The question is really about exploring the proofs needed to prove that Distance is a reality in that it has existance, only if time is available to travel it.

To prove that distance exist without time ["static" distance is the phrase I use] is what this thread is about.
The following diagram clarifies the notion I hope will entertain you for a few minutes.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/diag/diag01.gif

Now one can see that 10 LYs is the normal d/t for an object of mass to move to it's destination but this must normally necesitate the use of time to do so.
Thus we can say that we have proved that distance exists as real when time is available.
However if we do not travel does distance exist across a vacuum of vacant space if time is not considered available or even wanted to be used?
For example:
If I am standing on Planet A and I look towards planet B can I prove that the distance is real at any given moment?

If so how can I prove distance as real with out the necessity of time?

travels[/U] etc so therefore light proves that "static" distance exists. However I would consider this as not being sufficient proof as you still require time for light to travel]

Assume that light is not present nor is EM for the sake of the discussion.
[I]Contention:
Distance across a vacuum is an illusion demonstrated by the presence of mass thus time.
The real distance across a void of vacuum is actually zero if one looks at distance at any given zero duration moment

Nope: if anything you're showing you need time for movement to exist, not distance.
You've already declared that A and B are separated, and your example is about MOVING from A to B.

I am sorry but you are mistaken I feel. I have not declared that A and B are separated by distance. I have only declared they are separated by distance with time. The distance factor on it's own has yet to be proven.
This in fact the whole point of the thread. And I am suprised you missed it. 10 light years is d/t is it not?

I have not declared that A and B are separated by distance.
Hmmm according to the text on the diagram...
travel the distance from planet A to planet B.
If they weren't alrteady apart there'd be no need to travel, neh?

Another diagram [ not a very good one I might add] that might help clarify:

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/diag/diag02.gif

Clarifies nothing.
You're just posting relationships between distance and time that do exist and inferring they are interdependant

Hmmm according to the text on the diagram...
travel the distance from planet A to planet B.
If they weren't alrteady apart there'd be no need to travel, neh?
the contention is that they are only apart if time is needed to travel. Take out the time factor and they would not be separated in fact they would be superimposed ontop of each other.
Now before you state that you think this is bunk. Think about the invariance of inertia for a minute...

Clarifies nothing.
You're just posting relationships between distance and time that do exist and inferring they are interdependant
but according to current thinking they are dependent. yes?

So you are saying that distance can only exist with time....so d/t is in fact t only. Why use d at all?
We haven't proved d yet
d can only be proved with t....yes?

well there for without t, d=zero yes?

Take out the time factor and they would not be separated in fact they would be superimposed ontop of each other.
Supposition.
Now before you state that you think this is bunk. Think about the invariance of inertia for a minute...
Thought about.
It's bunk.

but according to current thinking they are dependent. yes?
As far as movement goes.

So you are saying that distance can only exist with time
No, I'm saying movement requires time, not distance.
It does not necessarily follow that separation in and of itself requires time.

so when I take a snapshot of planet B from planet A how far is planet B.

If you say 10 lys then I will say 10 what!?

unless you count alternate universe to this universe...as distance...but no such thing has been proven to exist

Now before you state that you think this is bunk. Think about the invariance of inertia for a minute... ”
Thought about.
It's bunk.

So tell us all what your thoughts are about inertia and how it is universally invariant? refer to Machs principle if you like...

“ Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
but according to current thinking they are dependent. yes? ”

As far as movement goes.
but hey I don't want to move...how far is it?

How far is the top of your computer screen from the bottom, the left hand wall of your room from the right hand?
How much time does it take for them to be where they already are?

The presumption of distance as being more than zero when time is zero is what I am wishing to clarify.
because at this stage it is only a presumption and yet to be proven.

How far is the top of your computer screen from the bottom, the left hand wall of your room from the right hand?
How much time does it take for them to be where they already are?
The mass metric is obvious however we are talking about vaccum and vacant space...Big difference....
You will note also that distance is measured using a meter based on an object of mass, i.e. a ruler made of steel or wood measuring the distance across a given piece of realestate.

Use vacuum in the same way and you will find a different metric.

You have so far failed to offer any rationale that distance IS zero when time is zero, so calling the converse a presumption is rather presumptuous.

An amusing gendanken comes to mind:
If you could tie a piece of string from the moon to the earth how long would that string be and how can you prove that to be the case with out actually doing it.
The normal presumption is what ever d/t the moon is from Earth but I reckon if you tied a length of string you woud be amazed to find that it would be a hell of lot shorter.

really strange idea hey?

But there must be a way of proving static distance to exist...

ha... just the idea is so against the grain of conditioning...ha
Make a good SRT thought experiment actually....relative V reference frames with a piece of really long string attaching them together. At some stage the string has to time travel ...hmmmmm but what section of string does it....[chuckle]

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/diag/diag03.gif
thread can be found at:
3 ships and a really long piece of string - SRT (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81503)

In physics, distance is an illusion. Whilst we have equation describing the force of illuminity in inverse calculations, like the following,

I_{1}/I_{2}=N/A_{1}/N/A_{2}=A_{2}/A_{1}=4\pi r_{2}^{2}/4\pi r1^{2}

The surface of the sphere is given as 4\pi r^{2} and also when we have a ratio A2, A1 then the following equation is solved by saying that the second surface is twice the distance from the source I=k/r^{2} and is found to be in inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

I= r_{1}^{2}/(2r_{1})^{2}xI_{1}= r_{1}^{2}/(4r_{1})^{2}xI_{1}= I_{1}/4

But these calculations are observer-dependant, and whenever we calculate the intensity, they are given in accordance to some type of time passing, with equal time frames.

However, one well-hidden fact of relativity, is that there is no past and no future, and any notion of the past and future, in fact exist simultaneously with the present... so there is no real distance between a planet and a star. And history of distance between A and B, are found to be like a single time frame.

If yod find this hard to believe, read Brian Greenes book, ''Frozen Lake''.

This might answer your question QQ.

So r=0 in both both cases?

Health Warning: The above is an affront to mathematics as it is currently understood. Taking it seriously will damage your mental health.

Health Warning: The above is an affront to mathematics as it is currently understood. Taking it seriously will damage your mental health.

Elucidate.

In physics, distance is an illusion. Whilst we have equation describing the force of illuminity in inverse calculations, like the following,

I_{1}/I_{2}=N/A_{1}/N/A_{2}=A_{2}/A_{1}=4\pi r_{2}^{2}/4\pi r1^{2}

The surface of the sphere is given as 4\pi r^{2} and also when we have a ratio A2, A1 then the following equation is solved by saying that the second surface is twice the distance from the source I=k/r^{2} and is found to be in inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

I= r_{1}^{2}/(2r_{1})^{2}xI_{1}= r_{1}^{2}/(4r_{1})^{2}xI_{1}= I_{1}/4

I was referring to this nonsense

This started out as confused and remains so. As I see it, distance can be measured without reference to time by using a ruler. 6" is a distance measured on a scale we have invented. Time, on the other hand, is how we measure how long it takes to move from A to B. This is not a constant because it's value depends on how we choose to travel.

