# Intriguing question about Time, Physics and SRT in general

hmmm... [chuckle]... yes well... uhm...

Before suggesting another thread to get in to it in more detail I wanted to suggest the following.
One of the biggest problems of considering and ultimately venturing alternative ideas (theories) is the need the alternativ-ist feel to accommodate some aspects of currently held scientific belief.
In doing this the alternativ-ist finds he may compromise his original conception [ideas] by accepting certain premises and discarding others. In doing so render his theorizing vulnerable to serious credibility issues and confusion.

To state for example that time is invariant [ which I happen to agree with ] opens the door to a huge labyrinth of counter argument.

For example: I may state, that time dilation is in fact caused by the invariance of time and that as force is applied to accelerate an object the inertial drag caused by that invariance forces the object to conform to that invariance and time is dilated to accommodate the invariance...thus indicating we have two dimensions to time, one fundamental and another relatively superficial.

The fundamental time value for energy : 'c' being the fastest and slowest that anything can go is held as an absolute invariant time-energy statement.

ie
An object of mass is already innately at 'c' is accelerated to c+ 0.5'c'.

Superficially the object is only at 0.5'c' but whose local time is dilated to return it to the base rate of the underpinning 'c'
so essentially the dilation is caused by the invariance of 'c' and the dilation experienced itself is a fundamental way the object can maintain that invariance of 'c'

Of course stating the above would cause a huge uproar from the more conventional theorist, and rightly so I might add. [As SRT and no doubt some of GR would be in total need of a revamp to accommodate it]
Lol, you don't know me very well. I can ignore off topic comments, and I don't like it when the other party to a discussion responds to them.

Lol, you don't know me very well. I can ignore off topic comments, and I don't like it when the other party to a discussion responds to them.
There is a co-relation with the topic but it is something that would only serve to confuse rather than enlighten.
The point of this thread was to clearly identify that the point of separation between past and future is delta t=0

Once that is established the ramifications and logical extensions can become apparent.

It has taken over 30 pages to get to what seems to be blatantly obvious yet it is also blantantly obvious that it is not so obvious... [ chuckle]

To suggest that at exactly any given t=0 (eg. mark 10 am) no-thing exists is a scarey proposition I guess...
But I believe it is a fundamental starting point and the opposition to it, has to be clarified before moving on...

To suggest that at exactly any given t=0 (eg. mark 10 am) no-thing exists is a scarey proposition I guess...
But I believe it is a fundamental starting point and the opposition to it, has to be clarified before moving on...

So let me get this straight...

You think that at exactly 10 AM no-thing exists? How about 10:03 AM? 11:28 AM? 3:13 PM? 11:57 PM?

Am I correct to assume that since you claim that no-thing exists at exactly 10 AM that the other points in time I listed "no-thing" exists as well?

Is there a point in time, according to you, that some-thing does exist?

Would you go as far to say that volume exists at 10 AM? If not, how do you make that go away?

Spill the beans!! How is it possible for volume to not exist?

There is a co-relation with the topic but it is something that would only serve to confuse rather than enlighten.
The point of this thread was to clearly identify that the point of separation between past and future is delta t=0

Once that is established the ramifications and logical extensions can become apparent.

It has taken over 30 pages to get to what seems to be blatantly obvious yet it is also blantantly obvious that it is not so obvious... [ chuckle]

To suggest that at exactly any given t=0 (eg. mark 10 am) no-thing exists is a scarey proposition I guess...
But I believe it is a fundamental starting point and the opposition to it, has to be clarified before moving on...
That is fine, but there is a difference between the reality of "now", and our ability of perceive it in its absolute zero duration.

That is fine, but there is a difference between the reality of "now", and our ability of perceive it in its absolute zero duration.
Of course it is impossible for us to perceive a zero duration moment. Not only because it is extremely fast [ instantaneous] but also because it doesn't exist as it is zero duration.
I know some of the readers feel I am having a lend of them and am only joking. That this thread is about nothing...

yet the fact remains it is this zero duration event horizon between past and future that is the source of all we experience and sure it proves philosophically and in physcs that our experience is purely temporal, a memory.

So let me get this straight...

You think that at exactly 10 AM no-thing exists? How about 10:03 AM? 11:28 AM? 3:13 PM? 11:57 PM?

Am I correct to assume that since you claim that no-thing exists at exactly 10 AM that the other points in time I listed "no-thing" exists as well?

Is there a point in time, according to you, that some-thing does exist?

Would you go as far to say that volume exists at 10 AM? If not, how do you make that go away?

Spill the beans!! How is it possible for volume to not exist?
At exactly mark 10 am the universe is entirely zero dimensional. zero volume.

But because the universe is in a continuum of time it exists but only because it is changing and moving... [ delta t=>0 ]

Essentially it means that the universe can be shown to be BOTH zero dimensional and 4 dimensional simultaneously.

where the blue line indicates zero duration between past and future...
where the red line indicates an eternal time line.

For the sci fi buffs this means that the universe can have a hyper space or zero space property. [which I find a rather exciting proposition to be honest]

Of course it is impossible for us to perceive a zero duration moment. Not only because it is extremely fast [ instantaneous] but also because it doesn't exist as it is zero duration.
I know some of the readers feel I am having a lend of them and am only joking. That this thread is about nothing...

yet the fact remains it is this zero duration event horizon between past and future that is the source of all we experience and sure it proves philosophically and in physcs that our experience is purely temporal, a memory.
Exactly, our brain and our memory capture the passing of time after the fact. Everything we deal with in our head is time delayed.

