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

BeholdTheTruth · 11th January 2006, 07:35 AM

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 · 11th January 2006, 07:39 AM

They're subjective.

drkitten · 11th January 2006, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Jackel

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 · 11th January 2006, 07:47 AM

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 · 11th January 2006, 09:50 AM

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 · 11th January 2006, 09:58 AM

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 · 11th January 2006, 10:01 AM

Planck's Time and Planck's Length.

Next question.

JLam · 11th January 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 11th January 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Jackel

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 · 11th January 2006, 01:01 PM

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 · 11th January 2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jackel

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 · 11th January 2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by JLam

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 · 11th January 2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

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 · 11th January 2006, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by JLam

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 · 11th January 2006, 04:48 PM

But... what time is love?

brodski · 11th January 2006, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

But... what time is love?

3 AM Eternal?

JLam · 11th January 2006, 06:03 PM

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 · 11th January 2006, 06:10 PM

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 · 11th January 2006, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Jackel

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 · 11th January 2006, 10:32 PM

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 · 12th January 2006, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Jackel

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 · 12th January 2006, 05:05 AM

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

moopet · 12th January 2006, 05:14 AM

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 · 12th January 2006, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

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 · 13th January 2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond

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 · 13th January 2006, 09:44 AM

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 · 13th January 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Psiload

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 · 13th January 2006, 02:47 PM

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. Our language is vague because all our senses (including artificial sensors such as microscopes etc) are necessarily limited, thanks to infinite divisibility. As well as this, our logic systems are either incomplete or inconsistent, and, worst of all, the world is a pretty sucky place to consider these things.

So, to combat all this ghastliness, I have decided to become a waiter.

Goodbye.

EatatJoes · 13th January 2006, 03:54 PM

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 · 17th June 2006, 01:56 PM

Not every thread.

Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine

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 · 17th June 2006, 02:21 PM

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 · 17th June 2006, 04:06 PM

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 · 17th June 2006, 04:33 PM

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 · 17th June 2006, 05:18 PM

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

CapelDodger · 17th June 2006, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

yeah but how soon is now?

Too bloody soon, I wasn't ready.

Aepervius · 18th June 2006, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

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. 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,

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

trvlr2 · 18th June 2006, 10:45 PM

A moment is 1.5 minutes.

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

Further divided into ounces!

11th January 2006, 07:35 AM	#1
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752	How long is a moment of time, and how small is an instant? 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?
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752

11th January 2006, 07:39 AM	#2
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 4,412	They're subjective.
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it.

11th January 2006, 07:47 AM	#4
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,789	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?!?
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

11th January 2006, 09:50 AM	#5
The Observer New Blood Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13	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.
The Observer New Blood Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13

11th January 2006, 09:58 AM	#6
Diamond SkepticWiki Founder Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 'Stralia Posts: 4,748	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.
	__________________ "The good thing about the Internet is that no matter how many repressed cretins with outmoded morals and religious fundamentalist idiots hate what you have to say, they cannot burn a website." -www.rinderpest.com

11th January 2006, 07:45 AM	#3
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Jackel 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.

11th January 2006, 10:01 AM	#7
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Planck's Time and Planck's Length. Next question.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	__________________ Arguing with the irrational is like giving medicine to a dead man or preaching to the damned. "Dance with us, GIR! Dance with us into oblivion!" "Oddly, stating that one has no creed assures that one has no creed." -- Upchurch "I am the only one here using reason." -- Interesting Ian "You cannot respond to the arguments of TIMECUBE!" -- TimeCube guy

11th January 2006, 10:24 AM	#8
JLam Proud Skepkid Parent Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Low and away Posts: 4,157	Originally Posted by 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. 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.
	__________________ Help take down Sylvia Browne. "what's dicksing? my dicksionary have no word for that" - Pillory

11th January 2006, 10:26 AM	#9
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	Originally Posted by Jackel 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!
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	__________________ You're not the boss of me.