The fact that we regard two objects as being apart implies distance. Time has no relevance.

By your reasoning, since you need to time to perform measurements of any sort, nothing exists without time. But something can exist independently of our ability to perceive or measure it, so all you can say is that it doesn't exist as far as we're personally concerned. Distances can be compared without requiring velocities and times- i.e. take two strings and see how many lengths of one string will fit into the other. Of course, we'd need the passage of time in order to do this, but even if we didn't have any time in which to measure this, the distances would still be comparable from an external point of view, in the sense that they fundamentally exist as real physical quantities.

Quarkhead

Your remedial attempt to bring me work down, is lost.

The equations are sound. I learned them at college.

So your basically saying distance/time are two sides of the same coin like energy/matter are.

I could see this in that moving at the speed of light there is no time passage and you are moving maximum distance per time possible. But then like a previous poster mentioned its not really distance/time so much as motion/time on the coin. Distance seems more of a byproduct of motion then the other way around.

By your reasoning, since you need to time to perform measurements of any sort, nothing exists without time. But something can exist independently of our ability to perceive or measure it, so all you can say is that it doesn't exist as far as we're personally concerned. Distances can be compared without requiring velocities and times- i.e. take two strings and see how many lengths of one string will fit into the other. Of course, we'd need the passage of time in order to do this, but even if we didn't have any time in which to measure this, the distances would still be comparable from an external point of view, in the sense that they fundamentally exist as real physical quantities.

I don't need to perform a measurement to know that two objects are apart; I can see it. If you argue that it takes time to look from one to the other. I shall say that both are in my field of vision. If you further argue that light from the objects take time to reach my eyes, I will say your argument is absurd.

To return to using a ruler: if two objects are 6" apart, I can measure that with a ruler. the time I take to align the ruler is irrelevant because it is variable; I can take as long or as short a time as I please without affecting the distance between the objects,plus, when I remove the ruler the objects remain in situ. Distance is a measurement of length and is independent of time.

In physics, distance is an illusion. Support this rather controversial statement. Whilst we have equation describing the force of illuminity in inverse calculationsExplain what a force of illuminity is, and what an inverse calculation is.
I_{1}/I_{2}=N/A_{1}/N/A_{2}=A_{2}/A_{1}=4\pi r_{2}^{2}/4\pi r1^{2} Explain what is I, what is N, what is A, and what the subscripts refer to. What is r? Why is it both sub- and super-scripted? Explain the non-standard operator /

Explain why the cofactor 1^2 is required as a right multiplier; for "bonus points", say exactly what is 1^2
a ratio A2, A1
Explain in what sense this is a ratio, and between what and what? Remember I asked you to define A_n

Yawn, I lost interest in the rest

I don't need to perform a measurement to know that two objects are apart; I can see it. If you argue that it takes time to look from one to the other. I shall say that both are in my field of vision. If you further argue that light from the objects take time to reach my eyes, I will say your argument is absurd.

To return to using a ruler: if two objects are 6" apart, I can measure that with a ruler. the time I take to align the ruler is irrelevant because it is variable; I can take as long or as short a time as I please without affecting the distance between the objects,plus, when I remove the ruler the objects remain in situ. Distance is a measurement of length and is independent of time.
So Uhm Myles : Can I ask?
How can you see the separation if that separation emmits no light and is void of anything discernable other than absense?

How can the human eye see nothing?

Distance can only be measures using a d/t device like a ruler or a tape measure which is calibrated to measure it's like that being mass of d/t.
Measure vaccuum with something made of vacuum and see how you go.
If not then you must state that vacuum has mass.

Say it takes 10 billion tennis balls standing on top of each other to reach the moon from the Earths surface. The distance could be described as 10 Billion Balls yes?
But what are the balls except objects of time and energy filling in the void between the earth and the moon.
If you have not object of energy/time to measure with how far is the moon from the earth?

If you have not object of energy/time to measure with how far is the moon from the earth?

So you're contending that to qualify as distance it has to be measured?
Whether the separation is measured or not here is not there.

So Uhm Myles : Can I ask?
How can you see the separation if that separation emmits no light and is void of anything discernable other than absense?

How can the human eye see nothing?

Distance can only be measures using a d/t device like a ruler or a tape measure which is calibrated to measure it's like that being mass of d/t.
Measure vaccuum with something made of vacuum and see how you go.
If not then you must state that vacuum has mass.

I naturally cannot see objects which emit no light but I do not regard the world as being dependent on my perceptions. I do not have to see a seperation for one to exist. The alternative would be to regard one or more objects as being capable of occuping the same space at the same time.


I can see that, used in its strict sense, distance implies measurement, but I cannot seee how the time I take to align a ruler between two objects affects the distance between them because the time taken to do so would be variable, depending on the operator.

There is a factor in SRT that states that mass is energy and that energy is changing it's position with in that mass at a rate of 'c'.

So when you apply a ruler of mass you are applying an object that is changing at the rate of 'c' which is the same rate as every other object of mass.
example:

an apple and an orrange on a table.
during 1 seconds time all three objects have travelled approximately 300,000 kms within them selves.
and so to has the observer.

So yes when you measure the distance with a ruler you are still utilising time to do so.

But the thread is attempting to find out how to prove distance exists at any given zero duration moment between past and future.
Using a photo snapshot analogy can be helpful.
Vacuum or vacant space of course has no velocity within itself I contend. Where as mass does.

If somethng is unchanging and unmoving then does it exist?

I would suggest that vacant space can not change simply because it is non-existant as such. After all if the universe's mass suddenly dis-appeared what would we have left?

a diagram from wiki that may help:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/250px-World_line.svg.png
It is at the center between the light cones future and past that I wish to take my photo snapshot of distance.

Support this rather controversial statement. Explain what a force of illuminity is, and what an inverse calculation is.
Explain what is I, what is N, what is A, and what the subscripts refer to. What is r? Why is it both sub- and super-scripted? Explain the non-standard operator /

Explain why the cofactor 1^2 is required as a right multiplier; for "bonus points", say exactly what is 1^2

Explain in what sense this is a ratio, and between what and what? Remember I asked you to define A_n

Yawn, I lost interest in the rest


I will not reply, nor give lessons on the knowledge i present.

If you want to know something, PM. Otherwise, stop being a prat. I know these equations are sound, so in the end you will only make yourself to look like an idiot.

There is a factor in SRT that states that mass is energy and that energy is changing it's position with in that mass at a rate of 'c'.

So when you apply a ruler of mass you are applying an object that is changing at the rate of 'c' which is the same rate as every other object of mass.
example:

an apple and an orrange on a table.
during 1 seconds time all three objects have travelled approximately 300,000 kms within them selves.
and so to has the observer.

So yes when you measure the distance with a ruler you are still utilising time to do so.



But the thread is attempting to find out how to prove distance exists at any given zero duration moment between past and future.
Using a photo snapshot analogy can be helpful.
Vacuum or vacant space of course has no velocity within itself I contend. Where as mass does.

If somethng is unchanging and unmoving then does it exist?

