0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

space is time and it must be timeless because it does not age?

Quote from: Thebox on 05/08/2016 16:03:16 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!

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

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

Quote from: Thebox on 05/08/2016 18:09:59 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.

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

Quote from: Thebox on 06/08/2016 07:24:06 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"

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.

Quote from: Scott Mayers on 08/08/2016 04:30:24Hi "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.

Quote from: Thebox on 08/08/2016 07:08:38Quote from: Scott Mayers on 08/08/2016 04:30:24Hi "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.

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'.