGIN by taking Zeno’s question—“How is MOVEMENT possible if you can always divide distance into smaller increments?”—off the table by showing that WE CAN THINK-ABOUT ENDLESSLY DIVIDING DISTANCE INTO SMALLER INCREMENTS BUT WE CANNOT PHYSICALLY DO IT because there are TWO FORCES originating outside of the universe that guarantee that movement (or attempted movement) over a PRE-DETERMINED DISTANCE is always possible. Then after I’ve described THE MOVING PROCESS, I’ve also got to IDENTIFY THE FORCE THAT CAUSES CONSTANT-VELOCITY MOTION, which is “inertial” motion that happens per Newton’s First Law of Motion. After the descriptions of THE MOVING PROCESS and THE “INERTIAL FORCE” are in-play, they will serve as the segue into the description of all different kinds of motion, beginning with the BIG BANG and matter (ATOM) formation. 

 In joy, 

Frank