How long is a moment of time, and how small is an instant?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Science shows us how to measure seconds, minutes and hours... But how can we measure the length of a moment and the shortness of an instant?

[Wudang]

They're subjective.

[drkitten]

Science shows us how to measure seconds, minutes and hours... But how can we measure the length of a moment and the shortness of an instant?

A moment is exactly half the length of a piece of string.

[brodski]

You're missing the realy BIG questions here.How many beans make 5? And why dosn't the government want you to know the answer?!?

[The Observer]

I think a moment in time is used in which a single measurement is taken, without taking the trouble of calculating an average over the passed time.

[Diamond]

A moment is two shakes of a lamb's tail. There are sixty-seven instants in a moment, but only thirty-eight in a flash.

[Melendwyr]

Planck's Time and Planck's Length.

Next question.

[JLam]

A moment is two shakes of a lamb's tail. There are sixty-seven instants in a moment, but only thirty-eight in a flash. I beg to differ, Diamond. You may be the founder of the SkepticWiki, but you clearly have no understanding of the intricacies of these minute fractions of time.

Two shakes of a lamb's tail isn't a valid measure of time, because quantum theory proves that all relativistic anthromorphic time measurements are, in cogito ergo, unfalsifiable, and therefore beyond the scope of any postmodernist discussion. Duh.

A moment consists of the time it takes for a quark to become anti-matter...namely 3 nanoseconds. But it's important to remember that nanoseconds are only valid in a universe where unified field theory has been accepted and tested by those who study it. That has yet to be determined in this case, so any discussion of a real moment versus a theoretical "moment" needs to take this into account.

A flash is a different matter altogether. A flash is easily measured with a stopwatch. Any four-year-old knows this. Post hoc, ergo ad hoc...or something like that.

I hope that cleared things up for you. This is a very important discussion, and it's good that we're discussing it here. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam and whatnot.

Good day.

[Psiload]

Science shows us how to measure seconds, minutes and hours... But how can we measure the length of a moment and the shortness of an instant?
By using the Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-meter(tm)!

That's right! Now the removal of unsightly back hair is no longer at the mercy of your spouse or neighbor's work schedule! Personal grooming can be done in an instant with the Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meter(tm)! You'll also have dinner on the table in a matter of mere moments, because the Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meter(tm) also slices, dices, and makes delicious julienne fries! Whatever the hell they are!

Act now and we'll rush you your very own Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meter(tm) for the low, low price of only $19.99!!! And that's not all! We'll also include a set of Ginsu knives FREE with every purchase!

Supplies are limited! Limit 25 Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meters(tm) per household!

Operators are standing by! Act now!

[uruk]

Moments and instances are relative to wether the moment or instance is spent on a hot stove or in the company of a beautiful woman (or handsome man if that's your thing).

[epepke]

Science shows us how to measure seconds, minutes and hours... But how can we measure the length of a moment and the shortness of an instant?

A long time ago I read a claim that during Elizabethan times, the word "moment" was used to describe a period of half a minute. Dunno if it's true.

[brodski]

I beg to differ, Diamond. You may be the founder of the SkepticWiki, but you clearly have no understanding of the intricacies of these minute fractions of time.

Two shakes of a lamb's tail isn't a valid measure of time, because quantum theory proves that all relativistic anthromorphic time measurements are, in cogito ergo, unfalsifiable, and therefore beyond the scope of any postmodernist discussion. Duh.

A moment consists of the time it takes for a quark to become anti-matter...namely 3 nanoseconds. But it's important to remember that nanoseconds are only valid in a universe where unified field theory has been accepted and tested by those who study it. That has yet to be determined in this case, so any discussion of a real moment versus a theoretical "moment" needs to take this into account.

A flash is a different matter altogether. A flash is easily measured with a stopwatch. Any four-year-old knows this. Post hoc, ergo ad hoc...or something like that.

I hope that cleared things up for you. This is a very important discussion, and it's good that we're discussing it here. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam and whatnot.

Good day.

yeah but how soon is now?

[JLam]

yeah but how soon is now? You're missing the point. "Now" is a subjective, relativistic underpinning of postmodernism's depiction of man's inhumanity to man. In order to fully appreciate this, one needs to know the underlying quanta that define it. Without that information, one is left twirling in the weeds without a paddle, if I may be permitted to mix metaphors.