11th January 2006, 01:01 PM	#10
uruk Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 4,381	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).
	__________________ Facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything that is even remotely true. Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand. Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me!?! Lisa!...In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! Alot of great things are based on lies, like religion and American history Homer Simpson

11th January 2006, 02:09 PM	#11
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,136	Originally Posted by Jackel 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.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,136	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora

11th January 2006, 04:01 PM	#12
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,789	Originally Posted by JLam 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?
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

11th January 2006, 04:11 PM	#13
JLam Proud Skepkid Parent Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Low and away Posts: 4,157	Originally Posted by brodski 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.
	__________________ Help take down Sylvia Browne. "what's dicksing? my dicksionary have no word for that" - Pillory

11th January 2006, 04:16 PM	#14
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,789	Originally Posted by JLam 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.
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

11th January 2006, 04:48 PM	#15
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	But... what time is love?
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

11th January 2006, 05:17 PM	#16
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,789	Originally Posted by zaayrdragon But... what time is love? 3 AM Eternal?
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

11th January 2006, 06:03 PM	#17
JLam Proud Skepkid Parent Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Low and away Posts: 4,157	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?
	__________________ Help take down Sylvia Browne. "what's dicksing? my dicksionary have no word for that" - Pillory

11th January 2006, 06:10 PM	#18
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752	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. :-)
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752

11th January 2006, 08:04 PM	#19
JLam Proud Skepkid Parent Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Low and away Posts: 4,157	Originally Posted by Jackel 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.
	__________________ Help take down Sylvia Browne. "what's dicksing? my dicksionary have no word for that" - Pillory

11th January 2006, 10:32 PM	#20
Lynx2174 Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Location: California Posts: 247	NATURE'S HARMONIC 4 day time cube! 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?!
	__________________ Fight apathy or dont. This isn't ****ing rocket surgery.

12th January 2006, 05:01 AM	#21
69dodge Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,109	Originally Posted by Jackel 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".
69dodge Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,109

12th January 2006, 05:05 AM	#22
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sitting in the ghostly glow of an LCD screen Posts: 27,434	OK, thanks for the humour, but the question is still a good one. Is time measured in quantum units?
	__________________ "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." SH Roberts " Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." Monbiot "I am not the fine man you take me for"

12th January 2006, 05:14 AM	#23
moopet binary decision maker Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 662	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.

12th January 2006, 07:21 AM	#24
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 4,412	Originally Posted by a_unique_person 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?
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it.

13th January 2006, 08:55 AM	#25
GrnMtSkeptic Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 220	Originally Posted by Diamond 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?
GrnMtSkeptic Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 220

13th January 2006, 09:44 AM	#26
kedo1981 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: ohio Posts: 1,181	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.
	__________________ "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21) Bart Simpson "You would think that living in a house full of crazy people whould be a lot of fun, but it's really kind of depressing"

13th January 2006, 10:26 AM	#27
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 863	Originally Posted by Psiload 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.
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

13th January 2006, 02:47 PM	#28
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	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. Our language is vague because all our senses (including artificial sensors such as microscopes etc) are necessarily limited, thanks to infinite divisibility. As well as this, our logic systems are either incomplete or inconsistent, and, worst of all, the world is a pretty sucky place to consider these things. So, to combat all this ghastliness, I have decided to become a waiter. Goodbye.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

13th January 2006, 03:54 PM	#29
EatatJoes Fundamental Atheist Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 144	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.
	__________________ "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield "The only consequence of truth is liberation" - Unknown

17th June 2006, 01:56 PM	#30
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752	Not every thread. Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine 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.
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752

17th June 2006, 02:21 PM	#31
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 31,778	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
	__________________ www.StopSylvia.com. Probability has absolutely nothing to do with statistics. --Southwind17

17th June 2006, 04:06 PM	#32
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	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.

17th June 2006, 04:33 PM	#33
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	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.

17th June 2006, 05:18 PM	#34
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 830	A moment is all it takes me to find the wrong lead. That instant, the contract becomes unbeatable.
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 830

17th June 2006, 06:26 PM	#35
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 14,137	Originally Posted by brodski yeah but how soon is now? Too bloody soon, I wasn't ready.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150