Does Distance exist without time?

[Quantum Quack]

It doesn't matter WHAT the distance is (as a measure), there's still separation.

True but separated by exactly what is the question and I would suggest that that "what", is a void of nothing, as assessed in a single zero duration moment or event centered between past and present. [refer AE light cones]
The only reason the moon is held in it's position relative to the Earth is due to it's angular momentum, gravity etc etc... pure energy/gravity mechanics.
Of course if you subscribe to an aether then that is another question and solution?

 

[Oli]

Separation is distance...
It doesn't matter what separates them, the locations are not contiguous.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

If you truly wanted to speak of a void of nothing between two points, then you would place the points together.

"There is no space between A and B" means the two are right next to eachother.

A pure void could not be placed between something.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Heraclitus:

If you truly wanted to speak of a void of nothing between two points, then you would place the points together.

"There is no space between A and B" means the two are right next to eachother.

A pure void could not be placed between something.

Unless of course if an object is orbiting due to orbital mechanics. [time/energy]
And if you describe that space as something then what is it? Aether?
fuzzy black stuff? ha

 

[Quantum Quack]

if the angular momentum [time/energy] of the moon/earth relationship started to reduce would they not eventually come together afterall....?

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Unless of course if an object is orbiting due to orbital mechanics.
And if you describe that space as something then what is it? Aether?
fuzzy black stuff? ha

There'd be nothing to orbit if there is nothing.

Spatial extension cannot work within zero-dimensional void. If you say "there is an absolute void between Earth and Moon" then the moon cannot be spatially extended away from the Earth at all - it must be touching it.

"Aether" is a reasonable way to describe space (but not in the sense of the discreditted [although Einstein had no problem with the aether] luminferous aether). In as much as it is three dimensions that exist very much as an omnipresent material within which all other things participate. Space without end, ad infinitum, with all within it.

You, yourself, proclaim it is zero-dimensional. Zero dimensional and space-extension do not work with one another. It's claiming that the object is zero-dimensional but it has at least one dimensional value...which is a contradiction.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Is it not the energy and time that the earth and moon have that keep them apart and in 4 dimensions? Take out the energy and time and you have what?

 

[Quantum Quack]

the big crunch comes to mind...ha

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

if the angular momentum [time/energy] of the moon/earth relationship started to reduce would they not eventually come together afterall....?

I think the moon is past the point where it would fall to the Earth. But supposing it wasn't all ready outside doing so, then yes. If not, they'd never get closer or further. As it stands now, the moon is moving away from Earth by fractions of a metre every millennium.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Heraclitus:

Is it not the energy and time that the earth and moon have that keep them apart and in 4 dimensions? Take out the energy and time and you have what?

Energy has, yes. Time? Not so much. Time has worked against it. Only because the energy was strong enough is the moon going away, not because of time.

 

[Reiku]

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.

First, i don't like the term, ''physicist'' or anyone using that term when they are not exactly a physicist by certification.

 

[Reiku]

s^2 = (∆x)^2 + (∆y)^2

In a rotated system, we twist coordinates around in space, and we find them as a geometry of distance. The new coordinates are given as:

s^2 = (∆x′)^2 + (∆y′)^2

Being almost identical math, they are easy to remember. In this case, we say that distance is an invariant of these equations. More interesting is that we learn that time is also an invariant of space.

Because of this, we can therefore find the following equation describing a spacetime interval:

s^2 = −(c∆t)^2 + (∆x)^2 + (∆y)^2 + (∆z)^2

 

[Reiku]

So a movement in the space dimension, requires also a role in time, and because of this, space and time are no longer seperate, and united as spacetime: a single vacuum.

 

[Oli]

So what?
We're not talking about movement, we're talking distance as separation.
Does distance exist?

 

[Reiku]

Well, distance exists as something we use to define length, and possibly movement itself. So, if something moves from A to B, a distance in time and space is involved. But again, i will stress this requires an observer. The reason, because special relativity is an observer dependant theory.

 

[Reiku]

This is why i said, Oli friend,

s^2 = (∆x)^2 + (∆y)^2

In a rotated system, we twist coordinates around in space, and we find them as a geometry of distance. The new coordinates are given as:

s^2 = (∆x′)^2 + (∆y′)^2

The equations here, relate distance with rotation or movement as you put it.

 

[Oli]

SRT?
Movement again?
The question is: Does distance exist without time?
Is there a separation between two objects (without moving or movement between them) if there is no time?

 

[Oli]

This is why i said, Oli friend,
blah blah
The equations here, relate distance with rotation or movement as you put it.

Then dump those equations.
DISTANCE!!!
Not movement.
Distance does not require movement.

 

[Reiku]

But the equations answer your question.

Einstein made the connection, that energy and spacetime cannot exist without each other. If distance is a geometrical factor of the fabric of spacetime, which has been proven above, then time must also be required with distance.

Do you undestand now?

 

[Quantum Quack]

But the equations answer your question.

Einstein made the connection, that energy and spacetime cannot exist without each other. If distance is a geometrical factor of the fabric of spacetime, which has been proven above, then time must also be required with distance.

Do you undestand now?

Actually you are starting to prove my point.
According to SRT distance and space must have a time factor. This is fundamental to SRT's claim of non-simultaneity as far as I know.
So according to SRT there is no Static distance as distance and time are inseparable.

So the question stands when you look up at the moon not wishing to spend any time and take a snapshot how far is the moon beyond our atmosphere?
I would suggest that SRT would be used to prove that the distance is in fact zero.
Alberto and Minkowski were no dummies I can assure you.
When you have the conundrum of zero distance from a photons perspective and distance from a mass perspective often talked about you can see where I am heading.
SRT requires that the distance be zero if time is not present. And a photon has not time because it is time.