Does Distance exist without time?

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

[I am sure someone will say that light travels 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.
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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

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...

 

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?

 

Supposition.

Thought about.
It's bunk.

As far as movement goes.

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

thread can be found at:
3 ships and a really long piece of string - SRT

 

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''.