[brodski]

Without that information, one is left twirling in the weeds without a paddle, if I may be permitted to mix metaphors.

Mixing metaphors is tolerated, but i think we should ban all future immigration from Metophoreia until full assimilation is assured.

[Z]

But... what time is love?

[brodski]

But... what time is love?

3 AM Eternal?

[JLam]

None of you have any idea what you are talking about.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TIME-SHIFTING REALIZATION PARADIGM!!

Don't you get it?

[BeholdTheTruth]

From the Puzzle Section... Originally Posted by HighRiser View Original:
Whatever point you're trying to make is still unclear to me, sorry.

The etymology link was not helpful. I know the definitions of the words 'moment' and 'instant' already and these word's histories don't seem significant.

The next statement seems self-defeating.

Umm... Different constancies? Doubletalk, I say.

Please move this thread and the releated one in science over to philosophy. Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Double talk you say. Well I say not at all. E.g., consider this circumstance: during some moment 1 a body in motion is moving at a constant speed 1a in a constant direction 1b, and at some other successive moment 2, that body is moving at a constant speed 2a in a constant direction 2b. If you do not fathom the role of changes in constancies caused by some external influence as that body changes its momentum (is going from 1a and 1b and coming towards 2a and 2b), it is not because my statements are double-talk, it is because you are not capable of grasping. let alone wrestling with and prevailing over this very funda-mental kind of seminal Newtonian puzzle.

I was hoping that someone here could, but that now does not seem likely. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time. I'm getting back to launching my Horuscope clock and watch timewholes. Good buy and God luck. :-)

[JLam]

From the Puzzle Section... Originally Posted by HighRiser View Original:
Whatever point you're trying to make is still unclear to me, sorry.

The etymology link was not helpful. I know the definitions of the words 'moment' and 'instant' already and these word's histories don't seem significant.

The next statement seems self-defeating.

Umm... Different constancies? Doubletalk, I say.

Please move this thread and the releated one in science over to philosophy. Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Double talk you say. Well I say not at all. E.g., consider this circumstance: during some moment 1 a body in motion is moving at a constant speed 1a in a constant direction 1b, and at some other successive moment 2, that body is moving at a constant speed 2a in a constant direction 2b. If you do not fathom the role of changes in constancies caused by some external influence as that body changes its momentum (is going from 1a and 1b and coming towards 2a and 2b), it is not because my statements are double-talk, it is because you are not capable of grasping. let alone wrestling with and prevailing over this very funda-mental kind of seminal Newtonian puzzle.

I was hoping that someone here could, but that now does not seem likely. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time. I'm getting back to launching my Horuscope clock and watch timewholes. Good buy and God luck. :-) Oh. I get it now. It seems I misunderstood.

And God luck with the timewholes, kind gentleman. God luck, indeed.

[Lynx2174]

4 Day Cube disproves 1 Day God.

1-Midday to midday = a 24 hour day rotation.
2-Sundown to sundown = a 24 hour day rotation.
3-Midnight to midnight = a 24 hour day rotation.
4-Sunup to sunup = a 24 hour day rotation.

you all are educated stupid.


Is this not the obious thing?!

[69dodge]

consider this circumstance: during some moment 1 a body in motion is moving at a constant speed 1a in a constant direction 1b, and at some other successive moment 2, that body is moving at a constant speed 2a in a constant direction 2b.You say "during moment 1", but "at [...] moment 2". So I can't figure out whether you mean by "moment" a point in time or an interval of time. (Points have zero length; intervals have positive length.)

Is a moment something like "12 January 2006, at exactly 06:57 and pi seconds"? Or is it something like "the half-second interval of time between 06:57:03.0 and 06:57:03.5, on 12 January 2006"?

It makes sense to say that the speed of an object is constant over an interval of time. But it doesn't make sense to say that its speed is constant at a point in time. At each point in time, its speed is what it is. If its speed is different at different points in time, then its speed is not constant, by definition of "constant".

[a_unique_person]

OK, thanks for the humour, but the question is still a good one. Is time measured in quantum units?

[moopet]

If I remember, in medieval times a "moment" was either 8 seconds or 8 minutes (well, I don't remember EXACTly :)

Can't remember where I learnt that, and can't find any reference to it with a brief google though.

[Wudang]

OK, thanks for the humour, but the question is still a good one. Is time measured in quantum units?

