Does Distance exist without time?

Quantum Heraclitus:

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
Click to expand...

I fail to see how that is true at all. We still have motion from point A to point B. Celeritas isnot infinite speed. It does not bypass space. It moves incrementally, and moreover, things can move at less than Celeritas on the macroscopic scale.

The photo frame is taken with zero duration would show nothing.
Click to expand...

This does not seem to at all follow whatsoever. Why would there be nothing? There is an arrow. The arrow should not magically disappear.

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 ]
Click to expand...

But it does: Its movement is incremental. Every increment has no time.
 
This does not seem to at all follow whatsoever. Why would there be nothing? There is an arrow. The arrow should not magically disappear.
Click to expand...
if you see it for zero duration then how long do you see it for?
so if the present moment between past and future is of zero duration as indicated by the light cones. How long do you see the NOW for?

If the answer is zero then obviously the NOW is non-existant and you would see nothing at all. Therfore confirmng that reality is temporal in nature.
if t=0 the d must also = 0
try taking a photo with speed set to zero!
 
Last edited:
Quantum Heraclitus:

if you see it for zero duration then how long do you see it for?
so if the present moment between past and future is of zero duration as indicated by the light cones. How long do you see the NOW for?
Click to expand...

You see it for one moment. A moment would be equal to any three-dimensional "photograph".

If the answer is zero then obviously the NOW is non-existant and you would see nothing at all.
Click to expand...

If the now is non-existent, then it follows that there is no reality whatsoever, as no length of time could build upon nothing. That is, five moments of 0 would still be 0.
 
Prince_James said:
Quantum Heraclitus:



You see it for one moment. A moment would be equal to any three-dimensional "photograph".



If the now is non-existent, then it follows that there is no reality whatsoever, as no length of time could build upon nothing. That is, five moments of 0 would still be 0.
Click to expand...

Ahh ! Now we are starting to talk about ex-nihilo and how the universe is constantly self creating from nothing.
Philosophically this means that the begining and end of time is always in the middle between past and future. This also starts to move towards what mass and matter is.

As far as seeing somehting for a moment.... define moment including the time element?
 
Quantum Heraclitus:

Ahh ! Now we are starting to talk about ex-nihilo and how the universe is constantly self creating from nothing.
Philosophically this means that the begining and end of time is always in the middle between past and future. This also starts to move towards what mass and matter is.
Click to expand...

This seems a bit on the far fetched level, my good man.

As far as seeing somehting for a moment.... define moment including the time element?
Click to expand...

A moment = a quanta of time. The smallest period of time that is equal to a "photo" of space. In essence, "a now".
 
A question about this photo: does it get "taken" in, like Planck time, or something.
That is, how long does a photo of an "instant" of time take?
 
Vkothii:

A question about this photo: does it get "taken" in, like Planck time, or something.
That is, how long does a photo of an "instant" of time take?
Click to expand...

There is no photo taken. It is just an analogy to relate it to its ideal status of stopping time. Essentailly make a photograph of regular space.
 
But there it is: you can't stop something unless you take some kind of picture.

IOW any derivative of a time function implies "there is a function". You can't have a real, continuous function without both a real integral and derivative, no matter how hard you try. A derivative is really just a small interval, on the curve, you can't derive anything without first defining how small a difference is. A difference exists only if you have at least two points, a single point doesn't do it, nor does a single "time".
 
Vkothii:

IOW any derivative of a time function implies "there is a function". You can't have a real, continuous function without both a real integral and derivative, no matter how hard you try. A derivative is really just a small interval, on the curve, you can't derive anything without first defining how small a difference is. A difference exists only if you have at least two points, a single point doesn't do it, nor does a single "time".
Click to expand...

I don't see what you're getting at here. Could you restate your position?

To clarify again on my part: I am speaking of Zeno's Arrow. A moment frozen in time. Completely stopped.
 
Well then define your moment.? Your response above is far from adequate.
Whats the shutter speed of your camera PJ?
 
Quantum Heraclitus:

Well then define your moment.? Your response above is far from adequate.
Whats the shutter speed of your camera PJ?
Click to expand...

A moment is infinitesimal in its duration. It consists exactly as a static picture of a three dimensional existence. Any change, no matter how slight, would be another moment.

To give an example: An electron moving even a quadrillionth quadrillionth quadrillioth of a planck length would still consist of an innumerable amount of moments.

We're talking about an entirely static, spatial equivalent.
 
To be precise, a quantum moment is the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second. That is how infinitesimal it is.

And yes, it exists as something that flashes into existence, and has many attributes that seem static. I would need to think about the term of this word though, because static can be erreneous, especially with relativity haunting the spacetime map.

