[scherado]

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.

.
You lost me after the first three words. (Two and five-sevenths of a word, to be precise--this being a forum for scientists.)

[opportunity]

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.

.
You lost me after the first three words. (Two and five-sevenths of a word, to be precise--this being a forum for scientists.)

Apologies, I think I can explain.

I completely agreed with your closing comment ( “If anyone can answer that, then, well, that person would get the keys to the Kingdom (presuming there be more than one).”  ) about defining the value for a moment in time to an exact decimal point, that implausibility (keys to the kingdom, that sort of thing), and then went on to propose another way of considering the idea of a time-singularity (moment), as arbitrarily defining a mathematical value of “time-now =1” in between two parameters of “time-before” and “time-after” (and then I said “somehow”). I was agreeing with your closing statement, which I thought was what you were emphasising, while I then offered another possibility for a time-singularity (a “somehow”, though); I wasn’t prepared to make an exact new proposal for a time-singularity definition in that post at that time, as I consider it your post and thinking you might have a solution before I rushed in with one. 

Once again apologies for not making that clearer. Just wondering therefore if you have another way of approaching the time-singularity issue? It’s a hard one given the Planck-scale space-time singularity dogma.

[guest39538]

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.

You give them an answer and they ignore it lol. 

0+0=1x is the smallest measurement.   0 being a 0 point, by specifying +0  we are specifying there is 2 , 0 points .

So 0 point plus a 0 point is a really really small dimension of 1x and describes a continuous change.

So I suppose we can say Δt=0+0  which is also about the time is takes for the second photon of a stream to arrive at object or your eyes.

[opportunity]

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.

You give them an answer and they ignore it lol. 

0+0=1x is the smallest measurement.   0 being a 0 point, by specifying +0  we are specifying there is 2 , 0 points .

So 0 point plus a 0 point is a really really small dimension of 1x and describes a continuous change.

So I suppose we can say Δt=0+0  which is also about the time is takes for the second photon of a stream to arrive at object or your eyes.

...it collapses.

3-d space....it makes sense.

It could-be 50-d space but without the algorithms of Pythagoras it is 3-d.

Stuff seems to happen as we observe between different points in space.

The big question is how each space reference of "event" is warranted as an event......"enter the idea of time, a type of cause and effect of each reference of space and its own peculiarity effecting the other".

Is it because of a fundamental feature of the idea of cause and effect, an arrow of time for each spatial reference?

[guest39538]

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.

You give them an answer and they ignore it lol. 

0+0=1x is the smallest measurement.   0 being a 0 point, by specifying +0  we are specifying there is 2 , 0 points .

So 0 point plus a 0 point is a really really small dimension of 1x and describes a continuous change.

So I suppose we can say Δt=0+0  which is also about the time is takes for the second photon of a stream to arrive at object or your eyes.

...it collapses.

3-d space....it makes sense.

It could-be 50-d space but without the algorithms of Pythagoras it is 3-d.

Stuff seems to happen as we observe between different points in space.

The big question is how each space reference of "event" is warranted as an event......"enter the idea of time, a type of cause and effect of each reference of space and its own peculiarity effecting the other".

Is it because of a fundamental feature of the idea of cause and effect, an arrow of time for each spatial reference?

There is no actual arrow of time, there is only an arrow of history and an arrow of past geometrical position and future geometrical position.   ←0     You cannot displace 0 without creating a directly and proportional past, however this is relative timing and not relative time which is a the rate of entropy change   Δt=ΔS

Ageing and decay has a rate for each observer/object,  this rate and process is time itself and a physical process.   The time can slow down or speed up depending on the entropy state.

Consider that in an inertia reference frame, your entropy is pretty much a steady state,  then consider if you was to travel towards the sun and consider the way your entropy changes while you are decaying fast.

Speed and motion have nothing to do with real time dilation, direction does and field density.

[scherado]

You give them an answer and they ignore it lol. 

.
I am NOT ignoring anything, I am in the middle of composing my reply, which is near completion. While I'm doing that, I will determine whether this forum has an "ignore" or "block" feature.

[opportunity]

I'm ok with answers days after. These are big subjects and take thought. I look back on one of my answers and know it took days to put simply. This is a big field. The idea of responding to a 3-d multi-time vector had me 48hrs....given that 3-d space is and should be a separate vector to the behaviour of a just as absolute manifold of time.

[guest39538]

I'm ok with answers days after. These are big subjects and take thought. I look back on one of my answers and know it took days to put simply. This is a big field.

Time is not a big field lol, it is quite simple.   

It does not take a genius to know that things change of a result of time.   It does not take a genius to investigate what time actually is .   
Time is probably the easiest part of physics to learn.   

[scherado]

Once again apologies for not making that clearer. Just wondering therefore if you have another way of approaching the time-singularity issue? It’s a hard one given the Planck-scale space-time singularity dogma.

.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I can assure you that any and all of the things with which you expressed agreement are based upon the one-and-only conception of 'Time' I accept, which is based upon one-and-only-one observation of our conception of it, that it is a physical process; that 'Time' does not exist, or--possibly better, is not relevant, without Matter in motion, or Matter that is not inert. The physical process may be the one employed in the "atomic clock" or Earth revolving around Sun.

