# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Is the rate of time infinite?  (Read 1434 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Is the rate of time infinite?
« on: 05/08/2016 08:35:43 »
One second is an abstract point that marks a present position and ''time'' that has elapsed between two points .  A duration of time gone by , a recording of the elapsed history from a starting ''point'' of zero to the present point of one second.  A increment or a ''length'' of time.
However in consideration for the 0 value and trying to measure past zero, there is an obvious fact that we can only mark the present and record history elapsed but can nether measure a future. It is also of my attention and that which I have mentioned before about any measurement of time after 0 becomes instantaneous history. It is also of my attention that no matter how ''fast'' we measure time by whichever means of rate, we can never ''overtake'' time and can only mark the present point.
In simple terms if I was to measure time as fast as c, it would still only ever mark a present point, so therefore the rate of time must be infinite in ''speed'' because no matter how fast or small of an increment we try to measure , we can only ever mark 1 representing the present. ?????

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1921
• Thanked: 125 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #1 on: 05/08/2016 09:01:22 »
If a car is travelling along a road we can measure the distance it has travelled from any fixed point, which we might call 0. However, it's current distance is always changing and we refer to its current position in the same way you speak of time, we can always define its current position as 0 and prior to that as 'where it has been' and ahead as 'where it is going'.
But, we don't think of the rate of distance as being infinite.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #2 on: 05/08/2016 16:03:16 »
If a car is travelling along a road we can measure the distance it has travelled from any fixed point, which we might call 0. However, it's current distance is always changing and we refer to its current position in the same way you speak of time, we can always define its current position as 0 and prior to that as 'where it has been' and ahead as 'where it is going'.
But, we don't think of the rate of distance as being infinite.

Ok, but I do not know why you have brought infinite distance into this when it is discussing the rate of time and time continues forward regardless of motion.  I sort of understand your car example but it does not really reflect on or answer my question although I can ''see'' where you are coming from.

If we can imagine your car is the present, no matter how fast your car travels , the car will always be  the present and in the present , the car could travel an infinite speed and it would never overtake time because the time ''flows'' constantly  at any velocity and the value of 0 can't be overtook it can only be tagged by a present marker such as 1. Like I have said before and maybe you might understand now, 0=1 . 1 marks a period of 0 but retains position to 0.

past=0
present=1=0
future=0

000
010
000

Things are present in space, the present is things, space is time and it must be timeless because it does not age?   space allows 1 to exist?  1 can age? 1 is a variable? 0 is a constant and infinite?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1278
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #3 on: 05/08/2016 17:01:13 »

space is time and it must be timeless because it does not age?
Hey there Mr. Box, you're part of space are you not? Then evidently, you're the ageless wonder,.........right?

The mere concept of time makes it's advance critical to it's existence. You can't talk about time without recognizing the advancing process of it.  ...........Period!

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #4 on: 05/08/2016 18:09:59 »

space is time and it must be timeless because it does not age?
Hey there Mr. Box, you're part of space are you not? Then evidently, you're the ageless wonder,.........right?

The mere concept of time makes it's advance critical to it's existence. You can't talk about time without recognizing the advancing process of it.  ...........Period!

Hey Ethos, I think we are a little bit different than space, for one we have solidity, things that have solidity tend to age/decay.  Space itself the seemingly ''nothing'' structure of ''emptiness'' is not made of an Aether or likes, it is just simply made of ''nothing''.

You say -

''The mere concept of time makes it's advance critical to it's existence. You can't talk about time without recognizing the advancing process of it.  ...........Period!''

Time has no physicality or motion or direction, the mere concept of measuring ''time'' can only be recognised by putting physicality to ''time'' in the form of a mechanism for measurement.
Things advance forward, the time we use is to record this advancement, but the things we use are not time but merely tools we use for our interpretation of time.
If we were to interpret Minkowski space-time as time, and interpreted the rate of space-time was 0 and timeless, this does not change relativistic effects of present thought on ''matter-time''.  Matter time existing independently of space-time.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1832
• Thanked: 12 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #5 on: 05/08/2016 21:36:21 »
TB, you have some interesting thoughts, but sometimes, in those trains of thought, you seem to meet yourself going the other way.

Consider the following quotes.

“It is also of my attention that no matter how ''fast'' we measure time by whichever means of rate, we can never ''overtake'' time and can only mark the present point.
….. time continues forward regardless of motion.
the car could travel an infinite speed and it would never overtake time because the time ''flows'' constantly”.

They all have time moving, but then you say the opposite.

“Time has no physicality or motion or direction

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I am left with the question: Does time move, or not?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1278
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #6 on: 05/08/2016 21:50:47 »

Space itself the seemingly ''nothing'' structure of ''emptiness'' is not made of an Aether or likes, it is just simply made of ''nothing''.