I would suggest that vacant space can not change simply because it is non-existant as such. After all if the universe's mass suddenly dis-appeared what would we have left?

I believe I see what you are driving at and it looks like I have departed from the topic of this thread. However, in your example of the fruit on the table the ruler and the observer are also moving, so time seems irrelevant.

I don't need to perform a measurement to know that two objects are apart; I can see it. If you argue that it takes time to look from one to the other. I shall say that both are in my field of vision. If you further argue that light from the objects take time to reach my eyes, I will say your argument is absurd.

To return to using a ruler: if two objects are 6" apart, I can measure that with a ruler. the time I take to align the ruler is irrelevant because it is variable; I can take as long or as short a time as I please without affecting the distance between the objects,plus, when I remove the ruler the objects remain in situ. Distance is a measurement of length and is independent of time.

I know you meant this as a rebuttal to my post, but I think it actually agrees with the gist of what I was saying. I think you misunderstand- I'm arguing that we human beings require the passage of time in order to measure something, but that doesn't mean that something doesn't exist just because we can't measure it. So distance and time are independent concepts, they just happen to share a special connection when you consider beams of light.

Hello all
On word "parallax". Use distances and angles to measure distances. No time involved.
:)

Use distances and angles to measure distances. No time involved.
How much time does the measurement take though?
How much time did it take for the objects in the parallax view to get to where they are, so the measurement is possible?

I don't really think you can get away from Time if you're looking at Distance.
In Einsteinian spacetime, they're indistinguishable dimensions - to ensure a theory is consistent with GR, you have to be able to transform time into distance and distance into time, or the math doesn't "fly".

What is the distance travelled by my words from me to you?

Hello Vkothii, et al.

Parallax is simple geometry and does not have any time variables. Your eyes/brain do it all the time. Two telescopes on opposite sides of the Earth can take a parallax measurement at the same time (thanks to atomic clocks and such). The Earth's atmosphere does tend to get in the way though.

Parallax will only measure the "point of origin" for the light. How long the light took to transit from source to detector is irrelevant. The source could (and probably did) move (relatively speaking) during the transit time of the light.

:)

Parallax is simple geometry and does not have any time variables.

But you do not get both measurements for the parallax instantaneously, it requires an observer to move through time to a separate point to get a different measurement. So yes there is a time element there.

Hello EndLightEnd, et al.

If I where to use the Earths orbit around the Sun to measure the parallax distance to a nearby star what "time" between measurements would be the most beneficial and why so.
1) Three months
2) Six months
3) Nine months
4) Twelve months

Point being that if you take the same picture from two separated telescopes (or cameras) at the same time and compare them you will have parallax.

:)

What do you mean by "at the same time"? How would you arrange to take two pictures of the same star, with two separated telescopes, at the same time, and more to the point how do they get separated?

Before i was rudely interrupted by quarkhead yesterday (and he is wrong: the equation is very much correct), distance is only related to time if an observer is present. This is why distance in relativity is observer-dependant.

But you do not get both measurements for the parallax instantaneously, it requires an observer to move through time to a separate point to get a different measurement. So yes there is a time element there.

Or two observers...

End.Light

No.

This is wrong...

''But you do not get both measurements for the parallax instantaneously, it requires an observer to move through time to a separate point to get a different measurement. So yes there is a time element there.''

The element is purely based on two observers. Take away the observers, and there is no measurement in distance, and including real time frames.

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.

You can go all Plato on our asses then, while i will go quantum on yours. This is wrong:

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

Distance is indeed a spatial quality, or attribute, but since space and time play the same roles, distance must be temporal in this respect. But distance is an observers attribute of measurement, so the rest follows.

Reiku:

Distance is indeed a spatial quality, or attribute, but since space and time play the same roles, distance must be temporal in this respect. But distance is an observers attribute of measurement, so the rest follows.

Time does not play the same role as space. It is an entirely different dimension - it measures a non-spatial progression.

There are also objective measurements based off the speed of light which is held as invariant. The planck length, also, is held to hold in all references frames.

Well, by request, i will show you equations that make space and time invariant.

Or, if you don't believe those, consider:

Herman Minkowski (Einsteins Teacher)

''We can no longer treat an action space as seperated from time. From now on, physics has taken a monumental turn, where the space coordinate plays exactly the same role as the time coordinate.''

However, in your example of the fruit on the table the ruler and the observer are also moving, so time seems irrelevant.
except that for the three objects to exist 1 second had to pass... so time is very relevant to the obects dimensionality

except that for the three objects to exist 1 second had to pass...
Why?

Quarkhead

Your remedial attempt to bring me work down, is lost.

The equations are sound. I learned them at college.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.

Why?

Well how many dimensions exist if an object stops moving with time?

If energy [ light ] suddenenly froze and stopped moving.
Suspending animation!

I would suggest that maybe only 2 dimensions exist as one would note in a photograph.

so if you take a photograph which shows a man in the foreground and a mountain in the background and with imagination you calculate the distance twas approx. 7 kms between man and mountain. What are the actual distances involved?
zero! as the picture is a 2 dimensional object [ not counting the ink and paper of course.] and there is zero distance between man and mountain. It is only an illusion that when time is frozen that there is distance. Our ability to imagine time comes to the for.

So when we take a snapshot at any given moment what are the distances away from the camera shown in the picture taken?

Well how many dimensions exist if an object stops moving with time?
Ummm, 3 spatial and 1 time dimension...

So when we take a snapshot at any given moment what are the distances away from the camera shown in the picture taken?
Speculation.

So when we take a snapshot at any given moment what are the distances away from the camera shown in the picture taken?

What about perspective ?

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.
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?
How can you prove that time is real without the necessity of distance?

-Andrew

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.


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.

What about perspective ?
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!""

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!""

They are not imaginary, they are a 2D representation of the real thing. As can be proven by applying perspective.

We do this by imagining the time it would take to move within the picture.
No we don't.
Time doesn't come into it.

He is right. Only imaginary time frames anser for this.

No.
He's wrong.

They are not imaginary, they are a 2D representation of the real thing. As can be proven by applying perspective.
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?

maybe you should try some digital image manipulations and then we can talk about what is real.
What does that have to do with anything ? :confused:

Ever drawn a 3 dimensional cube on a piece of paper?
Is the cube real or imaginary?
It is a 2D representation of an imaginary cube.

If you took your drawing and actually built it what has it become? and what was it before?
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

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
well the distance between here and the moon is imaginary until actually travelled.

well the distance between here and the moon is imaginary until actually travelled.

Wrong.

of course, if you need help in physics, i can only be obvious about the equations i am taught.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.

well the distance between here and the moon is imaginary until actually travelled.
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:

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.

:)

Owned

Quantum Heraclitus:

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

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?

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.

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:
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.

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?

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

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 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

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

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.

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?

the big crunch comes to mind...ha

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.

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: 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

In my opinion, it's actually impossible for there to be a distance between two objects, unless there's a "time" between them, type of thing. The cosmos does not expand (objects in it don't separate from each other) in "no time", because that would imply "no distance".

The nonlocality of quantum objects appears to violate the principle of the (general) relativity of time and distance.

