Does Distance exist without time?

This might answer your question QQ.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So r=0 in both both cases?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Elucidate.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is at the center between the light cones future and past that I wish to take my photo snapshot of distance.

 

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.

 

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 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.