Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Time is atomic. It has indivisible instances, and there thus if you could observe time from an outside frame of reference, you could watch it flick over it frames. We can't because we are subject to time.

[Hubris Incalculable]

you know, on careful consideration, the only reason i'd use a teleporter (unless it was a true matter-relocator [eg star-trek], rather than duplicator/destroyer [as discussed here]) would be either in the direst of emergencies, or disable the destruction of destruct of subject A (me) and have a twin brother.

[Max White]

I would use it to get around on a regular basis.

[Tarran]

Well, because time can only be subdivided so far, which happens to also be the reason zeno's paradox isn't actually the case, there is an instant where you exist, another instant where you exist, and nothing in between. Thus, your existence isn't continuous.

Hm, interesting. You may have a point there.

Though it then brings into question, what do we consider the word "continuous" to mean? And do those moments where we do not exist even matter to anything at all? Is there not a significant difference between a Planck time and, say, five seconds of travel at the speed of light?

Time is atomic. It has indivisible instances, and there thus if you could observe time from an outside frame of reference, you could watch it flick over it frames. We can't because we are subject to time.

Just curious, are you arguing against Eagle_eye saying that there's instances where we don't exist? Or are you arguing against something else? I just want to clarify.

[Max White]

We exist in all instances. There is a laps between instances where we do not exist. Those lapses do not affect us in any way, on the basis that we don't exist for that theoretical time, time that isn't really there without a frame of reference.
It can not be measured in itself, mealy the parallax between our time and another time with a different framerate.

[3]

In the same way, I don't see any reason why there can't be "gaps" in actual time (as opposed to segments of non-time or whatever) but they're just too small for our senses to care. The brain is electrochemical and has a physical reaction time; again, the "frame rate" analogy fits.

[GlyphGryph]

But he's already said it doesn't matter if its instant - its the gap in space he cares about, not the gap in time.

[3]

...sorry, I'm not educated enough to understand the implications of that. Surely when you're dealing with something of fixed dimensions operating at a fixed rate time and space are going to be effectively the same thing?

[_DivideByZero_]

We exist in all instances. There is a laps between instances where we do not exist. Those lapses do not affect us in any way, on the basis that we don't exist for that theoretical time, time that isn't really there without a frame of reference.
It can not be measured in itself, mealy the parallax between our time and another time with a different framerate.

Waitwaitwait.

So if the planck time is the smallest measurable time length, then how do you measure the time between planck intervals? How do you know there are lapses if time happens in intervals?

There is no evidence to suggest there is a time between times...

[MaximumZero]

Would time still exist if there were no one to observe it? What if it's just a construct of us trying to rationalize us being able to observe things, and time doesn't actually exist?

[Max White]

Waitwaitwait.

So if the planck time is the smallest measurable time length, then how do you measure the time between planck intervals? How do you know there are lapses if time happens in intervals?

There is no evidence to suggest there is a time between times...

The idea is that if you are moving in a constant direction at a constant speed then in given time you will move X distance. In t/2 you will have travelled X/2, in t/4 you will have travelled x/4. One can assume there is a constant relationship, however, it gets to a point where if your constant over t is greater than a value, there is no observed change in X. As such, that minimal time required to observe a change in displacement can be assumed to be the minimum change in time.

[_DivideByZero_]

You did not answer my question.
If time cannot be measured past planck time, then how do you conclude that there is a lapse between "time intervals?" If the planck unit for time is the smallest possible unit, it is impossible to conclude that in between the smallest possible unit, there exists an amount of time in between the smallest amount of time.

[Max White]

We can't make the assumption that there is or is not a gap between time frames, only that it would be observable from an outside frame of reference.
You have to remember, it would be relative to who ever is observing it. Somebody might measure the time between frames to be very small, while others might measure it spanning years.

[_DivideByZero_]

We can't make the assumption that there is or is not a gap between time frames, only that it would be observable from an outside frame of reference.
You have to remember, it would be relative to who ever is observing it. Somebody might measure the time between frames to be very small, while others might measure it spanning years.

You were claiming that there was a lapse between time slices. Your statement here contradicts your previous posts.

[Eagle_eye]

We can't make the assumption that there is or is not a gap between time frames, only that it would be observable from an outside frame of reference.
You have to remember, it would be relative to who ever is observing it. Somebody might measure the time between frames to be very small, while others might measure it spanning years.

Well, the planck length is itself the smallest physically possible distance, and the planck time is the time it takes for light to cross that distance. For times smaller than the planck time to exist, light would have to be able to travel a partial planck length in that instant. If no distance can be smaller than the planck length, then no time can be smaller than the planck time, so there can't be time between planck times.