The important understanding I think if we can agree is that if we accept that energy moves at an invariant of 'c' then the whole universe is moving at the same rate. Whether within itself [ mass = energy] or by way of the photon model.
So therefore light speed is time or energy in motion.
The universal change rate for the entire universe accroding to SRT is 'c'

Which is why we have time dilation and length contraction....to maintain this invariance.

The "nonlocality" of quantum objects appears to violate the principle of the (general) relativity of time and distance.
If you are referring to quantum entanglements tunneling etc then you are touching upon the purpose of this thread.
PJ please note....
Take an entangled half particle to the other side of the galaxy and wonder how it is connected to it's brother in a simultaneous relationship given the vast distances that appear to be present.

This of course can only be achieved with zero distance [ dimensionality ] being valid.
Now inertia is able to be seriously explored and why it is invariant and constant.

It would appear to me that relationships exist over long distances.


And yet that, despite the obviousness of this fact, were some disturbance to occur, would the same relationship exist?

Does this "exist without time" or to use a big word "is this "invarient"? :D
haha

Quantum Heraclitus:

The important understanding I think if we can agree is that if we accept that energy moves at an invariant of 'c' then the whole universe is moving at the same rate. Whether within itself [ mass = energy] or by way of the photon model.
So therefore light speed is time or energy in motion.
The universal change rate for the entire universe accroding to SRT is 'c'

Energy is never not in motion, as it were. That is notable.

Also, there are obvious things that function at far below C. We do not see chemical reactions taking place at the speed of light.

Quantum Heraclitus:

Take an entangled half particle to the other side of the galaxy and wonder how it is connected to it's brother in a simultaneous relationship given the vast distances that appear to be present.

This of course can only be achieved with zero distance [ dimensionality ] being valid.
Now inertia is able to be seriously explored and why it is invariant and constant.

I disagree. Genuine non-locality does not imply zero-distance between them, only infinite speed. Infinite speed can be attained by something which I have always thought was very analogous to logical necessity.

Indeed, it is even more telling that quantum entanglement observations occur in such a way that they always are of properties which are "if A than B". e.g. "If Entangled1 is up, Entangled B is down | Entangled 1 is up | Thereore, Entangled B is down".

I'm also a Bohmian, QM wise, so it is notable that I am a non-local determinist. I don't know where that precisely fits with the above, but it is something that is worthy to mention to put my cards face up so you know where I am coming from.

How about the universe before it expanded and cooled sufficiently for the "symmetry-breaking" to manifest itself as 4 distinct forces.
The Wheeler-De Witt equation (cosmic wavefunction) describes the quantum universe, where locality (a time derivative), or energy (momentum) has no meaning at all.

Everything in the universe, before the symmetry-breaking (or when matter condensed and gravity and mass appeared), was entangled, or was the same thing.

you can't have one without the other, even if we are referring only to a single moment

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

That equation only holds in flat space, and technically it should be expressed in terms of differentials so that it applies to accelerating reference frames as well. These matters aside, the equation only shows how the distance and times between two events are related as seen by various different reference frames. For timelike events, you can always find a reference frame in which both events are separated in time but not in space, and for spacelike events you can always find a frame in which the two events are separated in space but simultaneous in time. The Minkowski metric, which is essentially the formula you have written, gives relationships between space and time for various events as seen by different observers. In no way does it say that one cannot exist without the other.

In general, independent of any physics, there is nothing to say that distance wouldn't exist even if we had no time frame in which to measure it. We just wouldn't be able to perceive it, which is different from saying that the physical thing does not exist in and of itself.

Maybe I should have started with this question:
"How big is the universe if all the matter, mass and substance is removed?"
"In other words how much space is left if there is nothing in it?"

and if you have nothing to measure it with or even if you did what would you measure?

There is no separation, there is no reference point to start with etc etc..
Now how does adding back all the substance change what vacant space was?

How about the universe before it expanded and cooled sufficiently for the "symmetry-breaking" to manifest itself as 4 distinct forces.
The Wheeler-De Witt equation (cosmic wavefunction) describes the quantum universe, where locality (a time derivative), or energy (momentum) has no meaning at all.

Everything in the universe, before the symmetry-breaking (or when matter condensed and gravity and mass appeared), was entangled, or was the same thing.
I like this as it is very suggestive of why we have a constant called inertia.

the issue with zero dimensionalism is probably best dealt with by saying that no values can be applied. It can be as huge or as small as needed by the mas that fills it.

As to the distinction between infinite and instantaneousness I do not consider it really worth drawing as apart from language the results are the same thing.

Quantum Heraclitus:

Maybe I should have started with this question:
"How big is the universe if all the matter, mass and substance is removed?"
"In other words how much space is left if there is nothing in it?"

Well as noted, I am of the view that existence/space is infinite, with or without mass. That is to say, it is not empty, but we would have what amounts to "the quintessence of space in and of itself" left alone.

There is no separation, there is no reference point to start with etc etc..
Now how does adding back all the substance change what vacant space was?

We certainly get nice relative distance scales that make reasonable sense to discuss.

Quantum Quack:

As to the distinction between infinite and instantaneousness I do not consider it really worth drawing as apart from language the results are the same thing.

They are. But it is worth noting that the two ways to look at it have a dramatic difference.

To say "it travels at infinite speed" is to imply that distance is retained.

"That it doesn't travel at at all" implies that distance is not.

In essence: I am not on board with there being zero dimensionality as the background.

The question is really about exploring the proofs needed to prove that Distance is a reality in that it has existance, only if time is available to travel it.

To prove that distance exist without time ["static" distance is the phrase I use] is what this thread is about.
The following diagram clarifies the notion I hope will entertain you for a few minutes.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/diag/diag01.gif

Now one can see that 10 LYs is the normal d/t for an object of mass to move to it's destination but this must normally necesitate the use of time to do so.
Thus we can say that we have proved that distance exists as real when time is available.
However if we do not travel does distance exist across a vacuum of vacant space if time is not considered available or even wanted to be used?
For example:
If I am standing on Planet A and I look towards planet B can I prove that the distance is real at any given moment?

If so how can I prove distance as real with out the necessity of time?

travels[/U] etc so therefore light proves that "static" distance exists. However I would consider this as not being sufficient proof as you still require time for light to travel]

Assume that light is not present nor is EM for the sake of the discussion.
[I]Contention:
Distance across a vacuum is an illusion demonstrated by the presence of mass thus time.
The real distance across a void of vacuum is actually zero if one looks at distance at any given zero duration moment

I want to know what your reason is for bringing this up. Does it have to do with any questions regarding the origin/existence of the universe ?

I can prove it for you, but I don't think you like the way I'll do it :D

Quantum Quack:



They are. But it is worth noting that the two ways to look at it have a dramatic difference.

To say "it travels at infinite speed" is to imply that distance is retained.

"That it doesn't travel at at all" implies that distance is not.

In essence: I am not on board with there being zero dimensionality as the background.
to me it is of no importance if you wish to consider vacant space as having infiinite speed distances.
I can understand that because there appears to be dimensionality that infinite speed would be easier to comprehend.
However I think in Physics the notion of infinite speed is something they would rather not deal with and instantaneousness across distance is more palatable.

