If t=0 the d=0 dilemma?

We know using the Minkowski /Einstein Space time paradigm that if time exists then so too does distance.
This can be simply seen by using the speed of light over a given time duration >0.
From this we can conclude axiomatically that if t= >0 then also d= >0

However this poses a significant problem or dilemma IMO as, if time duration does not exist [ t[sub]d[/sub]=0 ] then neither does distance, which has enormous ramifications regarding the way we view the universe at any given moment [time= zero duration]. It also means that at t[sub]d[/sub]=0 light or em is nonexistent. Therefore at t[sub]d[/sub]= 0 the E in E=mc^2 is zero.
any ideas as to how to resolve this dilemma of mine would be most welcome!

*** where t[sub]d[/sub] = time duration

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Learning science rather than just pulling stuff out your backside.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you are willing to impart a bit of learning, I am all ears!!
dealing with the basics is a good start yes? so if t[sub]d[/sub] = 0 then surely distance must also = 0... yes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

good answer and must be right ...please elaborate?
afterall just about all scientists would agree with you yet none can explain why.

 

Possibly the mod would care to delete this thread as I believe it has served it's purpose.

 

No need.

 

Moving to the "Cesspool" or "Pseudoscience" is more appropriate.

 

anything...

anything...

 

seriously....too trivial is it?

 

Are you taking into consideration rest energy, QQ?

"...In physics, the Planck time, (tP), is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length. The unit is named after Max Planck, who was the first to propose it..."
(See: Planck time)

"...In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units..."
(See: Planck length)

The conception of your original statement must be found invalid, so t=>0 and d=>0 becomes the base unit dynamic, removing your dilemma (Actually, it redirects your dilemma, to be restated as, "I do not understand the concepts of what I state")

 

What? This really doesn't make sense...

This problem is entirely in your mind, as well as being an utterly, utterly basic logic fallacy: Your first statement is "if A then B". You then conclude "if not A then not B". That doesn't follow.

 

But we both know you aren't. We've been over this before. An instant in time means nothing moves but that doesn't mean distances don't exist. A distance is not simply that length traversed by something like a photon or a rock. I distinctly remember even going through the definition in terms of a metric integral with you.

Since then you've obviously done no reading, made no attempt to find out more or learn. You complained in another thread I should play the question, not the person but the problem is you, the person, don't understand and don't want to understand and the question you then ask is utterly flawed. Until the person wants to learn there's no point answering the question and you've proven time and again you don't want to learn.

 

Please give us an example of a physical event which occurs and is then observed all in the same instant. Every measurement I've ever heard of requires some duration in time before you can see the results, hence there is no dilemma to speak of, and that's why you don't see these kinds of discussions in post-grade school science.

 

ahh but according to Keith1:

indeed there is no instant of time as light must move a single Planck length.
So time duration can never = 0

so using t=0 to define any given moment is falacious is it not? As the smallest time duration can be is a Planck length.
Science is saying that time duration can never be zero.

just wanting to be clear that any given t= 0 is deemed ludicrous by science. According to Keith1's reference to Planck [at least]

One can then conclude that the hyper surface of the present as modelled by SRT is indeed a Planck length in time duration. because for sure SRT would be impossible if t=0 duration as distance would also be zero.
Using a plank length may complicate things but doesn't change the basic dillemma any ways...

 

well tell us all how far can one travel in zero time duration?
How is that a logical falacy?

well maybe you could expand on it again so as the respondants to and readers of this thread may find some benefit from it.
How is distance achieved if t[sub]d[/sub]=0?

 

You didn't get my point. Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed - it doesn't matter whether you're talking about time and distance, or something else entirely.

"If it rains then I get wet" does not imply that "if it does not rain, then I don't get wet".

Thus, even if we were to accept that time implies distance (which we don't), then you still couldn't argue that no time implies no distance.

Distance and movement are different concepts. There's no reason to invoke relativity or anything else if you cannot grasp this.

 

This is not what is meant by the OP.
When we take an arbitary moment on any time line we can claim that to be t=0 but in doing so in Minkowski/Einstein space time this means that any distance at t= 0 must be also zero.


or so it appears.
and it is this basic logic that I am trying to sort out.