Does Distance exist without time?

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

a 20 second ride to take you 10 ly means that the 4 dimensions have collapsed only partially and not completely.
A stargate as described is a total collapse of 4 dimensions into two dim. focused as it were on two points in 4 dimensional space but granting only one point in 4 dimensional space where there should be two.

I don't think it is so much a collapse as a connection. Basically, if we could walk in 4 dimensions, whatever point in 4d the point we are on is connected to, we would appear there in the 3rd dimension. This is no different from moving to one dimension in three dimensions to one in another.

That being said, I am not on board with there being 4 dimensions fully.

I have actually witnessed first hand a dimensional collapse [partial wormhole] which caused the singeing of a persons woolen jumper in the shade by the heat from the sun.
The lady in question was extraordinarilly lucky to not get a hole drilled through her chest.

You are going to have to open up a thread on this one in pseudoscience. I want to hear the details of these crazy shennanigans. That stuff is NUTSO.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are going to have to open up a thread on this one in pseudoscience. I want to hear the details of these crazy shennanigans. That stuff is NUTSO.

And I am not kidding either.There is stuff happening currently that defies normal "crazy" talk I can assure you. And we are not talking about bending a few spoons in a carnival trick either.
Learning of the technology to work with zero point dimensions grants one the ability to vapourise an entire planet if one wished to do so. but in the case mentioned above this occurred instinctively in other words no machines needed. I remember thinking as I saw the event that the instinctive universe [intelligence , God , call it what you like] must have been pretty frustrated to pull a stunt like that. I am not going to reveal what the lady was doing at the time either but I felt the event was a bit of an over reaction.
any way enough said Ithnk...

 

[Prince_James]

Make that thread in PS. I want to explore it.

 

[Vkothii]

Maybe he's a vegetarian, they go a bit nuts.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe he's a vegetarian, they go a bit nuts.

serious response:
self assessment:

It seems obvious to me that I am continually pushing the boundaries of credibility with some of my posts. I wonder why I do that? This does not effect the veracity or truth of my experiences or insight but I wonder why I post them when I know that due to other peoples preconception I shall discredit myself in their eyes. A form of self sabotague at work I think.

The event of the wormhole singeing the ladies jumper actually happened and is not a fabrication. I do not feel it overly ego centric to post as I did yet here I am explaining myself and attempting to understand why I posted such an incredible claim from your perspective with out evidencial support included.
This is what puzzles me.

 

[Vkothii]

Perhaps you missed the punny side of my comment.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Perhaps you missed the punny side of my comment.

nah I got it and thought it was great!
but the puzzle remains

 

[Prince_James]

Let's move the other stuff to PS before this gets distracted, QH.

 

[EndLightEnd]

I have actually witnessed first hand a dimensional collapse [partial wormhole] which caused the singeing of a persons woolen jumper in the shade by the heat from the sun.

uh, isnt this a pretty significant science first? any evidence you witnessed a wormhole, any data?

 

[Quantum Quack]

uh, isnt this a pretty significant science first? any evidence you witnessed a wormhole, any data?

nah...because without proper evidencial support it is probably science last..

Apart from eye witnesses and a singed jumper there is no way to show evidence of what happened nor the understanding of what happened. [I was the only one present who had any idea of what it was that happened. The others just saw their lady friend patting down her smouldering jumper and could see the singeing.] duration of the event would have been < 15 seconds from start to finish. The worm hole lasted not more than a few milliseconds if that.

so it is one of those things I guess that just goes no where...happened about 12 months ago and most persons involved propabably just wrote it off to halucination.
another aspect is the evidence of intinctive intelligence on a universal scale.
The evidence exists every where. Every DNA strand, every instinctive behaviour trate of animals, evolution el supremo. The sheer beauty and wonderment of the universe at large to our perceptions etc etc...plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence without volition - like a skin cell, in the background...[ I call instinctive intelligence - some may call it God ] yet of course is it provable and supportable as instinctive evolution?
....possibly but not in this century.
Unfortunately religious ideology is generally over the top and science is overly pragmatic in reaction.

Cause and effect could be described as instinctive reflexes for example if one subscribes to the living universe concepts.

What happened to the lady in question was an instinctive response. To me there is no doubt about this. It was also a cause and effect response [ obviously ] however proving it firstly as having happened and secondly that it was instinctive is not possible IMO nor worth attempting in the current climate of "God" phobia. [ a bit like homophobic reactions]
I am actually a psuedo Panthenist which may help put my comments in perspective.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So to sum up:
PJ,
I see no reason to hold to the notion of needing an imaginary grid to expand a zero dimension when the addition of mass and matter does this.

The zero dimension of vacant space with out matter is ineffect zero dimensional.

Thus with out time or energy space is zero in dimension.

This does not preclude energistic potentials [the "robbing" of energy from the universes mass via the vacuum foam or space - zero dimension] from this zero dimension nor does it distract too heavilly from the work of famous scientists. Planck, Einstein, Minkowski, etc etc
However it does support Mach and a whole heap of thoughts about inertia and "hyperspace" or zero space concepts.

* you wil note that the robbing of energy from the universal mass via zero dim. vacuum or space maintains thermodynamic conservation laws.

By demanding that the vacant space be maintained as infinite in volume there for infinitely big only complicates other areas of Zero Point theory that explains why we have 4 dimensions expanded from zero thus explaining the nature of mass and inertia and how time generates it.
It would uneccessarilly confuse the issue and is unsupportable by material observation [ I see no grid but I can imagine one and if I do imagine one I have created imaginary mass thus expanding our dimension to an imaginary 3 or 4]
If you temporarilly Drop the imagining of space and imagine the lack of mass/matter for a moment and you will see that our vacant space can actually be zero dimensional.

So distance in reality even when looking at a distant object at any zero duration moment between past and future could be deemed as zero even if there is apparent separation between objects.
Because the distance between objects is a distance determined by the presence of mass this distance could qualify as a new term "mass distance" or "mass separation" the figure given being a metric using mass as a metre.
However to measure the actual separation, the lack of stuff in between you will need to use a metric that uses vacant space as a metre.

Even a Planck length is a mass "distance"
So I see no reason to fill our void with the imaginary mass of a cartesian grid stucture.
So PJ if I want to shake your hand I can do it from here!

 

[Reiku]

Reiku, if I am understanding you right, you're affirming a sort of Quantum Mind theory?

Alfirmative

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Let's go back to the beginning, shall we? As we've reached something of an impasse going as we are. This could be due to our absolute difference on the matter of zero v. infinity.

Can you explain precisely why you think distance vanishes without mass? I'm still not seeing your reasoning for this at all.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Let's go back to the beginning, shall we? As we've reached something of an impasse going as we are. This could be due to our absolute difference on the matter of zero v. infinity.

Can you explain precisely why you think distance vanishes without mass? I'm still not seeing your reasoning for this at all.

Shall we try another approach?

Say:

the space above the dotted line is absolute nothingness [....................]
to do this you have to imagine that the lines etc are not there.
Now lets include our dots [imaginary mass] [.......................]
and what do you see immediately above the dots?
zero or nothing.

In the first example you remove all the constructs and you have absolute nothingness which is non relative.
in the second you have zero which is relative to something.

Example in Math.
0 = [1-1] or 0 = [23+2-25] and so on....

where as absolute nothignness can not equal anything as it is non-relative.

When you are concerned about loosing distance is that you feel that when we remove the mass from the universe somehow the space has something to relate to or be relative to and this is simply not the case. Unless youi imagine mass to exist in the form of a imaginary carteasin grid.
It only has distance because we remember that we removed the mass other wise we would have no idea at all of how big or small our space should be.
We would in fact be looking through our 3 dimensional eyes at nothing.
Remove those three dimensional eyes and you have unconsciousness.
Even with your eyes closed you still see in 3 dimensions. [ because your eyes and brain are objects of mass. spheroid etc etc.

When you loose consciousness your brain ceases to recognise your visual ability and you no longer see in 3 dimensions nor are you aware of anything due to the fact that the awareness of absolute nothing is well.....no-existant.

Summary:

When removing all objects of mass from the universe you are left with non-relative space.
thus you are left with nothingness and in absolute terms absolute nothingness however because you are imagining or looking with 3 dimensional eyes the space is not absolute nothingness but zero space which is relative to your perception of 3 dimensions [ eyes ]
So distance is no longer there once you remove all aspects of dimensionality or aspects that give the illusion of dimensionality to space.
I understand this is tough as it requires a bit of mental gymnastics to get the old head around...
So maybe as an exercise try working with relative zero concepts fro a while...
also :
"you can't loose what isn't there to begin with"
"All you are loosing is the illusion of distance and not real distance at all"
Which is why I am asking for proof of distance without time between objects of mass with the creation of this thread.

 

[Vkothii]

Nah.
You can't construct something and then "imagine" it away, unless you do it in a mathematical sense - but then you're ignoring something that's still there, but isn't "significant" locally, say.

You have a brain which unfortunately is not capable of imagining "absolute nothingness" - instead you imagine "something" - an image forms in your mind of this "absolute nothing". I'm fairly confident that my brain works much the same way, and I'm convinced (absolutely), that I can't think of anything "absolute" for starters. I can do it mathematically though - but that's an idea too, a bunch of symbols and stuff.

An image in your mind is not nothing, is it?

 

[Prince_James]

The main flaw I see in this theory, my good man, is that you are consistently forgetting that "nothing" can't exist.

Without retaining space (such as I suggest) you are making zero-dimensionalism into an absolute nothing and yet you...then retain space by allowing movement and such.

In essence: What I'm saying is that you appear to misconstrue the entire of nothing fatally so.

An absolute nothing cannot exist. It noexists, yes, as a concept, but you can't speak of it having any sort of existence. The real answer of "removing somethingness" would be the logical contradiction of that leading to somethingness being unremovable. In other words, there is no nothingness to speak of.

If you talk about just removing mass, you still have the space. We can see that in relative distance very well, as in the doughnut analogy. If there wasn't "space" and simply nothingness, all doughnuts would look like jelly doughnuts, I.E. holeless.

That being said, I agree that unconsciousness (or not thinking) is the "noexperience" of nothingness.

Now, you relate all of this stuff to quantum entanglement, yes?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The main flaw I see in this theory, my good man, is that you are consistently forgetting that "nothing" can't exist.

Without retaining space (such as I suggest) you are making zero-dimensionalism into an absolute nothing and yet you...then retain space by allowing movement and such.

In essence: What I'm saying is that you appear to misconstrue the entire of nothing fatally so.

An absolute nothing cannot exist. It noexists, yes, as a concept, but you can't speak of it having any sort of existence. The real answer of "removing somethingness" would be the logical contradiction of that leading to somethingness being unremovable. In other words, there is no nothingness to speak of.

If you talk about just removing mass, you still have the space. We can see that in relative distance very well, as in the doughnut analogy. If there wasn't "space" and simply nothingness, all doughnuts would look like jelly doughnuts, I.E. holeless.

That being said, I agree that unconsciousness (or not thinking) is the "noexperience" of nothingness.

Now, you relate all of this stuff to quantum entanglement, yes?

there is no movement in zero dimensionals... there is no "in"

It is merely what it is...you can not move across a zero distance....

Well you know it isn't up to me to prove something exists when I have no proof that it does.
Distance with out time is no-existant as far as science can prove and that means what?
Distance with out time is no-existant as far as personal experience is concerned,

so I get 2 out of 2 so far....

 

[Quantum Quack]

The main flaw I see in this theory, my good man, is that you are consistently forgetting that "nothing" can't exist.

Did you not read my post when I described the nature of relative zero?
Did I not describe and say that absolute nothingess is non-relative...?

why am I typing these posts for?
You are saying I am making the mistake of forgetting that absolute nothing ness can't exist...why do you accuse me of such nonsense?

ha just thought of something to give you some more ammunition:

"absolute nothingness no-exists in every space time co-ordinate in this universe, and in our imaginations. there is onl y one thing in common to all spacetime co-ordinates and that is the no-existance of absolute nothingness."

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

there is no movement in zero dimensionals... there is no "in"

Well, your talk of instanteneous movement. Which implies time...

Well you know it isn't up to me to prove something exists when I have no proof that it does.
Distance with out time is no-existant as far as science can prove and that means what?
Distance with out time is no-existant as far as personal experience is concerned,

To paraphrase the refuter of Berkley whose name I can't remember...

"I refute it thus......with a photograph".

A photograph is the closest we have to taking away time. Yet...the objects appear just as they do with time in real life. Of course, you have it reduced to two dimensions (roughly) because it isf ilm, but if you wanted a three-dimensional projection, one can rig those up, too.

Moreover, let me alter the Paradox of the Arrow to refute this position.

At any given moment in an arrow's flight the arrow is stationary, as time is out of the equation.

The arrow passes through an infinite series of these moments wihere no time is present, only space.

Yet distance never disappears (and the completion of the arrow's flight leads credence to that)

Therefore...distance never collapses.

 

[Prince_James]

Did you not read my post when I described the nature of relative zero?
Did I not describe and say that absolute nothingess is non-relative...?

That is what you're relating your zero dimenional theory to, are you not?