However can we agree that regardless of which or what, time can be deemed as absolute across vacant space?
In other words one pixel of vacuum shares the same world line as another. Or alternatively if you like as time is meaningless then all vacant space must be the same.
The reason why zero dimensionality is important in concept is that in a zero point time is absolute or infinitely small in duration uniformally regardless of where that zero point(s) may appear in a 4 dimensional universe.
Therefore if vacant space is all made up of an infinite number zero points then vacant space must share the same zero time line.
This is very hard to put forth in a rational way due to the preconceptions I am trying to accomodate. [probably making a real mess of it as I go]

But in essense what this means is that to "transit" or "switch" from one zero point to another can be done instantaneously or infinitely fast, as long as one does not apply energy thus time to do so.

The thread is about proving whether distance exists with out time and as energy determines time ['c'] one can logically conclude that to discover zero distance one does not do so using energy [ time ].
It also allows for constants to exist such as gravity,inertia and unifrom laws of physics throughout the universe and also the removal of the need for photon theory almost completely. [ eventually ]
It also allows for the explanation of other phenonema that currently cannot be explained [ re: other threads in pseudo science]
SRT actually shows this to be the case which is a rather interesting developement from my perspective...

I want to know what your reason is for bringing this up. Does it have to do with any questions regarding the origin/existence of the universe ?

I can prove it for you, but I don't think you like the way I'll do it :D
Actually no it is not directly relevant [ also I am attempting to keep this thread here in physics and not pseudo science - ] but if you want you can pm me...

There are many reasons for bring this up but mostly it is to help support the release of a theory I call Zero Point Theory.

"How big is the universe if all the matter, mass and substance is removed?"
"In other words how much space is left if there is nothing in it?"How about: you can't have distance or time, if you don't have matter?
If you have matter that can clump together (for whatever reason), or condense, then you have space between the clumps.

This basic principle is pretty much scale-invariant, from quarks and leptons, to gas and dust clouds, and galaxies.

Until the "cosmic wavefunction" underwent the phase change that saw the quarks and so on actually appear so they could clump together and make some space, there wasn't any space, or any matter, there was just a wavefunction with no dimensions.

Which is the same cosmos we see now, what we can see of it. It's undergone a phase change, so there's all this matter, and inertia, and planets, stars, and us, the observers.

It appears to be "our job", as observers, to figure out why or how the phase change occured. The inflationary theory, driven by dark energy is one of the ideas, the Wheeler-De Witt is another. Maybe they're the same idea...?

P.S. Are you a Jack Sarfatti fan?
P.P.S. Yes, that's a loaded question.

Quantum Heraclitus:

However I think in Physics the notion of infinite speed is something they would rather not deal with and instantaneousness across distance is more palatable.

I am not so sure. Non-locality breaks finite speed either which way. But if we really wanted to think of it in one way, infinite speed is better owing to Occam's Razor, considering we retain dimensionality, while zero-point breaks dimensionality and locality. "The simplest theory is better".

However can we agree that regardless of which or what, time can be deemed as absolute across vacant space?

Yes. Nothing would disturb time.

In other words one pixel of vacuum shares the same world line as another. Or alternatively if you like as time is meaningless then all vacant space must be the same.

Yes.

The reason why zero dimensionality is important in concept is that in a zero point time is absolute or infinitely small in duration uniformally regardless of where that zero point(s) may appear in a 4 dimensional universe.
Therefore if vacant space is all made up of an infinite number zero points then vacant space must share the same zero time line.

Agreed.

But in essense what this means is that to "transit" or "switch" from one zero point to another can be done instantaneously or infinitely fast, as long as one does not apply energy thus time to do so.

I disagree here. Any action, even entangled, would imply a difference between A and B, therefore, a difference between At1, At2, Bt1, and Bt2.

The thread is about proving whether distance exists with out time and as energy determines time ['c'] one can logically conclude that to discover zero distance one does not do so using energy [ time ].

The problem is that one has not discovered zero distance yet. To move at all to anyplace, even in empty space, from one point to another, even entangled, even at infinite speed, is to change. Therefore, there is time. All change is time-based.

That equation only holds in flat space, and technically it should be expressed in terms of differentials so that it applies to accelerating reference frames as well. These matters aside, the equation only shows how the distance and times between two events are related as seen by various different reference frames. For timelike events, you can always find a reference frame in which both events are separated in time but not in space, and for spacelike events you can always find a frame in which the two events are separated in space but simultaneous in time. The Minkowski metric, which is essentially the formula you have written, gives relationships between space and time for various events as seen by different observers. In no way does it say that one cannot exist without the other.

In general, independent of any physics, there is nothing to say that distance wouldn't exist even if we had no time frame in which to measure it. We just wouldn't be able to perceive it, which is different from saying that the physical thing does not exist in and of itself.

Yes, i know. The equations where shown in this respect, as a simple demonstration that distance and time are invariant. However, what do you mean by ''independant of any physics,'' because, surely its commonsense that we wouldn't have any equations describing distance and time, without a knowledge of physics, and including relativity?

More to my understanding, is that if distance is not real, then myself sitting here, and an australian on the other side of the world, may as well be sitting together, and that doesn't make any sense at all.

There has been some speculation before in the past, concerning spooky action at a distance, might require certain information to move at superluminal speeds. It may not have anything to do with the postulation of a non-distance between two objects.

So the relationship connection has nothing to do with this?

It may not :)

Hence ''may'' however. If we know distance exists, then subluminal speeds are inadiquate to answer for great distances, like 3 million lightyears...

...so that answer may lye in the fact that not ALL information moves at the same speeds.

Yes, i know. The equations where shown in this respect, as a simple demonstration that distance and time are invariant. However, what do you mean by ''independant of any physics,'' because, surely its commonsense that we wouldn't have any equations describing distance and time, without a knowledge of physics, and including relativity?

Firstly, as I said, the equation you wrote doesn't say that distance can only exist with time. All it tells you is how time and space between fixed sequence of two events will differ for different observers in a flat space. It does not say that time and space are invariant, it says that the spacetime distance is invariant, which is not at all the same thing. Distance varies between observers, as does time, but the Lorentz coordinate transforms still preserve the spacetime distance ds, calculated from ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2. I am writing this equation in terms of differentials, so the actual spacetime distance is calculated as an integral, but I don't want to overcomplicated the issue (assume non-accelerating observers, so the equation reduces to your version). When ds^2<0, the pair of events is spacelike, and you can find an observer who will see the the events occuring simultaneously, but separated by a distance. If ds^2>0, the pair of events is timelike, and you can find an observer moving such that they see both events occur in the same place but at different times. So in one case you have distance without time, and in the other case you get the reverse. Minkowski's metric does not say in any way whatsoever that space and time cannot exist without each other. I believe your concept of invariance is flawed in this regard, and you misunderstand what is meant by spacetime invariance.

More to my understanding, is that if distance is not real, then myself sitting here, and an australian on the other side of the world, may as well be sitting together, and that doesn't make any sense at all.