I hate to rain on your parade Mr. Box but, "There is no space empty of field." So space is something Mr. Box and to your point about matter being solid. If you understand nuclear physics, you'd already know that matter is made up of mostly empty space. And the term spoken of here as "empty space" is not taking into account electromagnetic, gravitational, and strong force fields which make up the rest of this area we call the nuclear envelope. So calling it "empty space" is totally misleading. Fact is, matter is by no means solid as you have suggested.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2016 21:53:53 by Ethos_ »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #7 on: 06/08/2016 07:20:22 »
TB, you have some interesting thoughts, but sometimes, in those trains of thought, you seem to meet yourself going the other way.

Consider the following quotes.

“It is also of my attention that no matter how ''fast'' we measure time by whichever means of rate, we can never ''overtake'' time and can only mark the present point.
….. time continues forward regardless of motion.
the car could travel an infinite speed and it would never overtake time because the time ''flows'' constantly”.

They all have time moving, but then you say the opposite.

“Time has no physicality or motion or direction

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I am left with the question: Does time move, or not?

Sorry Bill it does sound contradiction, I was trying to say that moving time travels through dormant time.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #8 on: 06/08/2016 07:24:06 »

Space itself the seemingly ''nothing'' structure of ''emptiness'' is not made of an Aether or likes, it is just simply made of ''nothing''.

I hate to rain on your parade Mr. Box but, "There is no space empty of field." So space is something Mr. Box and to your point about matter being solid. If you understand nuclear physics, you'd already know that matter is made up of mostly empty space. And the term spoken of here as "empty space" is not taking into account electromagnetic, gravitational, and strong force fields which make up the rest of this area we call the nuclear envelope. So calling it "empty space" is totally misleading. Fact is, matter is by no means solid as you have suggested.

Correct space is full of fields , however the space  ''behind'' those fields is empty.   Matter is solid compared to space, the ''viscosity'' of space is 0.   Remove all the matter from space and we remove all the fields , unless of course we were in a plasma containment field and then the field would be ''externally'' generated.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1278
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #9 on: 06/08/2016 16:55:06 »

Matter is solid compared to space, the ''viscosity'' of space is 0.

What is clear Mr. Box is you don't understand much about "Physical Space". Are you familiar with the terms; Permeability of Space and Permittivity of Space? If you were, you'd recognize how wrong you are to say: "the viscosity of space is 0"

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #10 on: 06/08/2016 21:31:25 »

Matter is solid compared to space, the ''viscosity'' of space is 0.

What is clear Mr. Box is you don't understand much about "Physical Space". Are you familiar with the terms; Permeability of Space and Permittivity of Space? If you were, you'd recognize how wrong you are to say: "the viscosity of space is 0"

Please tell me you are joking or that would mean ..........''holy eck''.

Are you saying that empty space has a magnetic constant?   μ0

#### Scott Mayers

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 20
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #11 on: 08/08/2016 04:30:24 »
Hi "The Box",

I believe I understand your concern but am confused to the way you are communicating it.

Your concern deals with what Zeno's Paradoxes raised and is valid with respect to his Arrow Paradox where he imagined an arrow either sitting in place or to one tossed, such that if you FREEZE the frame of both, there is no distinction between the two. That is, he was asserting that if movement itself was possible, how do you distinguish between a perfect moment that differentiates a moving arrow from one not moving.....or to any possible other 'speed'?

So you question is NOT absurd and is partly what Calculus was created for and to what the scientists of the early 20th Century questioned (Others including Einstein proposed 'Relativity' to length to answer this.)

So first off, is this what you are saying? That given a moment of time such that it approaches or becomes zero, how can anything be interpreted to have any rate of motion,....and thus, by implication, 'time' as its measure.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #12 on: 08/08/2016 07:08:38 »
Hi "The Box",

I believe I understand your concern but am confused to the way you are communicating it.

Your concern deals with what Zeno's Paradoxes raised and is valid with respect to his Arrow Paradox where he imagined an arrow either sitting in place or to one tossed, such that if you FREEZE the frame of both, there is no distinction between the two. That is, he was asserting that if movement itself was possible, how do you distinguish between a perfect moment that differentiates a moving arrow from one not moving.....or to any possible other 'speed'?

So you question is NOT absurd and is partly what Calculus was created for and to what the scientists of the early 20th Century questioned (Others including Einstein proposed 'Relativity' to length to answer this.)

So first off, is this what you are saying? That given a moment of time such that it approaches or becomes zero, how can anything be interpreted to have any rate of motion,....and thus, by implication, 'time' as its measure.

I have not heard of this Zeno Paradox and will have to look that up. What I am saying is that all moments of time remain at zero and can't be measured for the very fact that velocity is a variable.  NO matter what rate of time is measured it can't be measured past zero because we could never really know the rate of time, it is a scalar quantity rather than a dimension.
A ''length'' of time would remain constant, the only way a ''length'' of time could change is if we shorten the length or change the speed of measurement representation. So if I  consider measuring time, it does not matter if I measure time at a zero speed or an infinite speed, neither changes the rate of time because that remains at zero and can not change, but 0 is also infinite, so that is why we have my question.

