A
avflf
Guest
Accepted. Your “theory proves facts” by itself led to the misunderstanding.
- Status
A
AlbertBall
Guest
My apologies, i should have been more clear
.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I think I have another argument against infinite (eternal) time.
Suppose that we have a particular object that is to move a certain distance, say 6 m. Let us begin with the idea that it takes the object 1 s to move these 6 m. That would mean that its speed is 6 m/s. Let us suppose next that it takes the object 2 s to move these 6 m; the speed is then 3 m/s. Again, let us suppose that the object moves the total distance in 3 s; the speed would then be 2 m/s. The point is that as the total time required to move a particular distance increases, the speed decreases. The total time will increase, but the speed will never actually reach 0, it will only approach it, unless you use an idealistic quantity such as infinity, which is the largest quantity in math. When the object moves 6 m in infinite time the speed would be theoretically 0 m/s. Without speed there would be no movement.
Therefore, based on physics and what we know about it, there cannot be infinite time because nothing would ever move. I find it amazing St. Thomas Aquinas knew this despite the fact that he lived several centuries before Sir Isaac Newton.
Suppose that we have a particular object that is to move a certain distance, say 6 m. Let us begin with the idea that it takes the object 1 s to move these 6 m. That would mean that its speed is 6 m/s. Let us suppose next that it takes the object 2 s to move these 6 m; the speed is then 3 m/s. Again, let us suppose that the object moves the total distance in 3 s; the speed would then be 2 m/s. The point is that as the total time required to move a particular distance increases, the speed decreases. The total time will increase, but the speed will never actually reach 0, it will only approach it, unless you use an idealistic quantity such as infinity, which is the largest quantity in math. When the object moves 6 m in infinite time the speed would be theoretically 0 m/s. Without speed there would be no movement.
Therefore, based on physics and what we know about it, there cannot be infinite time because nothing would ever move. I find it amazing St. Thomas Aquinas knew this despite the fact that he lived several centuries before Sir Isaac Newton.
L
Leela
Guest
Okay, so this object doesn’t move. Why is that a problem? Is it a postulate in your argument that all objects must have a speed greater than 0?
Here’s one for you. A dude named Zeno wants to walk 6m, but before beginning he thinks to himself that before he can go 6m he would need to go halfway there to 3m, and before he could do that he would need to go halfway to 3m or 1.5 and before he could do that…
Well poor Zeno was just frozen there for all eternity because he realized that all motion is impossible because this pattern of thought can continue indefinitely. He could not do an infinite number of “half ways” in a finite amount of time so there was no way that he could walk that 6m. Zeno then realized that since he can actually walk 6m that there must actually be an infinite amount of time!
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I would argue that this scenario does not prove the point that you intended it to prove. While I was arguing that as the time required to move a certain distance increases speed decreases, you are arguing that distance can be halved infinitely. I don’t disagree. However you did not prove that movement can occur in an infinite amount of time. In order for Zeno to move the 6 m, he would have to do so in a certain amount of time regardless of whatever time in the future he chose to do it. The point being that without a starting point in time, he would not move anywhere. He has to first start moving which is when his time of covering the 6 m would begin.
I know that this is very small compared to the universe as a whole. But I hold that if in small matters, movement cannot occur in infinite time, then even in large matters movement in infinite time cannot occur. Everything that moves does so at a certain speed. Movement is how time is determined. Movement without speed is physical impossible and something that moves in an infinite amount of time has a speed of zero or nothing.
I think in your scenario, like James S Saint, you are confusing two types of eternity. There is an eternity that has a beginning, but is endless and there is an eternity that has not beginning or end. Zeno’s thought would qualify as the former because in order for him to have a succession of thoughts he would have had to have a first thought.
A
avflf
Guest
Even if the object was stationary it still existed and from the moment this object came into existence time started ticking so, regardless if it moved or not or if it was there from eternity time was present.
S
sidbrown
Guest
While distance may be halved indefinitely mathematically, there is a problem with doing this in the real world because of the Planck distance.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Planck actually has nothing to do with the paradox. It is merely a mind game. Quantum antics doesn’t really answer it any more than it was already answered.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Not true since according to QM, there is not a distance smaller than the Planck distance.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
And can you defend their claim? I’m not interested in your mime.
S
sidbrown
Guest
At the scale of the Planck length, the concepts of size and distance break down because of quantum indeterminacy. Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object would create a particle massive enough to immediately become a black hole which would swallow up the photon. Please see:
Event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole: Magnifying glass for Planck length physics prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v59/i12/e124012
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Do you understand what you just said?
All they were saying is that they cannot OBSERVE anything so small due to the size of a photon being used to measure it. If one particle is too close to another, we cannot SEE the space between. But those particles could easily be shifted an infinitude over. We still could not measure the distance between them, but they occupy a new location that is only an infinitely small distance from where they were.
Or are you one of those who believe that if we have no instruments that can observe something, then that something doesn’t exist (QM and Secular Scientism loves such people)?
A
avflf
Guest
I don’t know about you but I find it difficult to accept findings based on something not provable such as Plank’s length that introduces a “constant” considering that “a physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time” (Wiki) Belief is not very scientific. It is more appropriate to religious/faith-related ideas.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
If an object does not exist always then it cannot move in an infinite amount of time. Therefore, in the scenario given the assumption is that the object always existed. My point was that if time were eternal (which is an oxymoron because that would mean that time is timeless) everything would be stationary. Nothing would ever move. And therefore there would be no time at all.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I think your definitions must be different than ours.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
How exactly?I think your definitions must be different than ours.
A
avflf
Guest
Space-time is related to movement, time itself is not. Time exists when something else exists, be it God, the uniserse, a rock, an atom or a photon, although the concept of time is meaningless to an inanimate object.
L
Leela
Guest
I agree. I was being satirical. I don’t think that these sorts of arguments get us anywhere.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Oh, I didn’t know. LOL. When you say that these arguments get us nowhere perhaps you are on to something.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I don’t know enough about space-time continuum to make a definitive answer. But if I hold correctly, time itself is a part of the space-time continuum itself being the 4th dimension, space being the previous 3.
- Status