Intriguing question about Time, Physics and SRT in general

you guys are funny!
(0-0+0/0^0*0+0-0/0)=0.000...
QQ, I think that there is a bit of disdain apparent when people come to your thread and talk about you instead of to you, lol. However, I do have some questions about the extension of your zero duration on the time continuum, to zero matter. What is with that?

QQ, I think that there is a bit of disdain apparent when people come to your thread and talk about you instead of to you, lol. However, I do have some questions about the extension of your zero duration on the time continuum, to zero matter. What is with that?
Yes... well... any time you ask someone who is trained to think only in "rigid" terms to explore those rigid terms you hit a wall of conditioning and dogma... but you already know that yes?

The logic is simple enough I guess..
Just because the center of time [ the moment between past and future ] is a value of zero duration doesn't mean that matter is non-existent. The sheer fact that there IS a future and a past indicates time in continuum. So one can conclude, as a fact of reality, that matter exists only because of time is in continuum. Therefore, No time duration = no matter. ...Simple!

if delta t=0 then M = 0
if delta t= >0 the M = >0

where M= mass or matter
It is not hard to understand the above...

If one assumes a state of zero dimensional space [volume] prior to the universes creation [BB] and that conditions were of delta t=0 one can easily see that mass and matter was nihilo. [non-existent]

So the universe somehow exists and it has a past and a future because delta t=>0 and surely it is also logical to state that if delta t suddenly became a permanent zero the universe would cease to exist and return to nihilo.

In the big picture the universe exists only because it has time [energy] to do so..

with me so far?

with me so far?

No, you lost me, way way back when...oh forget it!

Could you please just describe what you mean when you say past and future?

No, you lost me, way way back when...oh forget it!

Could you please just describe what you mean when you say past and future?
Motor Daddy, do you feel that if you can not follow the simple logic in the my previous post above, attempting to answer your questions about past and future would achieve something?

Motor Daddy, do you feel that if you can not follow the simple logic in the my previous post above, attempting to answer your questions about past and future would achieve something?

Yes, communication.

...possibly even a little understanding too!

It would almost be like you would be teaching me your idea.

...and yet you don't care to do that. Why not?

No, you lost me, way way back when...oh forget it!

Could you please just describe what you mean when you say past and future?

Watch the second hand on your watch. Freeze time and the second before your froze time is the past and the one that has yet to come is the future.

QQ just realized that time does not separate what will happen, from what has happened.... And he seems to be stuck with that as if it represents some cosmic moment of enlightenment.

BTW Think about the word combination, zero duration.... The two words together are a contradiction of terms.

Watch the second hand on your watch. Freeze time and the second before your froze time is the past and the one that has yet to come is the future.

QQ just realized that time does not separate what will happen, from what has happened.... And he seems to be stuck with that as if it represents some cosmic moment of enlightenment.

BTW Think about the word combination, zero duration.... The two words together are a contradiction of terms.

hee hee.. you are funny...
so when you say t=0 you are really saying t=>0 [chuckle]
now there's a contradiction in terms you need to take up with the university departments etc..

heee...OnlyMe reckons t=0 is a contradiction!
Watch the second hand on your watch. Freeze time and the second before your froze time is the past and the one that has yet to come is the future.
you don't have to freeze time to do it...

hee hee.. you are funny...
so when you say t=0 you are really saying t=>0 [chuckle]
now there's a contradiction in terms you need to take up with the university departments etc..

heee...OnlyMe reckons t=0 is a contradiction!

you don't have to freeze time to do it...

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me you are the only one saying t=0, and imagining that is represents some duration of time which equals zero.

Time does not have any segment or division that is equal to zero. Just as there can be no duration equal to zero,... Go ahead look up the definition of duration, as it applies to time.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me you are the only one saying t=0, and imagining that is represents some duration of time which equals zero.

Time does not have any segment or division that is equal to zero. Just as there can be no duration equal to zero,... Go ahead look up the definition of duration, as it applies to time.
apply the same rational to the following and see what rabbit hole you end up down...
x+(-)x = 0

apply the same rational to the following and see what rabbit hole you end up down...
x+(-)x = 0
Is the implication of x+(-)x = 0, that the sum of the energy in the universe is zero?

Is the implication of x+(-)x = 0, that the sum of the energy in the universe is zero?
I guess it could be...
In this case though, it is supposed to represent the folly of OnlyMe's argument which essentially states that because time does not have a duration of zero (for it to be considered as time) delta t = 0 is an invalid equivalence. OnlyMe is only saying that delta t can never equal zero.

