Another question you may be able to answer is how is energy derived from the vacuum any vacuum with out violating the laws of conservation in thermodynamics?
Does Distance exist without time?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Quantum Heraclitus:
Easy: There is no absolute vacuum. There is always ambient space.
Easy: There is no absolute vacuum. There is always ambient space.
I am sorry this makes little sense to me...
"well you talk of instantenous movement which implies time"
how does instantaneous movement imlpy time?
the word movement I guess? yes?
you do not remember the use of the "to" and "at" principle ?
My excuse for the confusion is that language has no way of dealing with this subject adequately. To say for example"
I moved from one dimesnional plane to another instanteously means time is involved when in fact time is not involved as the movement was instantaneous.
The word "Move" is what is confusing the issue.
Movement implys time and so instantaneous is now qualifies by using time.
Of course as earlier described as soon as you apply time to distance you have three dimensions or 4 dimesnions....
One does not "move" through a zero dimensional plane.
The limitations of language of action requires a verb to be used. A verb alway implies time.
You can not describe zero dimensions with verbs.
So I fail to see how to communicate it properly given that linguistically it is not possible.
Last edited:
prove it.
Prove an aether exists?
Not just with thought experiments either.
It is by far easier and more progressive to think of the fact that energy drawn from zero space is acquired from all mass that exists universally . Thus we have a way of exploring inertia and other constants.
As nothingness no-exists I have no need to prove it. ha
But you are claiming an ambient space or aether exists so you need to show evidence to support it.... [ should have been a lawyer me reckons ha]
one way of thinking leaves you in a box with out escape . [ copnventional scientific thought]
where as using zero point notions one can actually go on to explain universal constants and even the nature of energy itself
Quantum Heraclitus:
Here is my deductive argument.
1. The ultimate categories of reality are somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence).
2. These categories are mutually exclusive (adhere to the law of the excluded middle and non-contradiction).
3. The absence of one would demand the presence of another.
4. Somethingness and nothingness are absolute opposites, even to the point where anything which somethingness does nothingness cannot do and can only do the opposite and vice versa.
5. From 3, were existence to be removed, it would be replaced by nothingness.
6. From 4, But nothingness cannot replace, lest it cease to be nothingness (as to replace somethingness would be to cease to be its absolute opposite and to have existence which contradicts it being nothingness).
6. Thus, existence cannot be removed.
Applying this to the problem of vacuum energy in relation to true vacuums, we see that an "aether" as you call it (not to be confused with the luminferous aether) is demanded, lest we have nothingness contradicting its nothing nature.
Here is my deductive argument.
1. The ultimate categories of reality are somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence).
2. These categories are mutually exclusive (adhere to the law of the excluded middle and non-contradiction).
3. The absence of one would demand the presence of another.
4. Somethingness and nothingness are absolute opposites, even to the point where anything which somethingness does nothingness cannot do and can only do the opposite and vice versa.
5. From 3, were existence to be removed, it would be replaced by nothingness.
6. From 4, But nothingness cannot replace, lest it cease to be nothingness (as to replace somethingness would be to cease to be its absolute opposite and to have existence which contradicts it being nothingness).
6. Thus, existence cannot be removed.
Applying this to the problem of vacuum energy in relation to true vacuums, we see that an "aether" as you call it (not to be confused with the luminferous aether) is demanded, lest we have nothingness contradicting its nothing nature.
all this is saying to me is that when our arrow is supposedly stationary it has the potential of time and nothing else. If the arrow was in fact stationary in reality it would not exist and have no potential. remember mass is a temporal or time object and if we take time away from our arrow what is it?
Quantum Heraclitus:
Any movement, even instanteneous, implies difference between two spatial states. Difference implies time.
If I can speak of "this spatial state is different from that one" then I am speaking of two moments, no matter if they are a hundred years or a moment apart.
I can understand the difficulties, yes.
Any movement, even instanteneous, implies difference between two spatial states. Difference implies time.
If I can speak of "this spatial state is different from that one" then I am speaking of two moments, no matter if they are a hundred years or a moment apart.
I can understand the difficulties, yes.
refuted easilly by stating the disinction between relative nothin as commonly used in mathematics and absolute nothingness with is non-relative to anything.
Absolute nothing ness is NOT the opposite of something ness as to be so makes it relative. Therefore it has value as an opposite.
relative nothingness vs absolute no-relative nothingness..
is my rebutttttal!
Quantum Heraclitus:
That's our difference: I am not convinced that mass is a temporal object in the least. Rather, that it is a spatial object, and time has nothing to do with it.
In fact, the arrow by bypassing these sequences of movements, destroys that idea of mass having a temporal quality. For despite being stationary in each "photograph" of the moment, it proceeds smoothly to its target.
That's our difference: I am not convinced that mass is a temporal object in the least. Rather, that it is a spatial object, and time has nothing to do with it.
In fact, the arrow by bypassing these sequences of movements, destroys that idea of mass having a temporal quality. For despite being stationary in each "photograph" of the moment, it proceeds smoothly to its target.
Quantum Heraclitus:
My counter-rebuttal is this: There can be no non-relative nothingness, in as much as nothingness is always an absolute opposite to somethingness, even when it is not relative to any specific object (such as two planets with "nothing" between them as in the OP).
The description of nothing is inherently opposite to somethingness. It has no extension, no space, no time, no dimension, no substance, no tangibility, no intelligibility, no mass, no energy, no x.......
As such, all nothingness is ultimately relative to pure somethingness, even though it is not relative to any existing thing.
My counter-rebuttal is this: There can be no non-relative nothingness, in as much as nothingness is always an absolute opposite to somethingness, even when it is not relative to any specific object (such as two planets with "nothing" between them as in the OP).
The description of nothing is inherently opposite to somethingness. It has no extension, no space, no time, no dimension, no substance, no tangibility, no intelligibility, no mass, no energy, no x.......
As such, all nothingness is ultimately relative to pure somethingness, even though it is not relative to any existing thing.
gotta be careful PJ when claim ontological or even logical methods as proof of existance.
We as yet do not know what mass is so you are referring to a belief and not a knowledge when you say that the arrow can exist with out movement.
SRT explicitly states that there can be no existance of absolute rest and this is what you say is the case with your arrow. So take your arguement to the board and have a bun fight about absolute rest according to conventional science.
Why did Albert state that nothing can be at absolute rest? Do you think?
remember E=Mc^2
Last edited:
ha for something that is nothing it certainly has plenty of words to desrcribe it...
so you do not feel that being an opposite to something makes it exist even as an opposite?
I repeat my uncontested rebuttal of your rebuttal which was:
That absolute nothingness must be non-relative to anything.
Maybe a good thread in philosophy yeah?
Ahh gottcha Curry! [ as they say on a small island north of Tasmania when they snaggle a wild turkey for dinner]
you get what?
hint: it's starts with the letter Z
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" unconsciousness
so what happens when you remove all substance, time, tangibility, intelligibility mass, energy, and even comprehension from our universe?
you get what?
hint: it's starts with the letter Z
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" unconsciousness
Quantum Heraclitus:
I agree that unconsciousness is a good analogue to nothingness.
Just to note, I am not preaching SRT here. I have no particularly bias for or against SRT. As it is widely accepted, I give it credence, but I am not absolutely allied to it. My objections to your theory that I am raising now have nothing to do with SRT claiming otherwise.
Removing the dimension of time, however, would make an absolute rest. There is only absolute rest without time. In normal conditions we can't remove time.
It does not exist as an opposite, as it has no existence. It is "a non-existent opposite". Which works great, because to say that "existence has no opposite" is to say that "no(thingness) is its opposite".
We could probably move this part to philosophy, but it also works here. Whichever you'd prefer.
I agree that unconsciousness is a good analogue to nothingness.
Just to note, I am not preaching SRT here. I have no particularly bias for or against SRT. As it is widely accepted, I give it credence, but I am not absolutely allied to it. My objections to your theory that I am raising now have nothing to do with SRT claiming otherwise.
Removing the dimension of time, however, would make an absolute rest. There is only absolute rest without time. In normal conditions we can't remove time.
It does not exist as an opposite, as it has no existence. It is "a non-existent opposite". Which works great, because to say that "existence has no opposite" is to say that "no(thingness) is its opposite".
We could probably move this part to philosophy, but it also works here. Whichever you'd prefer.
The point I feel worth exploring is the notion of relative nothingness and non-relative nothingess.
When matter is present vacant space is what I woudl consider to be relative nothingness.
Where as if all objects of mass are removed we have non-relative nothingness. [ as there is no longer and most importantly never been nro ever will be anything to be added.]
you see if time is removed there is no future and there is no past so by removing all mass therefore all time there is no after or before. You have non-relative nothingness.
