[Ponderings (OP)]

We normally think of time as moving forwards and backwards, as a line, or possibly just a ray...but as we can only experience time in the "now" as a moment, could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?
What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?

Also a possibility - that we are in a "time" black hole, where time is the singularity and all of 3-dimensional space is bound somehow with that singularity as the information spread out over the event horizon?

[guest39538]

We normally think of time as moving forwards and backwards, as a line, or possibly just a ray...but as we can only experience time in the "now" as a moment, could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?
What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?

Also a possibility - that we are in a "time" black hole, where time is the singularity and all of 3-dimensional space is bound somehow with that singularity as the information spread out over the event horizon?

Well, time is an interesting subject that can be discussed in some depth. If we were to define time as a ''singularity'' point, then I suppose we could say that time was any given points measure of change.   My definition of time is: Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.
I use a chronological 0 point to explain this and show that the speed of time is infinitely fast.  I.e Your next ''now'' moment is immediately ahead of you.
 

[scherado]

"Time is a physical process."

Though I have read and heard about many conceptions and constructions and speculations of 'Time', I have never had any reason to accept anything other than those five words.

[evan_au]

The equations for time dilation predict infinite time dilation ratios due to:
- Traveling at the speed of light (in Special Relativity). However, SR also tells us that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light. So we can't see this singularity in action.
- Crossing the event horizon of a black hole (in General Relativity). This one is potentially observable, on a galactic-mass black hole, so maybe one day this will be observable.

Inside a black hole, our usual notions of time and space get a little twisted. The usual dimensions of space take on the "one-way" characteristic we observe with time, becoming one-way paths to the singularity at the center of the black hole.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

[scherado]

What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?

Though I have read and heard about many conceptions and constructions and speculations of 'Time', I have never had any reason to accept anything other than those five words.

I have chosen "non possibility" for the reason that the only conception of time known to use with certainty is some physical process, three of which are:

Earth's rotation

Earth's orbit

"9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields." (link not provided due to forum guidelines)

[evan_au]

To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Physical_definition

[scherado]

To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here

Who are "we"?

[scherado]

Who are "we"?

To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here:

From the book Essays in Science, published 1934, by Albert Einstein, Clerk Maxwell's Influence On The Evolution Of The Idea Of Physical Reality, page 45:
 

    The last and most successful creation of theoretical 
physics, namely quantum-mechanics differs fundamentally
from both the schemes which we will for the sake of 
brevity call the Newtownian and the Maxwellian. For the
quantities which figure in its laws, make no claim to 
physical reality itself, but only the probabilities
of the occurence of the physical reality that we have in view.
Dirac, to whom, in my opinion we owe the most logically 
complete exposition of this theory, rightly points out that it
would probably be difficult, for example, to give a theoretical
despcription of a photon such as would give enough information
to enable one to decide whether it will pass a polarizer 
placed (obliquely) in its way or not.
     I am still inclined to the view that physicists will not
in the long run content themselves with that sort of indirect
description of the real, even if the theory can eventually 
be adapted to the postulate of general relativity in a 
satisfactory manner. We shall then, I feel sure, have to return
to the attempt to carry out the program which may properly be
described as the Maxwellian--nameley, the description of 
physical reality in terms of fields which satisfy partial
differential equations without singularities.

could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?

I'll pose the question to you: with or without singularities?
.
.
I am he
As you are he
As you are me
And we are all together
- John Lennon, The Walrus

[scherado]

To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Physical_definition [nofollow] That's appropriate "non-active"

Let's get one thing straight. I consider a link to wikee-pee-D-uh to be an insult.

Would anyone care to address the question of "singularity"? Singular or plural.

