How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Would it be possible for space to exist
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Would it be possible for space to exist without time?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Robin Goodfellow
Junior Member
since 06-29-99
Posts 26


0 posted 08-04-2001 10:44 PM       View Profile for Robin Goodfellow   Email Robin Goodfellow   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Robin Goodfellow

Basically all things in motion exist in a space, so the corrolary would be that space can't exist without motion occurring within it. But can motion occur without time? I mean any moving object must have a set time it reaches a point in that space, and a set time it passes through that point. Without time would that object exist in all points of the space?
Any chance this is already a theory that I'll eventually cover in college? =o)
dastard
Member
since 07-14-2001
Posts 369
in tearing silence


1 posted 08-05-2001 03:35 PM       View Profile for dastard   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for dastard

Time is at all the way imaginary. It's just a thing humans thought up to orientate themselves because time [as it is the 4th dimension] is something WE can only move along in one direction. So [for me] time is basically just one more lie to let us understand "our" world with our so limited minds.
I don't think this will help you at all, but I don't care.

"Only two things are infinite; the universe and humans' stupidity, but I'm not sure yet about the universe." ~Albert Einstein

catalinamoon
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 06-03-2000
Posts 9897
The Shores of Alone


2 posted 08-05-2001 06:23 PM       View Profile for catalinamoon   Email catalinamoon   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit catalinamoon's Home Page   View IP for catalinamoon

Damn, I have no idea! And I rarely come over to this forum, but your name caught my eye. Robin Goodfellow, too cool!
Time is a mystery to me, I vary in thinking it is not even real, to debating if it is a form of insanity.
Never mind..
Sandra
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


3 posted 08-05-2001 07:59 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I don't really understand the question. I've heard it before but the only coherent explanation seems to be something like the many universes theory. Is that what you're getting at?  

Are you arguing for an Aristotelian version of time? That is, something that is outside of space and that all action and motion obey? In a sense, then, no, there is no such thing as time (Einstein's relativity and God are good counter-examples). If, however, you see the first and second dimensions in space as perfectly real or as dastardly points out necessary for human understanding, then I would say time is real.

I've always thought it was harder to grasp that there is no time without space than that there is no space without time.

Or are you arguing that abstractions aren't real? Perhaps not, but I fail to see why that is important or a lie. If they work, why not use them?

Why is being real important?

Brad
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


4 posted 08-06-2001 10:52 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

The statement, "all things in motion exist in a space," to be true requires that space exist in order for motion to exist. There is nothing, however, which even suggests that motion must exist for space to exist. But I don't think that is the important part of your question anyway.

Time, in the abstract sense, is as real as any physical phenomenon can be. The ways in which we describe or quantify time are human manufactured tools which have no real meaning outside that realm. The way we define motion is by quantifying the location of an object at varying times. So, technically then, motion could not exist if time did not exist. But given that motion does exist, we would have no way of describing or even comprehending motion if we didn't have some means of quantifying time.

But in a larger sense, what could exist if there was no time? Motion is not the only thing which would cease. It required motion and time for us to type this stuff. But it also required a piece of time, in the abstract as well as the real sense, for us to think of it too. Thus not only motion but even thought happens over a slice of time. I think probably nothing could exist if there was no time, certainly nothing we could comprehend because even comprehending takes time.



Pete

Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr

[This message has been edited by Not A Poet (edited 08-06-2001).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


5 posted 08-07-2001 11:21 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Brad has already hinted at the answer here but I'll take it a step further and ask you the question;

"Can two dimensional space exist without a third dimension?"
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


6 posted 08-07-2001 06:04 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Basically all things in motion exist in a space, so the corrolary would be that space can't exist without motion occurring within it.

Uh? I don't see any logical reason for one to follow the other. You could just as easily say "All coffee exists in space, so the corollary would be that space can't exist without coffee." I certainly can't exist without coffee, but I suspect space would do just fine.  

quote:
But can motion occur without time? I mean any moving object must have a set time it reaches a point in that space, and a set time it passes through that point.

