Can time be considered a direct function of movement?

[Drakkith]

You cannot ask about matter without motion in first place, if there is no motion then there is no matter.

At its root, no motion means no electromagnetism which means no matter.

The reasoning:
If all motion in the universe stop then magnetic force will disappear and EM waves will disappear. If EM waves disappear then the photon will not exist anymore. And the electromagnetic force which is carried by photons will disappear too, without electromagnetic force bonds inside the atom will dissolve and we will have no atoms to talk about.

I'm sorry but I don't think that conclusion is valid. I see no basis for your claim and I don't think you've presented any valid arguments or evidence in support of it. Consider that there are matter particles which exist and do not interact via the EM force at all. Also remember that the EM force between charged particles is modeled as being mediated by virtual photons. These virtual photons are NOT present as EM waves and the EM force is not modeled as needing motion to produce it.

You are misrepresenting that paper. It does not even mention photons, a concept that was invented 40 years afterward.

I know! it describes the electromagnetic field, and a photon is a quantization in EM field. In other words EM waves cannot be created without a charge in motion.

We are aware of how EM waves a created and you are correct that they can be created by a charge in motion. But the can also be created by electron transitions in atoms and molecules, which do not conform to the standard idea of "motion". V50 is correct. That paper does not support your claim that matter cannot exist without motion.

I understand you want to teach people, but please stick to what mainstream science has to say and refrain from personal interpretations and conclusions.

 

[Dale]

Several speculative posts have been removed

 

[mic*]

Ostrados a possible misconception is you paraphrasing Drakkith and substituting "movement of electron" where what was originally said was "transition". It is not just a semanitic difference if you mean to assert classical motion.