Toward a theory of motion (and everything)

Motion is distance over time. Notice that this fundamental concept is actually quite complex. It involves both distance and time, unified and separated by division.

I have never seen a theory of motion. That's what I've been working on since I started grasping the fundamentals of relativity. (Quantum theory is intimately related, of course.) Newton's Laws explain how things move, but not why. An object in motion remains in motion. Why?  To answer that, we must discuss spacetime.

3D space is flat (Euclidean). The Pythagorean theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) works perfectly well. The complications come in when you add time. Why? Because time is imaginary. (Every dimension is at 90 degrees to all others.) The Pythagorean theorem still holds, but when you square i, you get -1, so the result is hyperbolic (a^2 - b^2 = c^2). 

Add in the principles that the total energy everywhere is a constant and spacetime is a field governing motion, and you have a fairly complete theory. Simple principles. Complicated mathematics.

Motion is, effectively, a vector (velocity).  Time (as perceived by the object) is, effectively, a spin.  These are the legs of a triangle connected by a hypotenuse whose length is c, the speed of light.  Speed and perceived time are thus intimately connected.  When one gets longer, the other must get shorter.

Why does something move?  Because it exists inside a curved bit of spacetime.  It's motion is defined by the curvature (with the direction of motion towards the lowest energy), and the curvature is defined by the momentum.  It can't speed up, because the speed vector would require more energy.  It can't slow down, because the time spin would require more energy.  So, lacking outside energy to change these, it continues on without change.  (Photons, lacking mass, don't have perceived time.  They only have motion.  They're still weird.)

Note that the curved bit of spacetime adequately explains redshift all by itself.  Photons gain energy in the forward direction, and lose energy in the opposite.  This applies to both the emitting and receiving particles.  So if they move in concert, no redshift is detected, because the gain and loss cancel.

Related - the most fundamental principles of the universe are:

• The total energy at every point is a constant.
• The total, over a large enough scale, of most properties other than energy, is zero.  (Charges cancel out.  Spins cancel out.  Everything except energy cancels out.)

This all implies that time is a spin.  This implies that antiparticles have an opposite time spin.  Thus, their description as "moving backwards in time" is essentially correct, but only for perceived time.  (Actual time always moves forward, regardless of everything else.  This is how photons move.  If perceived time were all there was, photons could not move, and the universe would be an unchanging, tiny ball of energy.)

This implies that the weak force, being only perceived by left-handed particles (and right handed antiparticles), is related to the spin of time.  This also implies that the negative and positive charges are opposite spins.  Electrons and positrons would, for example, maintain the same charge spin, but since the time spin would be backwards, the charge effect would also be backwards.

Side note - magnetism is caused by the tension of a moving charge.  A stationary charge causes no new deformation (tension) of the EM field.  A moving charge, since everything is limited by the speed of light, creates a build up of tension in the direction of motion, a lack of tension in the opposite direction, and sideways motion between the two - just like the waves created by a ship moving through the water.  (No, these are probably not the proper terms.  But they get the point across, don't they?)  By the way - gravity works in a remarkably similar manner, piling up in front of a moving object, and stretching out behind.  This is part of why the orbit of Mercury doesn't match Newton's predictions - the sun is in motion around the Milky Way.