6
   

Is is true that we cann't image a world without space?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:33 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Sure but to move from one frame to another requires that time exists. Without time you can not move from one frame to another. It would be like the film had stopped on one frame. How can you get it going or continue the film without time? You can't.


Let me put it the other way around then...what time is or what movement is has nothing to do with freedom or novelty in Reality...things become what they already are in potential...Time is the process by which things are bounded together but not a true condition from novelty coming from nothingness...becoming or appearing in the sense of manifestation is not a sufficient condition of Beingness...
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:37 pm
@Krumple,
Time is not some entity that has an existence separate from space or from motion. Time "exists" only as a yardstick, a measurement of movement. That is all that "time" does -- it measures "motion", both the duration of a movement and the interval between movements. Pure and complex.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 03:08 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Time is not some entity that has an existence separate from space or from motion. Time "exists" only as a yardstick, a measurement of movement. That is all that "time" does -- it measures "motion", both the duration of a movement and the interval between movements. Pure and complex.


Yes, we are not in dispute here. Sure it can be a measure of distance or motion. However when you use verbs to denote actions they assume an act where there was first non-action and then action. You can't get from non-action to action without time. Time is a requirement to move between non-action and action and back again.

You wouldn't be able to pick out past, present or future. You wouldn't be able to take photos. Photos are a capture of a single moment in time. Which is why they don't move (not trying to insult your intelligence, I know you know this, but just had to reference it for argument sake).

At point A time can be plotted and at point B time can be plotted. Time is a reference by either moving from point A to point B or it can be the ability to move from point A to point B. Without time you wouldn't be able to move to point B from A.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 06:53 pm
@Krumple,
First of all there is no such thing as transition between action and non action when you speak of movement as everything moves continuously...second the point about the nature of motion and time does not displace the phenomena for what it is but rather intends to bring a different perception on what unneeded baggage it possibly carry s and that may be elusive and illusory in many aspects...just as mirages are real mirages that does n´t mean that they are any less deceptive.

...on the other hand the very idea of nothingness or that something actually came out of nothingness is where actually lies the logical absurd...further I do not have any problem in assert that Steven Hawking is immature in terms of mental schema, but then that is already public knowledge by now...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 07:10 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
the meaningfulness or the value of time is asserted on the bringing of novelty to the world according to the 2 law of thermodynamics but if we think of a limited amount of discrete space rather then in a continuum the amount of arrangements of patterns and algorithms becomes finite...repeating a sequence of all sequences after trillions of years does not bring any novelty to the world such that the occurrence of time becomes absolutely non informative for all practical purposes...
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 09:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

First of all there is no such thing as transition between action and non action when you speak of movement as everything moves continuously...


Yes but this is not how I consider time. Time to me is a series of moments. These moments have a kind of "solidity" where everything has a location. As time continues of course there is a change. This change is what is typically measured or denotes differences in time. In some cases it might be incredibly hard to tell the difference between two moments but it can still be done.

Without this ability I don't see how you could calculate anything moving. Perhaps my perception of time is skewed but I highly doubt it. Therefore from my perspective it is impossible to "do" or "act" in a realm that has no time.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 10:49 pm
@Krumple,
While it is "obvious" to us--because of our nature--that nothing can occur (including our doings and actions) in a realm that is timeless, it must be realized that this means we cannot make sense of such occurrences without the idea of time (and space)
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 09:23 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
Time to me is a series of moments.
One might speculate whether it might eventually be demonstrated that time proceeds in quantum steps
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 03:38 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

While it is "obvious" to us--because of our nature--that nothing can occur (including our doings and actions) in a realm that is timeless, it must be realized that this means we cannot make sense of such occurrences without the idea of time (and space)


thats perdy much it

but to the object in and of its self , its movement and/or interactions with other objects

time matters not
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 04:28 pm
@north,
Quote:
its movement and/or interactions with other objects…...time matters not
If you could travel at or near c presumably you would find yourself at once everywhere in the Universe whereupon—poof—it might disappear. In that moment you’d surely consider time a very real important matter
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 04:55 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
its movement and/or interactions with other objects…...time matters not
If you could travel at or near c presumably you would find yourself at once everywhere in the Universe whereupon—poof—it might disappear. In that moment you’d surely consider time a very real important matter


so the whole Universe disappears because of you going at light speed , and are everywhere ?

again perspective
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 06:12 pm
@north,
Yes, it's all a matter of perspective and interpretation.
Nietzsche
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 07:02 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
its movement and/or interactions with other objects…...time matters not
If you could travel at or near c presumably you would find yourself at once everywhere in the Universe whereupon—poof—it might disappear. In that moment you’d surely consider time a very real important matter


I don't agree with this. Why is it that things that travel near the speed of light are not observed to be in every location at the same time? Would this not mean that a source of light would be in all places equally? You would not observe light bouncing or refracting off objects because to do this you would have to have already been in that location. Rendering light bouncing or refracting non-existent. Light obviously does not behave as if it were in all places at the same time.

