0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My take is that time is a smooth continuum, and time simply passes;
So my answer is that the next moment in time will be the next point after the current moment in time as measured on a smooth continuum.
Further, there is only the "now", so the passing of time on the time continuum is a history of the past "nows"; .
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2017 22:46:26Further, there is only the "now", so the passing of time on the time continuum is a history of the past "nows"; .Then I think our opinions of time would be in relative agreement. (What is relative between two observers). I agree that there is only the now point, history points being recorded now points. I say recorded because I feel we record time rather than measure it. Thank you for your replies and proper discussion. Do you think if considering the adjoined points of the now and future point, that there is any way time could contract in this situation? Do you think that if we could expand time from being adjoined, so the points have a length between them, this would add any value or purpose to recording time?
, but my take on it is that you can’t change the fact the no matter where you are, time simply passes, and it is only when you record the passing of time on clocks, in two local environments, moving in relation to each other, that any of those scenarios can be thought of as compressing or expanding time.
How far/long away is my next moment of now, away from now?
I also think time just passes. However I do not think the Physics would allow a smooth continuum time to contract …
… there being no spacing between now point and future point.
I feel relativity only works if we consider time is discrete where there is spacing between now and future points, a spacing of 1 second. Only if we expand time from the now point to a future point is there a length to contract. What are your thoughts on this thought?
You feel relativity incorporates a discrete time increment, and logically there is a duration between each “now” (if you are trying to take the perspective of special and/or general relativity). Now if you want to talk about time contracting or expanding from the perspective of SR or GR, what you are considering is that by changing the duration between discrete “nows”, you are considering the contraction or expansion of time
Quote from: Thebox on 13/10/2017 13:49:58How far/long away is my next moment of now, away from now?This may explain to you why your question has no meaning.https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra/units-in-modeling/rate-conversion/v/dimensional-analysis-units-algebraically
π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.
The change of a system from one state to another is the important thing. The change in state may be a change in physical position. This does have a limit at the Planck scale. If distance has a lower limit beyond which measurements can't be made then this also must be true for time.
If distance has a lower limit beyond which measurements can't be made then this also must be true for time.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 14/10/2017 01:27:57If distance has a lower limit beyond which measurements can't be made then this also must be true for time.Indeed Jeffrey, so we would have to use the closest possible measurement, the smallest measurement we could conceive. That is why I came up with:Δt=I had already considered the smallest conceivable measurement we could use to measure time. There is a big difference in Δt=1.sand Δt=Would you agree? LP being Planck length, I could not get the symbol post. Time Planck being as close to continuous time as we could hope for?
The paradox is that multiple systems, side by side, operating in the tiny Plank increments of time and distance, can be out of sync with each other,
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 12:38:10The paradox is that multiple systems, side by side, operating in the tiny Plank increments of time and distance, can be out of sync with each other,How can time be out of sync if we used a time Planck, surely the constant of light over such a negligible distance would be constant for all observers?