[guest39538]

You give them an answer and they ignore it lol. 

.
I am NOT ignoring anything, I am in the middle of composing my reply, which is near completion. While I'm doing that, I will determine whether this forum has an "ignore" or "block" feature.

Do not like constructive criticism?    You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity  ignoring the moderators content of his post. 

[guest39538]

Time is matter, a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.

Matter is the time in space-time.

[scherado]

Do not like constructive criticism?    You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity  ignoring the moderators content of his post. 

.
Do not read (comprehend) well? I've told you what I am doing with respect to replies. There is no there to your therefore, therefore, you are incorrect. I will now reveal another part of my plan:I am going to post a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread in the next few hours; it was intended for the "main" post, but I am, now, responding to gratuitous criticism. You can put that into your pipe and get good use out if it.

[scherado]

a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread

.
This quote is offered for reasons obvious--a reckless conclusion, yes.

Carl C. Jung, from The Undiscovered Self, 1957, 1958, translated and revised by R.F.C. Hull, pages 31:
.

............................................................... society has
an indisputable right to protect itelf against arrant subjectiv-
ism, but, in so far as society is itself composed of de-individual-
ized human beings, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless
individualists. Let it band together into groups and organiza-
tions as much as it likes--it is just this banding together and the
resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it
succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros together
do not, unfortunately add up to one. ...

(Bold is mine.)

[guest39538]

Do not like constructive criticism?    You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity  ignoring the moderators content of his post. 

.
Do not read (comprehend) well? I've told you what I am doing with respect to replies. There is no there to your therefore, therefore, you are incorrect. I will now reveal another part of my plan:I am going to post a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread in the next few hours; it was intended for the "main" post, but I am, now, responding to gratuitous criticism. You can put that into your pipe and get good use out if it.

Your question of does time exist had been answered , seems to be the point you have completely ignored.   Time exists is the answer. 

[opportunity]

For every point in space as we perceive it, time is shape of change. How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time? Where's a start point of time and an end point to qualify that? Sounds stupid, but its not. Can we assume our ability to recall things? Its like we are wired with temporal certainty of analysis.

[guest39538]

For every point in space as we perceive it, time is shape of change. How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time? Where's a start point of time and an end point to qualify that? Sounds stupid, but its not. Can we assume our ability to recall things?

Every point in space is timeless and without time, it is absolute and arbitrary.    Time begins at a point in space when the point space gains dimensions and mass.    Time begins for you from moment you are conceived, relative to you, when you are dead and decayed , time stops.

[Colin2B]

How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time?

Well, I’ve always thought we must be moving backward through time. Consider a train, you are on a backwards facing seat, you can see where you are and where you’ve been, but not where you are going. 

[opportunity]

For every point in space as we perceive it, time is shape of change. How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time? Where's a start point of time and an end point to qualify that? Sounds stupid, but its not. Can we assume our ability to recall things?

Every point in space is timeless and without time, it is absolute and arbitrary.    Time begins at a point in space when the point space gains dimensions and mass.    Time begins for you from moment you are conceived, relative to you, when you are dead and decayed , time stops.

I agree. I think what I was presenting was a case for how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.

[Colin2B]

how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.

Intersting idea, but does it have to be all quantum scale?
Einstien used energy/mometum to modify spacetime such that increase in mass/energy slows time processes, (but does not offer a causation) so that should be part of the before after equation. The problem is what other elements - variable and constant - would you consider for your algorithm.

[guest39538]

For every point in space as we perceive it, time is shape of change. How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time? Where's a start point of time and an end point to qualify that? Sounds stupid, but its not. Can we assume our ability to recall things?

Every point in space is timeless and without time, it is absolute and arbitrary.    Time begins at a point in space when the point space gains dimensions and mass.    Time begins for you from moment you are conceived, relative to you, when you are dead and decayed , time stops.

I agree. I think what I was presenting was a case for how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.

Mathematically,  0+0=1 =  ←0    This defines two zero points adjoined and represent the direction.  A bit abstract at this time, I am working on learning linear algebra to perfect the maths I already have abstracted. 

Maybe the abstract  can be viewed as being real numbers. 0 being a point space, and you can't displace point space without immediately creating a vector length . 


Newton believed in absolute time could only be explained in math.

Δt = 0+0=1   is basic, but I am sure that is absolute .

And I am pretty sure that relativistic time can be expressed

ΔS=Δt    where entropy S , the many ways a system can change,  dictates the amount of time an object has .

Look at it this way, imagine travelling towards the Sun, your life expectancy will start to drop considerably, the obvious reason that you will burn up the closer you get and the denser the field. 

So your clock is speeding up considerably and we can truly state that a change in your entropy is the cause of your change in time.   

added - we can abstract the universe like this


0.........................Δt...........................0


Δt representing the physical time object in an empty vector space or matrix.

In Matrix abstract form

00000000
00000000
000Δt000
00000000
00000000