#### Scott Mayers

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 20
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #13 on: 08/08/2016 07:26:54 »
Hi "The Box",

I believe I understand your concern but am confused to the way you are communicating it.

Your concern deals with what Zeno's Paradoxes raised and is valid with respect to his Arrow Paradox where he imagined an arrow either sitting in place or to one tossed, such that if you FREEZE the frame of both, there is no distinction between the two. That is, he was asserting that if movement itself was possible, how do you distinguish between a perfect moment that differentiates a moving arrow from one not moving.....or to any possible other 'speed'?

So you question is NOT absurd and is partly what Calculus was created for and to what the scientists of the early 20th Century questioned (Others including Einstein proposed 'Relativity' to length to answer this.)

So first off, is this what you are saying? That given a moment of time such that it approaches or becomes zero, how can anything be interpreted to have any rate of motion,....and thus, by implication, 'time' as its measure.

I have not heard of this Zeno Paradox and will have to look that up. What I am saying is that all moments of time remain at zero and can't be measured for the very fact that velocity is a variable.  NO matter what rate of time is measured it can't be measured past zero because we could never really know the rate of time, it is a scalar quantity rather than a dimension.
A ''length'' of time would remain constant, the only way a ''length'' of time could change is if we shorten the length or change the speed of measurement representation. So if I  consider measuring time, it does not matter if I measure time at a zero speed or an infinite speed, neither changes the rate of time because that remains at zero and can not change, but 0 is also infinite, so that is why we have my question.

I understand you. But my mention of "length" was about such an object, like an arrow's SPACIAL displacement. From relativity, when something moves, the object in the direction of movement is 'contracted' (shortened). This means that each 'point' does actually have information about velocity in some way.  When we 'freeze frame' an image of one object at two distinctly different velocities, the information about the velocity is contained at that point.

Do you want a hint at what that could be?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #14 on: 08/08/2016 13:35:39 »
Hi "The Box",

I believe I understand your concern but am confused to the way you are communicating it.

Your concern deals with what Zeno's Paradoxes raised and is valid with respect to his Arrow Paradox where he imagined an arrow either sitting in place or to one tossed, such that if you FREEZE the frame of both, there is no distinction between the two. That is, he was asserting that if movement itself was possible, how do you distinguish between a perfect moment that differentiates a moving arrow from one not moving.....or to any possible other 'speed'?

So you question is NOT absurd and is partly what Calculus was created for and to what the scientists of the early 20th Century questioned (Others including Einstein proposed 'Relativity' to length to answer this.)

So first off, is this what you are saying? That given a moment of time such that it approaches or becomes zero, how can anything be interpreted to have any rate of motion,....and thus, by implication, 'time' as its measure.

I have not heard of this Zeno Paradox and will have to look that up. What I am saying is that all moments of time remain at zero and can't be measured for the very fact that velocity is a variable.  NO matter what rate of time is measured it can't be measured past zero because we could never really know the rate of time, it is a scalar quantity rather than a dimension.
A ''length'' of time would remain constant, the only way a ''length'' of time could change is if we shorten the length or change the speed of measurement representation. So if I  consider measuring time, it does not matter if I measure time at a zero speed or an infinite speed, neither changes the rate of time because that remains at zero and can not change, but 0 is also infinite, so that is why we have my question.

I understand you. But my mention of "length" was about such an object, like an arrow's SPACIAL displacement. From relativity, when something moves, the object in the direction of movement is 'contracted' (shortened). This means that each 'point' does actually have information about velocity in some way.  When we 'freeze frame' an image of one object at two distinctly different velocities, the information about the velocity is contained at that point.

Do you want a hint at what that could be?

Well I have no idea why you have brought length contraction into an infinite time thread. The length of an object in motion relative to an observer does not contract although the entire object could contract . The length of an object visual contracting contracts, but this is due to the length of space between the ''freezed'' points and the observer.

#### Scott Mayers

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 20
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2016 18:23:09 »

Well I have no idea why you have brought length contraction into an infinite time thread. The length of an object in motion relative to an observer does not contract although the entire object could contract . The length of an object visual contracting contracts, but this is due to the length of space between the ''freezed'' points and the observer.
I don't know what you are misinterpreting. But looking back at your OP, you appear to be treating time as though it has some 'speed'. But speed/velocity requires time as it is derived of time itself. You appear to be questioning something with which can be answered through calculus as you reference what is understood as 'instantaneous velocity', or velocity of something at a point.

#### acsinuk

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 236
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #16 on: 10/08/2016 11:31:56 »
Time; in my view is 3D dimensional. space volume is x,y,z 3D Length dimensional and power is Amps
• ,Flux[y], Volts[z] dimensional of 3D magnetic force which can create balanced charges and hence Matter

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #17 on: 13/08/2016 13:25:11 »

I don't know what you are misinterpreting. But looking back at your OP, you appear to be treating time as though it has some 'speed'.

To the contrary , science treats time as if it has a speed, i.e a rate. I treat time as absolute.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Is the rate of time infinite?
« Reply #17 on: 13/08/2016 13:25:11 »