Well the question is whether distance could philosophically exist without time. Kind of like asking whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if nothing is around to hear it. In terms of physics, it's a silly question because every observer witnesses the passage of time unless they're travelling at lightspeed. But here's a purely philosophical argument for you. Say you had divine powers and could bring all time in the universe to a complete halt. Let it sit there for a while while you enjoy your lunch. Then after lunch, you go back and turn time back on. Are all the distances between the various objects in the universe suddenly reset to 0? If not, the quantity of distance must have been preserved in some form, perceivable or not, so that it could be restored as soon as time is restored.

Now for a physics argument- consider a beam of light travelling through space, unable to perceive the passage of time. The light beam does not see time pass between events nor does it see any distance separating objects along its direction of motion. However, the beam of light can still be interfered with by external forces, which themselves can depend on distance, affecting what happens to the beam of light, i.e. whether or not it hits a lead plate and gets absorbed. So to argue that distance is meaningless without time doesn't necessarily hold any water.

Ok, first thing, we are going to have to agree to disagree about the equations. The rotations mangle the two together, and ofcourse an observer is needed. This is because special relativity is an observer-dependant theory... but anyway...

...Distance is a quality found in space, that requires an observer to measure the distance between two points, but since it is undeniably a volume of space between two points, without the distance, all else would fail, including the relativistic concept that spacetime and matter and energy are all one thing.

And yeh, i agree with the last part too.

Quantum Heraclitus:



I am not so sure. Non-locality breaks finite speed either which way. But if we really wanted to think of it in one way, infinite speed is better owing to Occam's Razor, considering we retain dimensionality, while zero-point breaks dimensionality and locality. "The simplest theory is better".



Yes. Nothing would disturb time.



Yes.



Agreed.

ok we seem to be making progess! Ha



I disagree here. Any action, even entangled, would imply a difference between A and B, therefore, a difference between At1, At2, Bt1, and Bt2.
ahh but do we need to take action? [ now we are getting to the key of it ]

Action of course implies time therefore energy....of course as soon as you apply time or energy we are in 4 dimensional space.

The key is of course how to switch points with out using energy to do it.
The answer lies in the old cliche [brute force vs skill]





The problem is that one has not discovered zero distance yet. To move at all to anyplace, even in empty space, from one point to another, even entangled, even at infinite speed, is to change. Therefore, there is time. All change is time-based.
same response as above ...change requires time/energy and yes it is impossoble to do as time and energy use places you in 4 dimensional space.

How about: you can't have distance or time, if you don't have matter?
If you have matter that can clump together (for whatever reason), or condense, then you have space between the clumps.

This basic principle is pretty much scale-invariant, from quarks and leptons, to gas and dust clouds, and galaxies.

Until the "cosmic wavefunction" underwent the phase change that saw the quarks and so on actually appear so they could clump together and make some space, there wasn't any space, or any matter, there was just a wavefunction with no dimensions.

Which is the same cosmos we see now, what we can see of it. It's undergone a phase change, so there's all this matter, and inertia, and planets, stars, and us, the observers.

It appears to be "our job", as observers, to figure out why or how the phase change occured. The inflationary theory, driven by dark energy is one of the ideas, the Wheeler-De Witt is another. Maybe they're the same idea...?

P.S. Are you a Jack Sarfatti fan?
P.P.S. Yes, that's a loaded question.

actually a quick google and a read at wiki tells me tha maybe I should study some of Jacks work and ideas...

And I understand I think why you feel the need to load the question...ha

To be honest Zero Point Theory is derived from personal experience whilst recovering from a stroke some years ago...[am still recovering I might add]

Zero-distance would be contact.

More to my understanding, is that if distance is not real, then myself sitting here, and an australian on the other side of the world, may as well be sitting together, and that doesn't make any sense at all.

Makes perfect sense to me...though. Inertia is not something you can treat in isolation. Why do you experience it do you think?

Zero-distance would be contact.
yes and no as we are talking dimensionals and yes at a very low intensity that is not commonly perceived, we are actually touching as it were.
"Absolutely Everything is in a relationship with absolutely everything else"
In fact if this not the case absolute nothingness would be existant.

Prince James may remember an old discussion along these lines ages ago in the philosophy forum.
Zero point Theory is not about absolute nothingness for even refering to the word zero imparts a relative value.

Quantum Heraclitus:

ahh but do we need to take action? [ now we are getting to the key of it ]

Action of course implies time therefore energy....of course as soon as you apply time or energy we are in 4 dimensional space.

The key is of course how to switch points with out using energy to do it.
The answer lies in the old cliche [brute force vs skill]

I'm at a loss for any mechanism whereby one could accomplish this. All change, even "non-energy" (which seems odd to even say) implies automatically time. You're bucking against what amounts to an analytic truth. "

Prince James may remember an old discussion along these lines ages ago in the philosophy forum.
Zero point Theory is not about absolute nothingness for even refering to the word zero imparts a relative value.

I vaguely recall it.

Quantum Heraclitus:



I'm at a loss for any mechanism whereby one could accomplish this. All change, even "non-energy" (which seems odd to even say) implies automatically time. You're bucking against what amounts to an analytic truth. "
well given the general reluctance of science to even accept the SRT position on zero space this is not surprising.

There is a method yet to be tested by us humans and involves "timing" or "synchronisation" and not much else. Ever heard of a tetarac? [ spellings*]
But to get this into the realm of understanding would take another rather long journey.
To do with the nature of mass and what it is and how it functions as a space time distortion thus generating 4 dimensions from zero

yes and no as we are talking dimensionals and yes at a very low intensity that is not commonly perceived, we are actually touching as it were.
"Absolutely Everything is in a relationship with absolutely everything else"
In fact if this not the case absolute nothingness would be existant.

Prince James may remember an old discussion along these lines ages ago in the philosophy forum.
Zero point Theory is not about absolute nothingness for even refering to the word zero imparts a relative value.

For that to even be remotely possible, we would need to be talking about conditions like infinite density, where everything, all of matter, is stacked up.

For example:
with the use of "timing " or "synchronisation" solar cell efficiency would soar to about 180% prior to melt down. [ which is better than the currrent effciency of about 38% [if I recall]
How can it be 180%?
because we are using only half the potential in the first place to measure with.
so the actual or real efficiency we have currently is about 19%

For that to even be remotely possible, we would need to be talking about conditions like infinite density, where everything, all of matter, is stacked up.

which is why we have gravity because the mass is not stacked up. Gravity being a form of inertial drag as the 4 dimensions strive to become zero again.
edit: sorry but that was a hell of a mouthful to post
reference needed to self governing singularities such as that which a galaxy spirals around.

But when the values reach zero, for instance

(E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=0
and reducing it, we know c is certainly not zero, so
E=Mc^{2}_{+E}
Mc^{2}=0

Are calculations we use in two instances i know of. The first, is when we are mathematically adding all of the energy in the universe, with the negative energy within the vacuum. The second instance is when there is an infinite negative area in spacetime, but since big crunch hasn't happened, or big rip, there must be actual values right now. So for instance, distance needs to mean, a duration between one thing, and another thing. If there is no duration, then there is zero-distance.