Using the same fallacious reasoning and applying it to x+(-)x = 0 makes most of mathematics invalid...
However why I used this particular example was because Only Me has highlighted a paradoxical nature embedded with in mathematics.
x+(-)x = 0 is a statement of such paradox.

for zero can only equal zero...
and
x+(-)x CAN NEVER equal zero

The argument could go like this:
Zero value can not logically be comprised of values [ even if those values neutralize themselves ]
so x+(-)x=0 is a paradoxical statement.
The only way this paradox can be logical reconciled I believe, is to consider zero to be a relative non-value. In that it acquires it's non-value relative to value, yet to claim zero to be relative using OnlyMe's reasoning would grant zero a value due to it's relativity therefore it is no longer truly zero.
Apologies if the above is confusing... but I tend to feel mathematic's use of zero is fraught with problems and clarifying those issue is similarly fraught with problems.

Think of zero as an algebraic value.

(9*10+10)-(100+(13*1)-13) = x

therefore
100-100 =/= x
because x = (9*10+10)-(100+(13*1)-13)
and not (100-100)

the hidden (9*10+10)-(100+(13*1)-13) is a value already generated for x

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me you are the only one saying t=0, and imagining that is represents some duration of time which equals zero.
Does the fact that I am the only ONE, make one iota of difference to the validity or not of what I am proposing?

That at any given instant of time called such as "mark 10 am" all dimensions are zero?

The math is conclusive "Mark 10 am" refers to a zero point, a point of zero duration. Therefore logically all dimensions are similarly zero in value at exactly "mark 10 am"

The implications of such a thing, are another issue.

OK, suppose I have no objection to a given instant of time with zero duration, and want to explore the concept of no dimensions at that instant in time. Now forget your zero dimension conclusion for an instant, and consider an alternative to zero dimension. The alternative includes the idea that everything could be frozen at that instant across the universe.

We would have everything frozen relative to an instant of zero time duration at a given point in space. Objects would still exist, and distance would still exist, but we could imagine that there would be relativity between all points in space based on the speed of light. In this alternative, do you think we could define the frozen universe as a single local frame?

OK, suppose I have no objection to a given instant of time with zero duration, and want to explore the concept of no dimensions at that instant in time. Now forget your zero dimension conclusion for an instant, and consider an alternative to zero dimension. The alternative includes the idea that everything could be frozen at that instant across the universe.

We would have everything frozen relative to an instant of zero time duration at a given point in space. Objects would still exist, and distance would still exist, but we could imagine that there would be relativity between all points in space based on the speed of light. In this alternative, do you think we could define the frozen universe as a single local frame?
The notion of "freezing" to an instant of zero duration is contradictory.

If you say lets freeze the universe at a given point, I would simply ask you "For how long?"

If you freeze something for zero duration what do you have? [self contradictory question yes?]

The notion of "freezing" to an instant of zero duration is contradictory.

If you say lets freeze the universe at a given point, I would simply ask you "For how long?"

If you freeze something for zero duration what do you have? [self contradictory question yes?]
No. The duration could be forever or for an instant. If it is for a zero duration instant, time wouldn't stop. There is a continuum of time, and each instant of zero duration occur as time passes. Time doesn't pass when the freeze frame is invoked.

No. The duration could be forever or for an instant. If it is for a zero duration instant, time wouldn't stop. There is a continuum of time, and each instant of zero duration occur as time passes. Time doesn't pass when the freeze frame is invoked.
In a continuum of time it makes sense to consider it in the above terms.

Contra:

However at exactly "mark 10 am" we are referring to a zero point that is non-existent as it has zero duration therefore freezing at this point is also non-existent. [purely imaginary]
Remember these two diagrams about a point with in the wave length of a photon?

Firstly note that a wave length of red light takes time to register as red.

That is to say the given micon [ distance] is given over time. 'c'

Secondly, place your mark 10 am point any where on the wave form.

Now reconsider the notion of freezing a photon [universe] before the wave form has been established as red.
What do you have?
Certainly in this case the color red is non-existent as the wave form has not been established.
Certainly we are left with a point that can not exist in this universe as you apply infinite reduction to eventually find the "value" zero in a light wave form.

and paradoxically we use time marks constantly as part of every day life.