|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Keeper of the new
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A place without judgment
Posts: 4,506
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Movement through space is inversely proportional to movement through time. I think of them as different mediums in which observable phenomena occur (or rather different perceptions of the same medium); we might say time and space are not phenomena themselves. But anyway, to remove one would just mean making our speed of movement through the other infinite - we could either stand still as Archimedes' fulcrum and watch the universe move around us at an apparent infinite speed, or freeze the universe in an apparent infinite moment and move freely inside it.
Both options seem like they'd get boring fast, ultimately reducing you to a powerless observer, but the first has some possibilities. I'm imagining without movement through space time would seem to pass in an instant, and that brings us to the question of how much time there is. If we assume time in the universe will eventually break down or change into something we don't recognize as time for some reason, be it an Aztec calender machine, heat death or some manner of spiritual rebirth or redesign, then moving through time at absolute speed would put us outside of time. Which probably means looking at all of spacetime from the outside. I can't imagine that'd be boring.
__________________
Hope insistent, trust implicit, love inherent, life immersed |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|