So when we add time or mass or energy we still have nothingness but now it is relative to mass and time.
The thing about the zeno arrow is that if the arrow has mass even if it is seemingly stationary it must still be energistic therefore it must continue to be moving within itself at 'c' even if stationary.
There is nothing to say that movement is a sequencial activity that it si steps of infinitely small increments. Nothing at all except ontological arguement.
Does a photon flicker?
Does a photon ever cease to exist in it's travels?
What happens to the universe if photons stop? relative to 4 dimensional space. [I am talking in nature not in a lab.]
When matter is present vacant space is what I woudl consider to be relative nothingness.
Where as if all objects of mass are removed we have non-relative nothingness. [ as there is no longer and most importantly never been nro ever will be anything to be added.]
you see if time is removed there is no future and there is no past so by removing all mass therefore all time there is no after or before. You have non-relative nothingness.
So when we add time or mass or energy we still have nothingness but now it is relative to mass and time.
The thing about the zeno arrow is that if the arrow has mass even if it is seemingly stationary it must still be energistic therefore it must continue to be moving within itself at 'c' even if stationary.
There is nothing to say that movement is a sequencial activity that it si steps of infinitely small increments. Nothing at all except ontological arguement.
Does a photon flicker?
Does a photon ever cease to exist in it's travels?
What happens to the universe if photons stop? relative to 4 dimensional space. [I am talking in nature not in a lab.]
Quantum Quack:
Photons do not flicker as far as I am aware.
Photons never cease to exist in their travels until stopped by an object that absorbs them.
If photons were to stop, the electromagnetic force would untangle, atoms would blow apart, galaxies would fly into catastrophe, and basically the universe would end. oh, and we'd be all left in the dark quite litterally. Only things dependent on the strong, weak, and gravity forces would be spared.
You certainly have an empty universe, but it still seems like "space" is still there. A useless space. But a space where a hand, or a baseball, or a neutron star, or a black hole, could move through. The absence of even space would be the true nothingness. There is where nothing could move.
Let's assume that everything in it stops - time is frozen. There is nothing going on inside it at celeritas, nor anything going outside of it at celeritas. Time is absolutely and completely stopped. God pressed the button on his stop watch and finito, there goes time for the time being.
In as much as three dimensions of space are timeless (they do not incorporate time) it seems that every "photo frame" of the arrow passes through a state just like this.
Certainly, if we're moving from A to Z, we have to move through B-Y, no?
Photons do not flicker as far as I am aware.
Photons never cease to exist in their travels until stopped by an object that absorbs them.
If photons were to stop, the electromagnetic force would untangle, atoms would blow apart, galaxies would fly into catastrophe, and basically the universe would end. oh, and we'd be all left in the dark quite litterally. Only things dependent on the strong, weak, and gravity forces would be spared.
You certainly have an empty universe, but it still seems like "space" is still there. A useless space. But a space where a hand, or a baseball, or a neutron star, or a black hole, could move through. The absence of even space would be the true nothingness. There is where nothing could move.
Let's assume that everything in it stops - time is frozen. There is nothing going on inside it at celeritas, nor anything going outside of it at celeritas. Time is absolutely and completely stopped. God pressed the button on his stop watch and finito, there goes time for the time being.
In as much as three dimensions of space are timeless (they do not incorporate time) it seems that every "photo frame" of the arrow passes through a state just like this.
Certainly, if we're moving from A to Z, we have to move through B-Y, no?
But even if you arrive at destination "F" or even "Z" you still do not stop. You are still moving whether you appear stationary or not. Time is moving on at the rate of approx 300000 ks persec regardless of whether you are relatively stationary or not.
so stopping is not on...
Quantum Heraclitus:
This is true. Celeritas is the heart of the universe to some extent. What's your point?
This is true. Celeritas is the heart of the universe to some extent. What's your point?
The need to divide the movement into infintely small incremements is merely an imaginary construct as reality shows that this is not the case.
so to state that
The photo frame is taken with zero duration would show nothing.
The arrow being iimaginary mass cannto pass through a state of nothing because even though it is uimaginary it is something [ thus it has time ]
so I am not sure how the use of zeno is relavant to how big empty space should be if all mass was removed.
Even infinitely small implies dimension when with out mass to support it, is illogical.