At exactly mark 10 am the universe is entirely zero dimensional. zero volume.

But because the universe is in a continuum of time it exists but only because it is changing and moving... [ delta t=>0 ]

No-thing "moves" at exactly 10 AM. "Move" means to change location, and it takes a duration of time to change locations. You can't change locations (move) at exactly 10 AM, because at exactly 10 AM no time elapses.

No time elapsing means no motion. No change. No, nada, none.

Your animated deal is in motion over a duration of time. You are not illustrating 10 AM you are illustrating 10AM-11AM.

Explain to me how a zero volume can exist?

Exactly, our brain and our memory capture the passing of time after the fact. Everything we deal with in our head is time delayed.
and our brain only exists because it is "massive" and a part of the continuum of time delta t=>0

No-thing "moves" at exactly 10 AM. "Moves" means to change location, and that takes a duration of time to change locations. You can't change locations (move) at exactly 10 AM, because at exactly 10 AM no time elapses.

NO time elapsing means no motion. No change. No nada none.

Your animates deal is in motion over a duration of time. You are not illustrating 10 AM you are illustrating 10AM-11AM.

Explain to me how a zero volume can exists?
There is no movement because there is nothing to move...

There is no volume because we are describing something that BOTH non-exists due to delta t=0 and exists due to delta t=>o simultaneously

we can do a question and answer tour if you like...
You tell me...
What can exist if there is no time for it to exist in?

and our brain only exists because it is "massive" and a part of the continuum of time delta t=>0
I've missed a lot. I'll have to read and contemplate, lol.

What can exist if there is no time for it to exist in?

Time is a measure of duration. Things exist and time elapses simultaneously. Yes, it's true! Things can exist at 10 AM, 11 AM, 11:01 AM, 11:37 AM, 12:13 PM...

As a matter of fact things exist at every point in time!

Last edited:
Of course it is impossible for us to perceive a zero duration moment. Not only because it is extremely fast [ instantaneous] but also because it doesn't exist as it is zero duration.
I know some of the readers feel I am having a lend of them and am only joking. That this thread is about nothing...

yet the fact remains it is this zero duration event horizon between past and future that is the source of all we experience and sure it proves philosophically and in physcs that our experience is purely temporal, a memory.

This is the problem, stating something simultaneously exists and doesn't exist, a contradiction in terms.
You said it yourself.

This is the problem, stating something simultaneously exists and doesn't exist, a contradiction in terms.
You said it yourself.
The real problem is that the paradox I am describing is based on observation and not theoretics.
If it were just me hypothesizing then I could walk away from it easily. However it appears that this paradox is a fact of nature as described in many fields of physics including those that make use of light cones, time lines etc.
I guess it is one of those intriguing things about the nature of the universal constancy of the value attributed to zero.

The fact of reality is that the separation between past and future is of zero duration.
Fortunately it is not my responsibility that this is indeed a fact regarding the nature of time.

Once accepted and tolerated this fact leads to some rather amazing theoretical outcomes. IMO

The real problem is that the paradox I am describing is based on observation and not theoretics.

You can't even understand the most basic observations (eg, measuring something with a ruler). So you can't be using any observations in your theorizing.

You can't even understand the most basic observations (eg, measuring something with a ruler). So you can't be using any observations in your theorizing.
Is it a fantasy that, in your opinion, the separation between past and future is always zero in duration?
Is that fantasy?

Is it a fantasy that, in your opinion, the separation between past and future is always zero in duration?
Is that fantasy?

Can you be a little more specific as to what you mean by past and future?

The real problem is that the paradox I am describing is based on observation and not theoretics.

There is no observation of a nonexistent (0 duration) event, thus no paradox.

If it were just me hypothesizing then I could walk away from it easily. However it appears that this paradox is a fact of nature as described in many fields of physics including those that make use of light cones, time lines etc.

The things mentioned are idealized, oversimplistic abstractions that assist the mind in comprehending its environment, and only exist in the mind.

I guess it is one of those intriguing things about the nature of the universal constancy of the value attributed to zero.
Zero has no value, it is a container. When it is empty, there are no elements to consider for any purpose.

The fact of reality is that the separation between past and future is of zero duration.
Fortunately it is not my responsibility that this is indeed a fact regarding the nature of time.

Once accepted and tolerated this fact leads to some rather amazing theoretical outcomes. IMO

There is no fact (thing established by observation) as mentioned earlier. .

The biggest hypocrisy of Quantum Quack's that hasn't even been mentioned yet is that even if the "present" lasts for a finite or eternal duration, you could still mathematically divide it up into infinitesimal points and deduce the same "paradox". It's a non-starter.

Ultimately it seems that the whole problem is Quantum Quack can't imagine a sequence of coordinate systems in which the origin of the time axis is kept fixed, that's what it comes down to. He thinks that when he gets up tomorrow to talk about the "present", it'll be the exact same "present" he's experiencing today. Would be pretty hard to get around with an attitude like that, I imagine.

The biggest hypocrisy of Quantum Quack's that hasn't even been mentioned yet is that even if the "present" lasts for a finite or eternal duration, you could still mathematically divide it up into infinitesimal points and deduce the same "paradox". It's a non-starter.

Ultimately it seems that the whole problem is Quantum Quack can't imagine a sequence of coordinate systems in which the origin of the time axis is kept fixed, that's what it comes down to. He thinks that when he gets up tomorrow to talk about the "present", it'll be the exact same "present" he's experiencing today. Would be pretty hard to get around with an attitude like that, I imagine.

you guys are funny!
(0-0+0/0^0*0+0-0/0)=0.000...