[guest39538]

How far/long away is my next moment of now, away from now?

P.s All you readers who do not reply to my posts, get involved and answer this one question. (I don't bite)

[Bogie_smiles]

You are going to get speculative answers because almost everyone I know has a slightly different take on time.

My take is that time is a smooth continuum, and time simply passes; that is a theoretical, and even a philosophical, take on time. In actual practice though, we have no clocks that I know of, not even atomic clocks, that are capable of measuring all points on the time continuum. The best measurements of the most accurate clocks are only capable of measuring the passing of time in tiny increments related the the frequency of the atom.

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. That should be interpreted as saying that time itself is not a physical aspect of the universe, it is a physical measurement of the rate that those tiny physical atomic frequencies occur on a designated clock in the local environment.

[guest39538]

My take is that time is a smooth continuum, and time simply passes;

I would be in  total agreement with that .

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.

I would also be in agreement with that.  So if we labelled a point ''now'' ( the present moment of time)  and labelled a second point '''future''(the next moment of time), how far away or what length of duration do you consider the future point is away from the now point?
In a smooth time continuum I would personally think that the now point is adjoined to the future point!

[Bogie_smiles]

I would agree with that position. Further, there is only the "now", so the passing of time on the time continuum is a history of the past "nows"; .

[guest39538]

Further, 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?

[Bogie_smiles]

Further, 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?

I would answer both questions the same way. I consider the "relativity of simultaneity" to be the operative concept from which to base speculations on the relative passing of time:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Relative motion can be used to craft various relationships between observers, and you can add as many independent observers as you like, in different frames or local environments that are in motion relative to each other. It allows for some creativity in talking about compressing or expanding 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.

[guest39538]

, 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.

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?

[Bored chemist]

How 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

[Bogie_smiles]

I also think time just passes.   However I do not think the Physics would allow a smooth continuum time to contract …

Agreed.

… there being no spacing between now point and future point.

Agreed.

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?

That sounds a little awkward, but I don’t want to claim that my take on what you said appreciates precisely how you meant it.

I’m not an expert on relativity, or anything else (except the ISU, lol), but let me try to state what you said in my own words and see if I have it or not:
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

[guest39538]

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

More or less yes.   What relativity does is take a now point (0) and extends this now point to a future point (1.s) .  This allows for time dilation and length contraction.   Without this added ''space'' between points, there could be no time dilation or length contraction as there would be no length of space/time to contract.   

[guest39538]

How 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

That is strange you say my question has no meaning, Bogie understood the meaning and is discussing it very accurately.

Δt=d₀

[Petrochemicals]

π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.

[guest39538]

π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.

I am not totally sure what you mean by that, I worked out the PI constant part, but circles have curves and curves are a longer path than a linear. I am not sure how circular could calculate a linear?

[guest39538]

Bogie, I define time:  A record-able measurement directly proportional to change

What do you think of this definition ?

OR

A record-able measurement directly proportional to the past?

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

That is all true.

This speculative discussion is in the New Theories sub-forum for that reason. We wouldn’t venture into the hard science forums with this kind of discussion, for the reasons you point out. What we are saying is not in accord with generally accepted science.

[guest39538]

If 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.s

and

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?

[Bogie_smiles]

If 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.s

and

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?

I find a paradox in the conclusion that distance and time must have a lower limit because there is a lower limit to our ability to measure distance and time in the Planck regime. Think of all of the individual systems operating independently, all at the same time.


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, making the time differential between the points in time occurring among the multiple systems combined to become a fraction of an increment on the Planck scale.


If you construct the time continuum from each occurrence of the change in any of the multiple systems at the Planck scale, wouldn’t you be adding new “nows” to the time continuum as any of the systems, not in sync with an other system, changed in Planck increments?


 
If so, why wouldn’t a time continuum based on all of the multiple system changes approach the smooth continuum we started out imagining? The more individual systems considered to be operating in the multiple group of systems, the closer the points on the time continuum would approach the theoretical smoothness of the time continuum.

[guest39538]

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,

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?

[Bogie_smiles]

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,

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?

Solely from my perspective, if two systems are separated by some distance, my take on the relativity of simultaneity says that the same increment of time can’t occur simultaneously for both systems.