As I recall, time may be quantized but if we are talking about such then can we reasonably discuss velocity? Hmm, Heisenberg would definitely say we couldn't discuss temperature. Would a quantized time period imply absolute position therefore zero knowledge of velocity?

[GrnMtSkeptic]

A moment is two shakes of a lamb's tail.

Interesting. When I was growing up (Oklahoma and Missouri in the late '50s early '60s) the phrasing I always heard was two shakes of a dead lamb's tail. Is the difference one of region or do we have a kinder, gentler phrasing these days?

[kedo1981]

You are all wrong!
What science has shown us is how to divide up the motion of our planet in space into very precise symbolic intervals, hours, minutes, seconds, and the cycles of a cesium atom.
I would be surprised if time has any reality above the quantum level.
Instants and moments are just symbolic, just like days and months and eons.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

By using the Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-meter(tm)!

That's right! Now the removal of unsightly back hair is no longer at the mercy of your spouse or neighbor's work schedule! Personal grooming can be done in an instant with the Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meter(tm)! You'll also have dinner on the table in a matter of mere moments, because the Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meter(tm) also slices, dices, and makes delicious julienne fries! Whatever the hell they are!

Act now and we'll rush you your very own Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meter(tm) for the low, low price of only $19.99!!! And that's not all! We'll also include a set of Ginsu knives FREE with every purchase!

Supplies are limited! Limit 25 Ronco Horuscope "timewholes"-O-Meters(tm) per household!

Operators are standing by! Act now!
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. I feel like every one of Jackel's posts are a sales pitch for his clocks and watches.

[dogjones]

All the posts in this thread, including this one, are completely misleading; this is because they are written using this thing called language, which is inherently vague, as illustrated by the Sorites Paradox (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/). Our language is vague because all our senses (including artificial sensors such as microscopes etc) are necessarily limited, thanks to infinite divisibility (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm). As well as this, our logic systems are either incomplete or inconsistent (http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hirzel/papers/canon00-goedel.pdf), and, worst of all, the world is a pretty sucky place to consider these things. (http://www.online-literature.com/voltaire/candide/)

So, to combat all this ghastliness, I have decided to become a waiter.
http://obsessed.expage.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mol7.jpg

Goodbye.

[EatatJoes]

A moment is how long it takes me to figure out what my cat wants. An instant is the amount of time it takes my husband jump into bed when I tell him I'm in the mood.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Not every thread.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. I feel like every one of Jackel's posts are a sales pitch for his clocks and watches.

[RandFan]

Dark Helmet: What the Hell am I looking at?! When does this happen in the movie?!
Col. Sandurz: Now! You're looking at "now," sir. Everything that happens now is happening "now."
Dark Helmet: What happened to "then?"
Col. Sandurz: We passed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Col. Sandurz: Just now. We're at now "now."
Dark Helmet: Go back to "then."
Col. Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Col. Sandurz: Now?!
Dark Helmet: Now!
Col. Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Col. Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Col. Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will "then" be "now?"
Col. Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?

--Spaceballs

[Meffy]

A Moment In Time usually takes one minute fifty-two seconds or a bit less.

http://amomentintime.com/clips.asp

It's recorded by Dan Roberts of the University of Richmond, broadcast by my local National Public Radio affiliate and other NPR stations. Cherish Dan's preachiness along with me.

[Meffy]

The chelek is one eighteenth of a minute. There are 1080 chalakim in an hour.

The jiffy is variously defined as 1/50 sec, 1/60 sec, 1/100 sec, or about 33.35 picoseconds.

Instant oatmeal takes a few minutes to make.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

A moment is all it takes me to find the wrong lead. That instant, the contract becomes unbeatable.

[CapelDodger]

yeah but how soon is now?
Too bloody soon, I wasn't ready.

[Aepervius]

OK, thanks for the humour, but the question is still a good one. Is time measured in quantum units?

It is "measured" in USI, although after that you can use it as a constant unit "planck time" (noted below as tp).
Planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time). Funny things is by rearangering the various constant you can also get other nice constant beside planck time.
scroll down for planck mass, charge, temperature, length, time, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units)

PS: the nice usage for those is to make unit independant equation. Scroll gain down in plank units article.

[trvlr2]

A moment is 1.5 minutes.

http://www.unc.edu/%7Erowlett/units/dictM.html

Further divided into ounces!:D