But when the values reach zero, for instance

(E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=0
and reducing it, we know c is certainly not zero, so
E=Mc^{2}_{+E}
Mc^{2}=0

Are calculations we use in two instances i know of. The first, is when we are mathematically adding all of the energy in the universe, with the negative energy within the vacuum. The second instance is when there is an infinite negative area in spacetime, but since big crunch hasn't happened, or big rip, there must be actual values right now. So for instance, distance needs to mean, a duration between one thing, and another thing. If there is no duration, then there is zero-distance.
e=mc^2 is actually not correct as an energy mass equation if interepreted using the photon model. IMO

If zero dimensions exist photons are no longer required to "bridge" our lack of understanding of gravity and inertia and are rendered obsolete.
even at atomic levels we still have zero space between particles that can be accomodated using a form of resonance over zero distance. The separation and not the distance being the governing factor as to the speed an object changes to "reflect" or emmulate the change that the energy imparted requires.
so acceptance of zero dimensional space would require a re-write of current space time understandings... a big ask hey?

The notion of non-simultaneity is no longer valid.
And when you look up at the sky you are seeing what is there to be seen and not an illusion created by our photon light model.

I know this is really hard to comprehend but if you took an zero duration photograph of the universe at any given moment between our future and past light cones you would actually be taking a photograph of nothing.
The universe is effectively temporal only not only to the observer but also to the mass itself.

"temporal mass" is not easy to understand but it is the nature of how time distorts zero space yet maintains a state of zero at the center between past and future.

The human anaolgue is unconsciousness.

Quantum Heraclitus:

There is a method yet to be tested by us humans and involves "timing" or "synchronisation" and not much else. Ever heard of a tetarac? [ spellings*]
But to get this into the realm of understanding would take another rather long journey.
To do with the nature of mass and what it is and how it functions as a space time distortion thus generating 4 dimensions from zero

I've never heard of Tetarac, no.

I know this is really hard to comprehend but if you took an zero duration photograph of the universe at any given moment between our future and past light cones you would actually be taking a photograph of nothing.
The universe is effectively temporal only not only to the observer but also to the mass itself.

I think you're leaving something out that it is notable. That is to say, your theory seems somehow incomplete, thus the reason why I (and seemingly others) do not even see why you suggest that time is needed to have distance.

Reiku,
So for instance, distance needs to mean, a duration between one thing, and another thing. If there is no duration, then there is zero-distance.
It is according to which mechanism you use to measure 'time', and from which frame of reference you measure it in. You are using a velocity between points (things) that is dependent on your local atomic clock rate. If your clock slows relative to a clock in a different reference frame, you can travel a greater 'distance' between two ticks of your local clock, so you assume the distance has contracted from what is was before you began your trip. If your atomic clock stops, you are unable to measure distance, but that doesn't mean there is there is zero distance travelled. For instance, an atomic clock will stop ticking at the event horizon of a black hole. That doesn't mean no motion is possible though, as evidenced by astronomers and cosmologists measurements of some black holes rotating at near the speed of light. Assume a supermassive black hole that is large enough that tidal forces do not destroy an atomic clock that is sent to the event horizon. As the clock nears the event horizon, it will tick slower and slower relative to the local clock of an observer at infinity, but the observer at infinity will 'see' the clock orbiting faster and faster around the accreation disk as it approaches the event horizon. At the event horizon, the clock will stop but that does not mean the clock will suddenly stop moving, only that there will be an infinite amount of 'time' between ticks in that clock's reference frame. The clock can no longer use duration between ticks to measure distance in its own reference frame, but the motion of the clock has not 'frozen'.

For instance, an atomic clock will stop ticking at the event horizon of a black hole. That's true for an external observer outside the event horizon, but not for the clock.

That's true for an external observer outside the event horizon, but not for the clock.
The universe can come to an end, and the black hole can evaporate by Hawking radiation, along with the clock, before it ever makes the second 'tick' once the clock is at or inside the event horizon.

e=mc^2 is actually not correct as an energy mass equation if interepreted using the photon model. IMO

If zero dimensions exist photons are no longer required to "bridge" our lack of understanding of gravity and inertia and are rendered obsolete.
even at atomic levels we still have zero space between particles that can be accomodated using a form of resonance over zero distance. The separation and not the distance being the governing factor as to the speed an object changes to "reflect" or emmulate the change that the energy imparted requires.
so acceptance of zero dimensional space would require a re-write of current space time understandings... a big ask hey?

The notion of non-simultaneity is no longer valid.
And when you look up at the sky you are seeing what is there to be seen and not an illusion created by our photon light model.

A lot of people make this mistake concerning the photon.

The terminology right now floating about is that the photon moves through zero-dimensions. It isn't technically true at all. The photon doesn't actually go anywhere from its frame of reference. Its birth and death are simultaneous, so it doesn't move at all, and certainly not through zero-dimensions.

You are right about the equation, but normally, i wouldn't have explained it, because a trained eye on the subject would normally not concern with such things. It is just interesting to note that E would resemble the unit of energy, of whatever kind, from a gluon to a photon, and that M is for mass, and the two are interchangable. Of course, it is, afterall, a shortcut of (A) ->

Virtual particles do not behave in the same way a real particle behaves under quantum rules. The equation that relates energy, mass and momentum in special relativity is:

(A)E^{2} = p^{2}c^{2} + M^{2}c^{4},

But then, these mathematical qualities tend to change about, concerning other properties, like virtual particles, which do not totally abide by this giving a reduced equation of:

E^{2} = M^{2}c^{4}

This would mean that their kinetic energy does not have a usual relationship with their velocities and can indicate negative properties. One important application of this is the Casimir Effect. In this, it is required that all the potential particles in the vacuum be added together. This will create a small amount of negative energy that is called zero-point energy.

Reiku,

It is according to which mechanism you use to measure 'time', and from which frame of reference you measure it in. You are using a velocity between points (things) that is dependent on your local atomic clock rate. If your clock slows relative to a clock in a different reference frame, you can travel a greater 'distance' between two ticks of your local clock, so you assume the distance has contracted from what is was before you began your trip. If your atomic clock stops, you are unable to measure distance, but that doesn't mean there is there is zero distance travelled. For instance, an atomic clock will stop ticking at the event horizon of a black hole. That doesn't mean no motion is possible though, as evidenced by astronomers and cosmologists measurements of some black holes rotating at near the speed of light. Assume a supermassive black hole that is large enough that tidal forces do not destroy an atomic clock that is sent to the event horizon. As the clock nears the event horizon, it will tick slower and slower relative to the local clock of an observer at infinity, but the observer at infinity will 'see' the clock orbiting faster and faster around the accreation disk as it approaches the event horizon. At the event horizon, the clock will stop but that does not mean the clock will suddenly stop moving, only that there will be an infinite amount of 'time' between ticks in that clock's reference frame. The clock can no longer use duration between ticks to measure distance in its own reference frame, but the motion of the clock has not 'frozen'.

