Does Distance exist without time?

Prince_James said:
Quantum Heraclitus:

First off, I am the one who loves Zeno. Not you. Stop ripping him off, or I will go Eleatic Stranger on your ass, Plato style.

Seriously. That's a promise, not a threat!

But what you have here is a somewhat faulty thought experiment to some extent.

The reason it is faulty is that an absence of time does not shrink the spatial properties. If something is 10 ly away, it will retain its 10 ly away, even if it is meaningless to speak of travel in a timeless state.

That is to say, distance is a spatial not a temporal property.

That being said, if it takes two moments (let moment = smallest increment of time) time to move from point a to point b, when point a and b are two arbitrary points in space, you have infinite speed. If no time is taken (impossible) the object would exist at two points simulteneously. But this is neither here nor there whatsoever and has no bearing on the thought experiment.
Click to expand...
hmmm...Zeno...I must refresh my memory of this guy....a beautiful mind comes to uhmmm mind! ha

Any ways,
The object of this thread is to prove that distance exists independant of time. It is not good enough to rely on a possibly faulty space time description as per Minkowski/Einstein or any other.

I realise that according to current thought space and time are interrelated and to some extent I would agree but this has yet to be proved and only at present this is assumed to be the case. [ as all evidence seems to support the inter-relationship ]
Purely circumstancial evidence is not sufficient.
I would say that if one holds to the current view of spacetime there can be no distinction between space and time drawn. Distance is a factor of time...and vica versa ....end of story.
However I do not agree with the current view of space and time and wish that view be supported with appropriate proofs or at least understanding.

Does mass [ time ] create the distance? Thus does mass create 3 dimensions by default of the 4th?
If so then if no mass is present then what are the dimensions? Is there evidence to support the notion that a metre cube of pure vacuum is in fact a metre cube?

I would contend that a metre cube of pure vacuum only achieves dimensionality above zero simply because we would use an object of mass as a measuring device. Thus the device itself imparts dimensionality and can not tell us what the actual dimesnions are without corrupting what is being measured.
The answer in my opinion is that a metre cube of pure vacuum is actually zero dimensional when one stops applying a measurement of mass to it.

"Space is a volume of zero dimensionality that the universe exists within"

"It is a volume of space [area] that can be any size the mass requires"
And just because we have objects of mass doesn't change the nature of space as being zero dimensional unless vacant space has a means to achieve distance which is what we are attempting to prove.

How does vacant space acquire a structure to achieve distance when there is nothing there? It is not an aether. It has no qualities other than absense.
How does a bit of vacuum gain structure to qualify as a dimension?

and so on....
 
QQ:
One might use the same logic to say that time is actualy the fake dimension. Since all clocks depend on movement, one cannot make the spatial dimensions 0 and still measure a time! Thus, Time must be unreal according to your reasoning.

Example, for a standard analogue clock: we only measure time to be passing because the hands move from one place to another. It is impossible to measure a time on it's own.
Okay, what if we use a digital clock? Same problem, but the electrons would have to have moved around. A cesium clock? Those atoms still need to travel.

Now, in any of these clocks, take out the distance factor, and the time is same; all times must be then superimposed upon each other.

If so how can I prove distance as real with out the necessity of time?
Click to expand...
How can you prove that time is real without the necessity of distance?

-Andrew
 
QuarkHead said:
Reiku: Humble pie is a dish that has long been my staple diet, of necessity. So, if you would be kind enough to explain your equation, or better yet, provide a link, then I would be glad to take another slice.

Yet you seem strangely unwilling to do this. Why? If it is a "well known equation", surely there can be no secret about it?

Come on, help me out. As you know, unlike you, I am not a physicist, and I need help from time to time.
Click to expand...


And its best served cold, especially when individuals cannoyt make their own decisions.
 
of course, if you need help in physics, i can only be obvious about the equations i am taught.
 
Enmos said:
What about perspective ?
Click to expand...
all distances in the picture are imaginary.
We extrapolate a value when in fact the picture has zero depth. We do this by imagining the time it would take to move within the picture. Imagining!
As future movement is an imaginary movement, a pure fantasy yet to happen the distance is based only on a fantasy of time.
I.e. prove that the future exists as an absolute certainty and I'll give up attempting to explain my thoughts on zero point theory. The future light cone described by M&E is pure fantasy yet to be realised. There for pure imaginary until it manifests in the present moment.
As distance is time related it must also be purely imaginary as future time for movement is a mere fantasy and not a fact until it happens.

So does distance exist independent of our future time fantasy?

"So God turns of his TV set and says to himself " ha... and they thought they had time!""
 