[GoC]

Time is generally described as timing rather than describing the cause of time. Fundamental energy c is the cause of motion and the electron flow. The electron flow and photon propagation through the vacuum of space are confounded in energy c. Physical and light clocks change by the same amount when going through different frames. This is proof that there is an underling process controlling both equally. The difference in timing between frames is due to density of energy c. The center of mass is where energy is the least dense. In a black hole there is no energy so there is no time within a black hole. There is only kinetic energy 100% in a black hole. Energy is extremely dilated by the inverse square law causing mass to stretch when entering a black hole. Out in space between galaxies energy has the greatest density and clocks tick rate is the greatest because the energy particles are closest. Mass dilates energy by causing the energy to move electrons. The electrons have to travel further in dilated space. c is the reason for relativity and electrons move at the speed of light but in a helix through energy. This probably has to do with why life was created as a helix.

Our eyes view our environment at about 16 frames per second. This gives us a fluid view of our environment and yet if something moved in and out of our view in 1/32 of a second we would not even see it. If our synapsis fired 5 times as fast we would view a blur of an object. Time as we detect it biologically is also based on c limits same as a physical clock. Children's synapsis fire faster than adults so they experience time more than adults. In other words it is a longer experience to get somewhere for children than adults but all relative to c.

It's unlikely time is a singularity but just the opposite being energy c.

[scherado]

w

In a black hole there is no energy so there is no time within a black hole. There is only kinetic energy 100% in a black hole. Energy is extremely dilated by the inverse square law causing mass to stretch when entering a black hole. Out in space between galaxies energy has the greatest density and clocks tick rate is the greatest because the energy particles are closest. Mass dilates energy by causing the energy to move electrons.

There is no time without some physical process. Is there time without matter? I think not: what is the object of discussion (subject) when there is no matter? Further, what would the temporal qualities of inert matter?

Let's get to the point, using a recent cosmological news item (livescience.com [nofollow]: at the link, we learn that two black holes were in a merge-spiral then became one or something other that two black holes, that is certain. We can assert positively that the event occurred over some time period, known or unknown, it doesn't "matter"--what's relevant is that it event occurred. On what basis does one assert or speculate that there is no time within a black hole when two actual, factual black holes spent some period of TIME spiraling ever closer and to then merge, the entire event taking ____ units of "Time" (duration)?

I'll await a reply...from someone, anyone.

[opportunity]

We normally think of time as moving forwards and backwards, as a line, or possibly just a ray...but as we can only experience time in the "now" as a moment, could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?

I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1".

Check my post in this theory section "golden ratio and time" where I use time "now" as a singularity.

I was going through all the theories posted in this theory section, and yours along with another really made me stop and think how there are so many ways to consider a similar question it seems we're asking. Your idea of time being the ultimate singularity around which space is modified and thus gives the appearance of flux I think is a good one. I'd be interested to know if that's along the lines of your idea.

[scherado]

I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1"

.
What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.

If anyone can answer that, then, well, that person would get the keys to the Kingdom (presuming there be more than one).

[guest39538]

Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to a change of entropy . 

[guest39538]

I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1"

.
What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.

If anyone can answer that, then, well, that person would get the keys to the Kingdom (presuming there be more than one).

absolute time t=Δ→0
It is a continuous constant

relativistic time t=ΔS which is a continuous variable.

t=1.s is a discrete packet of time, a history.

[guest39538]

I drew you time to show you in simple form.


time.......jpg (101.05 kB . 1914x922 - viewed 4176 times)

[scherado]

... is a continuous variable.

Do you want to reconsider your "is a" equivalence? The left-most part is omitted for clarity.

[opportunity]

I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1"

.
What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.

If anyone can answer that, then, well, that person would get the keys to the Kingdom (presuming there be more than one).

You're absolutely right. To talk about time as a singularity as a "moment" can only work talking about the parameters within which that singularity exists, like in between time-before and time-after, both of which would represent a "relativity" cradling the time-now singularity....somehow.

[imetheman]

The subject of this topic is covered by this essay which I wrote tonight.   'The atomic elements exist in Planck shells'.

 A Planck shell is a perfect sphere with a diameter which is naturally determined by the length of the radius from any point on the surface of the sphere to the singularity which 'exists' at the centre. [The singularity represents zero in space and time].