If you could reach the value of c, your clock would stop completely -- you would no longer move a distance in time, so then you cannot move through space. You cant move through one and not the other, according to relativity.

There is no absolute clock in the sky for one race of observers. But saying that, the events two observers experience, whilst they may not be identical, such as the duration of time passing in their frames, relativity has no place ti be biased about what events they experience in reference to each other.

As an example, a photon observers birth is simultaneously its death. According to it, it existed for only a single chronon, a billion part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second. But a human observer, certainly measures it moving from A to B surely? Yes, but only from our frame of reference. Relativity cannot be biased, so whenever the photon is measured, to the photon, it never happens, because it simply doesn't have an age, other than a single chronon (the amount of time it took the photon to bubble out of the vacuum).

The photon never goes through a change, and yet it can be observed to collapse upon a measurement, pass through molecules, and even move from the sun, 15 million km away, and yet it never actually goes anywhere, does anything, or experience a world.

The human observer, is a walking, talking Tardyon (a system moving at v<c). Because of this, the world allows us to see this distorted world, as if there is some kind of time flowing past us, but the truth of the physics is, is that there is no flow of time at all. This is strictly created by the human psyche. Instead, we find in physics, that time is discontinuous in fleeting flashes of existence.

So these discontinuous frames, all exist in the present, and relativity predicts they are all frozen in time, like a fly stuck in amber. I refer you to Brian Greenes book, 'The Frozen Lake.'

Reiku,
If you could reach the value of c, your clock would stop completely -- you would no longer move a distance in time, so then you cannot move through space.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "reach the value of c", but since I was speaking of the event horizon of a black hole, I will assume you are somehow referring to gravitational time dilation. A clock can never travel at the speed of 'c', so that is immaterial. A clock at the event horizon of a black hole can travel the circumference of the event horizon, a distance.
You cant move through one and not the other, according to relativity.
Relativity Theory breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole. Time-like geodesics become space-like. Can you explain what prevents the clock from travelling along a space-like geodesic?
There is no absolute clock in the sky for one race of observers.
In General Relativity Theory, an observer (or clock) at infinity refers to a clock, or frame of reference, that is unaffected by gravitational time dilation (flat space-time). Special Theory makes use of local clocks, so there is not a 'single' clock that universally applies to all circumstances.
As an example, a photon observers birth is simultaneously its death. According to it, it existed for only a single chronon, a billion part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second.
A 'photon observer' implies an observer that is not in the 'rest frame' of a photon. I placed rest frame in quotation because, in relativity theory, the use of a photon's rest frame is not permitted. If you are speaking of a photon's rest frame, you have deviated from relativity theory and into pseudoscience.

Reiku,

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "reach the value of c", but since I was speaking of the event horizon of a black hole, I will assume you are somehow referring to gravitational time dilation. A clock can never travel at the speed of 'c', so that is immaterial. A clock at the event horizon of a black hole can travel the circumference of the event horizon, a distance.

Relativity Theory breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole. Time-like geodesics become space-like. Can you explain what prevents the clock from travelling along a space-like geodesic?

In General Relativity Theory, an observer (or clock) at infinity refers to a clock, or frame of reference, that is unaffected by gravitational time dilation (flat space-time). Special Theory makes use of local clocks, so there is not a 'single' clock that universally applies to all circumstances.

A 'photon observer' implies an observer that is not in the 'rest frame' of a photon. I placed rest frame in quotation because, in relativity theory, the use of a photon's rest frame is not permitted. If you are speaking of a photon's rest frame, you have deviated from relativity theory and into pseudoscience.

By value of ''c'', i was inquiring to light speed here. Even though, gravitational time warps are somewhat different to moving at luminal speeds, the effect of time dilation is still evident.

I would never have used rest frame, or any term ''rest'' to a photon... in this case, when i say from its frame of reference, i am referring to simply, the frame of reference, or its locality, which it doesn't really have one, if not, for a very brief moment in time, as explained.

About this tho...

''Relativity Theory breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole. Time-like geodesics become space-like. Can you explain what prevents the clock from travelling along a space-like geodesic?''

It breaks down, because the boundary is singularitarian-like. When we speak of timelike becoming spacelike, it doean't end there. Spacelike becomes timelike as well. So spacetime are reserved properly.

It just means that you begin to move through space without recourse, like you had in the time dimension, and you can now move about in the time dimension, like you had in space, back and forth.

Its caused by intense gravitational influences, and it somehow unravels them, and reconfigurates the vacuum from spacetime, to timespace.

Reiku:

It breaks down, because the boundary is singularitarian-like. When we speak of timelike becoming spacelike, it doean't end there. Spacelike becomes timelike as well. So spacetime are reserved properly.

It just means that you begin to move through space without recourse, like you had in the time dimension, and you can now move about in the time dimension, like you had in space, back and forth.

Its caused by intense gravitational influences, and it somehow unravels them, and reconfigurates the vacuum from spacetime, to timespace.

What? What theory makes this claim?

Time travel is certainly not accepted from gravitational effects, as you are suggesting.

If you where able to pass the boundary of a black hole unscathed, if time becomes spacelike, then space becomes timelike. Read:

''Parallel Universes, 1985'' Dr F. A. Wolf.

Its not that the gravity effects you, its that gravity as effected your surroundings as move faster and faster to the speed of light, falling dreadingly towards the center singularity.

Trust me, i'm right.

The universe can come to an end, and the black hole can evaporate by Hawking radiation, along with the clock, before it ever makes the second 'tick' once the clock is at or inside the event horizon.Nope, as far as the clock is concerned, there is no "event" horizon, it just accelerates toward the center of the BH, presumably past c and into the singularity or whatever.

The clock stops for an external observer, because once the clock is inside the horizon, no light can reach any external observer, who then sees only the last fading image of the clock, frozen at the moment it reaches (reached) the event horizon. But it keeps going, ticking merrily away in its own Lorentz frame, as it accelerates toward the center of mass.

If you move closer and closer to the black hole, and pass its boundary, and look back at the universe, you might be lucky enough to see the universe end in a big crunch and a wimper.

Somewhere there's a good online time sequence of falling into a BH. As you pass the horizon, the curvature of the BH changes from convex to concave, then the universe gets progressively more curved, turns into a disk, then a little dot.

Reiku:

Its not that the gravity effects you, its that gravity as effected your surroundings as move faster and faster to the speed of light, falling dreadingly towards the center singularity.

This seems to be contradicted by the notion that gravity and speed slow down the actual atomic movement of the cesium clocks.

You'll need to elaborate on what you mean by any contradictory processes here.

I think you're leaving something out that it is notable. That is to say, your theory seems somehow incomplete, thus the reason why I (and seemingly others) do not even see why you suggest that time is needed to have distance.
well SRT states this if I am not mistaken...
I just wanted to learn if the board could supply proof that distance requires time. And so far I have found that if anyting SRT has said it does.

However again if one looks only at the moment between past and future we can say that distance does not exist because time is not present. Using SRT as a support for such proof.
take the time out of space and all you have left is space....and what is space?

Thus the thread has achieved it's purpose I guess.
Even though I disagree with SRT It has proved very useful...