Does Distance exist without time?

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

1] How much time is involved between moments?

No time. One moment immediatly follows the next with no interval between.

2] If the moments are sequencial and consecutive they must have a past and future and a middle [ start and end] how much time is it in the middle of your moment.

None. It is infinitesimal in duration. Accordignly, it cannot have a middle point. It is a quanta of time - there is no smaller.

3] say momeent A is in the past and moment B is in the future how much duration is in between moments [ now ]?

C would be betwee A and B, so there would be one moment.

Now remember our rod is infinitely thin yet it will not ever be able to find the lagrange point and entirely cease to be attracted to the magnet. Because the point is zero dimensional and our rod according to your hypothesis PJ has thickness of the smallest amount. Yet it must pass through the zero point to get to the other pole. No matter how small the measurement is, the zero point will never be found and yet it is definitely there as it has to be for the poles to be opposite. Unless science has found a way to prove otherwsie.

I would argue right off the bat that this is wrong: The point where there is no charge, either positive or negative, would be infinitely small. As such, one could indeed perfectly balance the iron rod of infinite smallness upon it, hypothetically speaking.

The same issue arises with your infinitely small moment of time as described in my previous post the moments muct be segmented by separating them with a zero other wise your smallest moment is no longer smallest.

"Separating them with a zero" would be to not separate them at all. 1, 0, 2, 0, 3 is just extraneous.

"To say that nothing is between 1 and 2 is to say that there is no space between 1 and 2".

And most importantly, if the segmental border is zero duration then what makes the segment a segment and not a continuum?

What makes 5 different from 4 and 6?

thus energy is constantly moving, thus time is never segmented into infintesimal parts.

The very act of moving implies segmentation. Any movement can be subdivided ad infinitum. As such, it's basic, quanta/monad, must be infinitesimal.

To go back to the boiling kettles: You agreed, did you not, that one would boil quicker than the other. We said arbitrarily one would boil five minutes quicker than the other, correct? And these related to physical happenings: The water boiling. And you could ascribe a time to each, regardless of the fact that they took different times, yes?

How many 2 dimensional planes can fit into a 12 inch brick?
Infinitey yes?
How many infintesimal thick planes can fit into a 12 inch brick?
Infinitey.......hmmmm something stinks.....

I do not ascribe to the reality of anything less than 3 spatial dimensions. But theoretically speaking, yes.

The difference, however, would be that infinitesimally small planes could produce a substantial plane which is non-infinitesimal together. A zero-dimensional plane in the 3rd dimension (a two dimensional plane) could never do so.

One would be "1 + 1" the other would be "0 + 0".

I'll check the infinity one.

 

[Prince_James]

Vkothii:

[qupte]So then intervals are "segments of" time. All we need is a definition of what that is, or how to make or produce a "segment of", this time stuff.

If we want to understand what its "practical application" might be.

See how I'm playing along here. But I can't say we've managed to dig any higher.[/quote]

A segment of time is a duration of time, composed of moments, or a moment itself. A moment is the quanta of time, infinitesimal in duration.

 

[Vkothii]

So, there's a "time quantum".
But what does "infinitesimal", or "duration" mean?

P.S. I'm going to need a new shovel at this rate.

 

[Prince_James]

Vkothii:

But what does "infinitesimal", or "duration" mean?

Duration is to time as distance is to space.

Infinitesimal means "infinitely small". Or a non-zero number which is smaller than any natural number.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Using a physical sustance:
So James How many of your segments [we are assuming material value] fit into a line drawn 1 inch long?

How many segments fit into 1 second?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Say we have two infinitely sharp knives [ samurai swords if you like!]

and we place their sharp edges against each other.

as so ><
what separates the sharp edges. [ the infinite resolving of the sharpness is constructed using pi of course]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Prince James:
I'll say this with out any doubt in my mind.
The problem with your approach to infinity is that you wish to make it finite. And this is simply not possible and is illogical.
Infinitey can not be limited or even technically speaking qualified as it defeats the notion of what infinitey is.

To stop reducing infinitey to a given value is to render infinitey obsolete and of no real use.
Infinitely small can never equal zero this is true but this is an imaginary paradox only.

A bit like saying that pi must eventually resolve it's digital extension.
As Infinitely small can never equal zero all this proves is the irrational use of language and ideas and not much else.
The only way to resolve the irrationality is to give infinitely small a value thus limiting the notion of infinity.

So I ask you ...

What limitations are you applying to the use of infinity?

How big for example is an infinitely big spherical object?
Is there a limit?

 

[Quantum Quack]

and,
If I could see an infinitely big volume of vacant space how long would it take to see it?
And if you say eternity I would question why I can see the space between our stars and the stars and us. [ no light to see remember ] instantaneously.

 

[Reiku]

Here's the truth QQ, and then i won't answer in this thread no more.

As time evolves, there are objects that become more and more further away from each other, proving that they are invariant.

Secondly, relativity requires that time and space are one thing, so we find that not only does the expansion and evolution become complimentary, it is not only akin, but also invariant within relativity, which is quantum solid proof.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Secondly, relativity requires that time and space are one thing, so we find that not only does the expansion and evolution become complimentary, it is not only akin, but also invariant within relativity, which is quantum solid proof.