However, in each passing chronon, which has the value of all those billionths, still happens in a non-static fabric, which does inexorably move. So consider the spacetime fabric about 45 billion light years away, that is moving several time frames more in relation to the time of a single chronon, than a particle that moves just a short value off c.

Now, then there must be a distance.
 
In other words, spacetime is not bound by the value of Sceleritas, so the distance an electron can move, would find that its surroundings in an accelerated fabric, find that it would ''see'' more frames pass than what it can in the normal speed of the vacuum.
 
Prince_James said:
Quantum Heraclitus:



A moment is infinitesimal in its duration. It consists exactly as a static picture of a three dimensional existence. Any change, no matter how slight, would be another moment.

To give an example: An electron moving even a quadrillionth quadrillionth quadrillioth of a planck length would still consist of an innumerable amount of moments.

We're talking about an entirely static, spatial equivalent.
Click to expand...

so you are saying your moment consist of time? Yes?
Does the moment you describe have a past and a future?

or has it neither?
Is there are start to the moment or and end?

at what point within the moment is it neither past nor future?

maybe right in the middle?
What is the duration of that middle point?
 
P J said:
Could you restate your position?
Click to expand...
In a roundabout way i'm saying that you simply can't define a "frame" or an "interval", unless you have something that amounts to a gap to "see through".
A gap needs two edges, an interval needs a start and an end; you can't just look at the "start" or the "end", and you can't look through a gap with one edge; two edges define each other.

Try defining the limit of some function without invoking the idea of a small continuous interval on the curve, or even what 'continuous' means. Go on.
 
Vkothii said:
In a roundabout way i'm saying that you simply can't define a "frame" or an "interval", unless you have something that amounts to a gap to "see through".
A gap needs two edges, an interval needs a start and an end; you can't just look at the "start" or the "end", and you can't look through a gap with one edge; two edges define each other.

Try defining the limit of some function without invoking the idea of a small continuous interval on the curve, or even what 'continuous' means. Go on.
Click to expand...
I think we are asking the same thing...the moment must have a start and an ending and no doubt a middle....
 
Another approach is to ask:
"Does time exist without distance?"

And you already know the I reckon that it can't.
 
If you conclude distance is not existant with time, then obviously you would believe time doesn't exist with distance...

But nevertheless, no one, including yourself QQ, have answered a question i posited a while back. You where relating your theories to the measure of the constant speed of ''c''. I asked you to consider a tachyon-antitachyon pair production, that rushed away from each other at infinite speeds, which would make their distance infinite as well.
 
Reiku said:
If you conclude distance is not existant with time, then obviously you would believe time doesn't exist with distance...

But nevertheless, no one, including yourself QQ, have answered a question i posited a while back. You where relating your theories to the measure of the constant speed of ''c''. I asked you to consider a tachyon-antitachyon pair production, that rushed away from each other at infinite speeds, which would make their distance infinite as well.
Click to expand...
The trachyon as far as I can tell is a theoretical outcome or a varity of possibly flawed theories. It is only a theoretical entity to help accomodate interesting spin offs or these theories.

As I do not hold to strongly to these theories I have not much to say.

For example notions of a higgs bosun immediately spin of a variety of possible theories however the higgs Bosun is non-existant as Far as I am concerned. So Why would I entertain the spin of theoretics?
Like wise with SRT. I do not hold with non-siimultaneity of world time lines and I do not even hold with the existance of a photon as a free ranging particle or even wave for that matter so why would I entertain photon particel spin offs?

There has been no unambiguous proof of a photon particle or wave.
In fact it is impossible to distinguish whether light is in fact photon or simply a mass inertia issue.

Zero space allows photons to become obsolete as a object to object traveller in theory and will if correct prove so by allowing understanding of inertia to move forward leading to better technologies etc...

They could however retain their status as the energy within objects of mass but this is another story.
The bottom line is that the use of the photon model means that constants such as gravity, inertia and such can never be understood as the current photon model actually inhibits the understanding.
You can not provide a mechanism for inertia in a relative world line universe...unless you throw in some really strange stuff like somehow connecting world lines that are millions of years into the future....and the reason we are stuck with a multiple world line universe is simply because the photon model requires it. The fact that we think the photon travels across vaccum and is invariant means that a multiple world line universe is essential.

To me it is way too easy to get emmeshed in theoretical outcomes when the first premise is not adequately established such as the existance of a graviton, higgs or even a photon...
So regarding your Trachyons I do not see that as proof of anything as theory in itself is not evidence. IMO
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top