Quantum Quack said:
all distances in the picture are imaginary.
We extrapolate a value when in fact the picture has zero depth. We do this by imagining the time it would take to move within the picture. Imagining!
As future movement is an imaginary movement, a pure fantasy yet to happen the distance is based only on a fantasy of time.
I.e. prove that the future exists as an absolute certainty and I'll give up attempting to explain my thoughts on zero point theory. The future light cone described by M&E is pure fantasy yet to be realised. There for pure imaginary until it manifests in the present moment.
As distance is time related it must also be purely imaginary as future time for movement is a mere fantasy and not a fact until it happens.

So does distance exist independent of our future time fantasy?

"So God turns of his TV set and says to himself " ha... and they thought they had time!""
Click to expand...

They are not imaginary, they are a 2D representation of the real thing. As can be proven by applying perspective.
 
Enmos said:
They are not imaginary, they are a 2D representation of the real thing. As can be proven by applying perspective.
Click to expand...
maybe you should try some digital image manipulations and then we can talk about what is real.
Ever drawn a 3 dimensional cube on a piece of paper?
Is the cube real or imaginary?
If you took your drawing and actually built it what has it become? and what was it before?
 
Quantum Quack said:
maybe you should try some digital image manipulations and then we can talk about what is real.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything ? :confused:

Quantum Quack said:
Ever drawn a 3 dimensional cube on a piece of paper?
Is the cube real or imaginary?
Click to expand...
It is a 2D representation of an imaginary cube.

Quantum Quack said:
If you took your drawing and actually built it what has it become? and what was it before?
Click to expand...
The drawing still is the same old drawing.
You build a real cube that was imaginary.
It was imaginary before.


Wtf does any of this have to do with anything ? lol
 
Enmos said:
What does that have to do with anything ? :confused:


It is a 2D representation of an imaginary cube.


The drawing still is the same old drawing.
You build a real cube that was imaginary.
It was imaginary before.


Wtf does any of this have to do with anything ? lol
Click to expand...
well the distance between here and the moon is imaginary until actually travelled.
 
Reiku said:
of course, if you need help in physics, i can only be obvious about the equations i am taught.
Click to expand...
So - you once again refuse to explain your equation. Then I, and assume all others, will draw the obvious conclusion - you are full of shite.
 
Hello all
Time is a rate that is variable as defined by SR and GR. This variability of time has been measured through experiments. A variable can only be defined/solvable if it is compared to a constant. A single equation with two or more variables cannot be solved.

So saying that distance is variable is like trying to solve a single equation that has two variables.

Point being since time has been measured to be variable then distance is a constant.

:)
 
Quantum Heraclitus:

hmmm...Zeno...I must refresh my memory of this guy....a beautiful mind comes to uhmmm mind! ha
Click to expand...

Zeno was an Eleatic philosopher. He is most famous for proposing several paradoxes. Achilles and the Tortoise is his most famous. The second is the Arrow in Flight. Your thought experiment is a reimagining of the second.

Zeno has us imagine an arrow stopped at any moment during its flight. As there no movement to be found in any individual moment, how is it it that it is said to "move"? Rather, it is shown that motion is an illusion.

Zeno and Paramenides (his mentor) appear in Platos' "Parmenides" and the Eleatic Stranger is another character in a Platonic dialogue.

How does vacant space acquire a structure to achieve distance when there is nothing there? It is not an aether. It has no qualities other than absense.
How does a bit of vacuum gain structure to qualify as a dimension?
Click to expand...

The problem is looking at space as such a gulf. As a void. (Ironically, Zeno repudiated void, as did all Eleatics. You're giving the Epicurean view).

Pure void would be zero dimensional. It would not exist. It would be equivalent to thinking of nothing. To think of nothing is to not think at all.

But the problem with this is that space cannot be pure void. As pure void cannot have anything existing within it. "Where does space exist?" "Within nothing" does not make sense. Rather, it is better to view space as the three dimensions spread out infinitely, with the objects of mass and such that you reference placed within it. As such, two things placed in any arbitrary positions in space will be able to be measured relative to one another.

In fact, one could measure pure distance without reference to any two points of mass, simply by relating it to a measuring instrument.

That being said, a truly empty existence would make time virtually moot. Time is useful (although not existent because) of change. An empty existence would have no change, therefore no need of time. The three dimensions would be indistinguishable.
 
Simply Joe said:
Wouldn't it be imaginary until observed? Before we travel we know how far away it is, if we had never seen it then it would be imaginary? :shrug:
Click to expand...
but you cannot see the distance between the moon and the earth. You can only see the space or void, but not the distance.
if you had no telescope, no laser light, no historical data and no ruler at hand how would you know what the distance is between earth and moon?
The moon could be bigger than Jupiter for all we know...
 
It doesn't matter WHAT the distance is (as a measure), there's still separation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top