Pardon!?

 

[Reiku]

Well, space is time as time is space as spacetime.

If spacetime is expanding, then general relativity must predict distances between objects getting larger. The expansion of time, must also mean the evolution of time, which was caused by very low entropy at the beginning of time. This is why it is invariant, and why there is solid quantum proof that shows time and distance need each other, in a relativistic map and from a quantum physical outlook.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Using a physical sustance:
So James How many of your segments [we are assuming material value] fit into a line drawn 1 inch long?

How many segments fit into 1 second?/quote]

Infinite in both.

Say we have two infinitely sharp knives [ samurai swords if you like!]

and we place their sharp edges against each other.

as so ><
what separates the sharp edges. [ the infinite resolving of the sharpness is constructed using pi of course]

Nothing, they are touching.

To stop reducing infinitey to a given value is to render infinitey obsolete and of no real use.
Infinitely small can never equal zero this is true but this is an imaginary paradox only.

It is quite demanded by spatial and temporal segmentations.

What limitations are you applying to the use of infinity?

None. I am only refering to the logical extension of its divisibility.

If I could see an infinitely big volume of vacant space how long would it take to see it?

An infinite amount of time.

And if you say eternity I would question why I can see the space between our stars and the stars and us. [ no light to see remember ] instantaneously.

Because the speed of light is finite.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

in a relativistic map and from a quantum physical outlook.

Relativity says nothing about quantum mechanics, since it's a seperate theory at it's foundations. So using relativity you aren't going to prove an entirely quantum result.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Here's the truth QQ, and then i won't answer in this thread no more.

As time evolves, there are objects that become more and more further away from each other, proving that they are invariant.

Secondly, relativity requires that time and space are one thing, so we find that not only does the expansion and evolution become complimentary, it is not only akin, but also invariant within relativity, which is quantum solid proof.

which is exactly why when you take time out of the universe distance becomes zero. Relativity actually proves my point.

And why wont you answer in this thread no more?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Say we have two infinitely sharp knives [ samurai swords if you like!]

and we place their sharp edges against each other.

as so ><
what separates the sharp edges. [ the infinite resolving of the sharpness is constructed using pi of course] ”

Nothing, they are touching.

so you agree then that the light cones are touching and nothing is separating them?

If so then how much time does space have?

Zero of course!
[ the light cones are after all a spacetime schematic]

 

[Quantum Quack]

So I repeat my question I asked before:
If I could see the infinite volume of space how long would it take to see it?
If space has zero time duration then....what has to be the answer?
therefore if space has no time it has no distance and zero space = infinite space
in this sense zero = infinity
compare:
infinity / infinity = infinity
zero / zero = zero
infinity / zero = infinity
zero / infinity = zero
and so on....

 

[AlphaNumeric]

which is exactly why when you take time out of the universe distance becomes zero. Relativity actually proves my point.

No, a general postulate of classical physics proves your point, in that quantities should vary continuously. Setting t=0 gives you a 'spacial time-slice' of a system, it's configuration at t=0. This happens to have zero space-time volume in any theory, Newtonian or relativistic, because it's got volume 0*spacial volume = 0.

If you quantised space-time then this might not be true.

If I could see the infinite volume of space how long would it take to see it?
If space has zero time duration then....what has to be the answer?
therefore if space has no time it has no distance and zero space = infinite space
in this sense zero = infinity

The fact you come up with a non-sense answer tells you you did something wrong.

You can only see things on your past light cone because the light from the event is reaching your eyes. Hence to see anything requires the photons having enough time to travel from the object to you. Your question is therefore meaningless. And your 'result' that 0=infinity is nonsense.

 

[Reiku]

Relativity says nothing about quantum mechanics, since it's a seperate theory at it's foundations. So using relativity you aren't going to prove an entirely quantum result.

Pardon?

Is it not the general concensus that relativity and quantum mechanics will be found to be a single theory eventually??? Not only that, but by saying they are ''seperate'', isn't wrong, just again, i will explain, language limits our progression of understanding.

What about when in 1926 Dirac formulized a unififcation of relativity with the Fermion family, finding all sorts of clues which led to subspacetime virtual realms of spinning negative particles?

What you are essentially stating, is a fallacy of understanding the ultimate goal. Not only that but you don't seem to understand that relativity can in parts be integrated to explain quantum activity.

 

[Reiku]

So I repeat my question I asked before:
If I could see the infinite volume of space how long would it take to see it?
If space has zero time duration then....what has to be the answer?
therefore if space has no time it has no distance and zero space = infinite space
in this sense zero = infinity
compare:
infinity / infinity = infinity
zero / zero = zero
infinity / zero = infinity
zero / infinity = zero
and so on....

No.

∞/∞= either, zero, or renormalization, or a non-zero product which must be finite.

No. 0/∞=∞

You can't swap the rules, by division only.

I might be wrong about the latter part, but i think it's correct. I am positive about the former though.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No.

∞/∞= either, zero, or renormalization, or a non-zero product which must be finite.

No. 0/∞=∞

You can't swap the rules, by division only.

I might be wrong about the latter part, but i think it's correct. I am positive about the former though.

point taken and thanks for the correction...