The Planck shells which radiate outward from the static singularity are notional and represent the potentiality only for a particle of matter to exist at a specific point in space and time.

Planck spheres can only form in incremental shells of specific diameters.   The radiated notional diameter of any given Planck shell increases by 2 Planck lengths for every 1 Planck second.   On any given radius of a Planck shell, this rate of expansion over time is equal to 1 Planck length of distance per. 1 Planck second.

Time and space [and therefore physical reality] can only exist when the orbital lateral velocity [which determines the relative Planck second]  is synchronous with a distance travelled of 1 Planck length. This velocity determines the relative value of the PS relative to the PL constant and of course the speed of light.

The speed of light can be redefined as representing the shortest period of time that information can be transferred between any 2 given points in 4 dimensional space-time.

The limitation in the transfer of information imposed  by the Planck constant only applies to the radial velocity of the expansion of the synchronous Planck shell pulses which emanates from the singularity.

The creation of the planck shell diameters of specific radial lengths  which represent the sub atomic internal structures of the atoms of the elements, take specific periods of time to materialise as a solid particle in 3-D space.

The delay in the radial transfer of information from the centre singularity to any point on the surface of the sphere [as imposed by the Planck second SOL limitation] creates a drag on the creation of the elements at every point in 4- D space-time.

An atom of any of the elements exists as solid object in 3-D space for a period of time relative to the PS [relative to the particular orbital velocity]. This period of time in which the particle can be regarded as a solid object having mass and weight existing in a solid 3-D framework  represents the particular position of the wavelength of the element in the EM spectrum.


 It represents the relative speed of light - gravitational force- which applies to the element at that particular Planck sphere radius which is applicable to that element.  The sphere diameter of any given Planck shell represents the wavelength of the element relative to the wavelength of light.

The particular Planck shell at  which an atom forms determines the period of time that an atom exists as a solid object. Elements which are formed at larger diameter spheres, will be heavier than those which form at smaller diameter. The 1 PS degree of drag caused by the delay in transferring information on the radius of any given planck sphere to the next largest one up, is the source of the mass, rest weight and inertia which every solid particle of matter possesses.       

Every time that a particle of matter is moved [by an external 2nd force] from a state of equilibrium within a static fixed 3-D framework, a new  particle of matter is created at a new coordinate. This new coordinate has no place in the fixed 3-D framework of the universe in which it was created.

The new coordinate represents a singularity. The singularity represents the centre point of the creation of a new physical universe.  The new universe exists in a region of space on the surface of a sphere which is    1 Planck length in diameter.  Since no information can be known of anything which occurs within this 1PL diameter sphere due to the limitation of the Planck constant, a singularity cannot exist 'within' the dimensional confines or borders of another  physical universe.

The particular relative velocity of the speed of light for any given new universe [ ie, the value of the PS] is entirely determined by the relative local velocity of the speed of light which existed when the original event/singularity was created ie, the source of the graviton.

 The spin and angular momentum which existed at the origin location of the event creates a pulse of the warping and bending of space and time which occurred at the moment that the event singularity was created, is entirely transferred to the new coordinate on the pulse of gravity which radiates out from the singularity.

The synchronicity of space and time which occurs in incremental pulses of 1 Planck length constant with 1 relative Planck second of time, represents the quantisation of time space and gravity.

[Colin2B]

What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.

absolute time t=Δ→0
It is a continuous constant

Strangely the Box is pretty close.
The question you are trying to answer is similar to asking where am i on a distance line.  A point on a line is defined as having zero width. If it has any value eg 0.000....1 then it is no longer a point but a range.
A singularity is a mathematical term that refers to a point at which a mathematical object is undefined, either because it is infinite or degenerate. A simple example is the function 1/x. This function has a singularity at x = 0 because the fraction 1/0 is undefined.
Individual ‘moments’ of distance or time are points having 0 width. If you wish to redefine those points as being a range that’s up to you.