I guess that depends on your notion of motion. Let's say we have points A, B, and C all lined up in a neat little row. Those three points are the only three in our entire Universe. If I am standing at A and then instantly appear at C, does that fit your definition of motion? Did I "move" from A to C? Did I necessarily "move through" B to get there? According to Quantum Theory, these kinds of goings on are going on constantly, giving us the term Quantum Leap long before television warped the real meaning. It's fairly clear that time is not a factor, as the transitions from one point to another are instant. It is far less clear whether space is a factor (or whether it is, instead, ignored).

There certainly exists a clear and definite correlation between motion and time, but what you've described is only a limited geometrical view. At relativistic speeds, time slows down to a crawl. A radioactive particle traveling at the speed of light (were that possible) would have a half-life of eternity.

Your question pitting motion against space, in a sense, falls within the scope of a much larger question. Can space exist without something to occupy it? Mathematically, it seems possible that our Universe has an "edge," a place where it stops and something else (or nothing else) begins. Since mass and motion are both just different aspects of the same thing - energy - we can perhaps rephrase the question. Can energy and space exist separately, one without the other? In at least one theoretical instances, the answer seems to be a qualified yes.

The Big Bang theory postulates an explosion (for lack of a better term) that flung monstrous quantities of mass and energy from a central point, thus signaling the formation of our Universe. Prior to the Big Bang there existed neither space nor time (making the phrase "prior to" completely meaningless). If the Big Bang was an exploding singularity, however, it was likely an infinitely dense concentration of energy - which apparently existed apart from space.

That's my long answer. The short answer is much, much easier.

Time is just another word for entropy.
Allan Riverwood
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-04-2001
Posts 4212
Winnipeg


7 posted 08-10-2001 01:08 PM       View Profile for Allan Riverwood   Email Allan Riverwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Allan Riverwood


No, I don't think motion could exist without time.  How could it?  Something would have to be in one place, because there would only be one set time.  Otherwise, if it were to move, that would mean that one moment it was one place, and the next moment it was another place.  Without time there would only BE ONE moment.  Motion wouldn't be able to exist.
Therefore I don't think that even matter could exist without time.  Isn't the atom composed of particles that are constantly in motion?

Blood Moon
Host: lark.crodo.com
Port: 1313

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


8 posted 08-13-2001 12:58 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Leave it to me to insert a theological viewpoint... But why the preoccupation with mere possiblities?  From my viewpoint space and time are different constituents of one unity... different aspects of one whole.  Just as spark-plugs have no or little significance apart from the working of an entire engine, space dichotomized from time or vice versa has no meaning to me.  And I know that one may hold similar viewpoints as this quite apart from a belief in an all powerful and authoritative creator...but the reason why I think such speculation always leads to absurdities is simply because God made space and time to exist together and as far as we know from experience they do not exist in any other fashion.  On the other hand I am a lover of speculation as it stretches our thoughts, and it's fun sometimes.  But like Brad mentioned we must always return to the pragmatic.

Just some thoughts,

Stephen.
Tony Di Bart
Member
since 01-26-2000
Posts 163
Toronto, Canada


9 posted 08-28-2001 09:25 PM       View Profile for Tony Di Bart   Email Tony Di Bart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tony Di Bart

I could not resist.  I have not been in here for so long and I am presented with this gem.  

Can space exist without time?

It depends at how we look at it.  From a physics standpoint time is what it takes an object to travel from a to b.  If there is no space then there can be no time.  But can there be space without time?  Well if space is defined by matter; that is , our ability to define space is dependent on our observation of matter, then our observation of time is dependent on matter. Outside the edge of the universe we do not have space, because there is no matter.  But does time exist outside the universe? We do not know  it may?

I do not think that any of us can answer this.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Would it be possible for space to exist Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors