|
| Author | Topic: time space |
| s1 |
posted 4/17/04 2:13 AM
space = something and an emptiness within or beyond. It's important that they appear different. Now if you only have emptiness and no thing or things in it, then you have no space (you are not part of the picture in this idea). If you were to only have a thing, and no empty space within or beyond, then you have no thing. If you have a thing, and an emptiness withn or beyond, then you have both a thing and space(you are not part of the picture). They become simultameously. With only one thing in an emptiness, there is no motion(the thing has no discernable parts, ie: no rotation).One thing in space could never be(this is just an idea !). Many things at once are the way it is done. Time... Now with two things in an empty space (they are discernibly seperate), you have motion (things are never still ). Motion gives birth to time. Requires a repetition of movement returning to familiarity. A smaller thing chasing around a larger thing for example. Does time require an observer to exist? Does space and the things in it require an observer to exist? Does the observer exist? If he does is he independent of the above mentioned? An observer has a reference for time. He may see a particular event as slow. Can there be observers who see the same event as fast? Time travel - is it possible? Objects travel through space. Events (or motion) travel through time. What does time travel through? |
| r. ayana |
posted 4/22/07 3:22 AM
Great that you've approached the matter from the nub, the central point of existence itself! Times and spaces are intersecting dimensions. Motion doesn't give birth to time - it's chicken and egg, really. Will gives birth to all and your point that it takes two to tango is actually seminal. The infinite eye opens and what does it see if it's infinite? http://newilluminati.blog-city.com be enlightened |
|
|