Since light behaves in this way I have just tried to describe, I doubt, anything were to be super positioned near the speed of light or at. (if matter could travel at the speed of light that is.) I know some of the math disagrees with me but I just don't see it and there is nothing credable to rely on that shows it would behave that way.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 08:45 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I’d feel kind of silly defining space especially in my present drunken condition but can’t help reverting to the idea that the notion of nothingness will be found contradictory, requiring the existence of time, space, matter, etc as ablsolute necessity

However that doesn’t engate nothingness as the “origin" of it all

Quote:
Would this not mean that a source of light would be in all places equally?
Only to Photonica
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 08:48 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Why is it that things that travel near the speed of light are not observed to be in every location at the same time?
Only of course to the poor fellow (or gal, “Photonia”), traveling at c

Quote:
Light obviously does not behave as if it were in all places at the same time.
Photopnia’s view of course. By relativity however her view is just as valid as ours
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2012 09:04 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Why is it that things that travel near the speed of light are not observed to be in every location at the same time?
Only of course to the poor fellow (or gal, “Photonia”), traveling at c

Quote:
Light obviously does not behave as if it were in all places at the same time.
Photopnia’s view of course. By relativity however her view is just as valid as ours


Have you seen the videos of lasers being shot through objects at a trillion frames a second? It is amazing to see these beams moving like bullets through the object. Something we never get a chance to witness in real time. If this is not evidence that light does have a fixed position in time and not super position then how else would we be able to determine if light has super position? Just theory where as reality being displayed like this is in some way faulty?

Correct me if I misunderstood but how else would it be done?

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2012 11:05 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
evidence that light does have a fixed position in time and not super position
Krum you might have to elaborate on this just a bit as the typical dumbhead (me) doesn’t immediately comprehend how overlapping applies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_position

Also the phrase, "fixed position in time” leaves your Commonplace Addlebrain (me again) kinda forsaken

If you judge however its resolution is beyond the 81-year-old with incipient Alz’s please forgive and don’t feel obligated to respond, while it’s been a pleasure chatting

Incidentally modern software also leaves me panting. What possible connection could there be ‘tween an Alz’s victim chatting with a physicist about the speed of light in question with with the fixed position of Photonia, and the U.S. unemployment situation
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2012 11:18 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Without this ability I don't see how you could calculate anything moving. Perhaps my perception of time is skewed but I highly doubt it. Therefore from my perspective it is impossible to "do" or "act" in a realm that has no time.

Fallacy alert: argument from personal incredulity. Just because you can't imagine how something is done, that doesn't mean it can't be done. And just because you highly doubt" that your perception of time is skewed, that doesn't show that it's not.

For the record, there is no currently-established theory of physics by which time is partitioned into discrete moments. And there is no experiment whose outcome requires this assumption to understand it.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2012 11:22 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
For the record, there is no currently-established theory of physics by which time is partitioned into discrete moments.
Yes that’s what I have always understood whilst nevertheless wondering whether it might eventually prove the case, quantum units of time

Quote:
And there is no experiment whose outcome requires this assumption to understand it.
At least not now there isn't
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2012 11:34 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Have you seen the videos of lasers being shot through objects at a trillion frames a second? It is amazing to see these beams moving like bullets through the object. Something we never get a chance to witness in real time. If this is not evidence that light does have a fixed position in time and not super position then how else would we be able to determine if light has super position?

By following those pulses for a sufficiently-long stretch of distance. (It might be hundreds of meters.) Eventually you will see that the light, unlike a bullet, disperses into something diffuse and wide. This dispersion arises from the fact that even laser light is a superposition of waves --- unlike bullets, which aren't, and which consequently maintain their shape (*) no matter how far you shoot them. So you're right in part: The experiment you describe could, in principle, demonstrate that light is not a superposition of waves. But the actual experimental outcome shows that it is. The videos mislead you by showing only part of what's happening.
_____
(*) well . . . except for any deformation from the shooting itself. But that's not the issue here.
 

Related Topics

Does Space Exploration Make Sense? - Question by thegalacticemperor
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
Meteorite Caught On Camera In Canada - Discussion by InfraBlue
Space Spiders - Discussion by edgarblythe
Rovers on Mars - Discussion by edgarblythe
If the Universe has no beginning? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Pluto - Discussion by edgarblythe
My God! It's Full of Stars! - Discussion by RushPoint
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 06:03:34