"It was 1996 when I wrote this stuff and published it to my website. The idea isn't original universally speaking though for me it is original."
Have you ever glanced at your watch and find out that the second hand is motionless for a while as though the clock is not working? You'd be surprised but as soon as the second hand ticks again you'll say that it is still working. There are things that happen in our present dimension that is not within our sanity. Perhaps one of the things these occurrences happen is time. Time has always been an enigma to almost every intellectual paragon on Earth. Perhaps, the best explanation of time comes from Albert Einstein when he stated that the speed of light would always be the same for all planes of existence. In his explanation of the reality of time relativity, he connected time with the speed of light as its basis. By moving faster approaching the speed of light, Einstein theorized that time slows down; by moving at the speed of light would virtually be timeless (though it is impossible!). Somehow, if we could travel faster than light computations show that time would move backwards. These are just few of the things that bugged Einstein. In this case, time would be dependent of light. I agree with this notion. But going back to the "second hand incident", I seem to notice that there is something that Einstein might have missed . Let me bring it out this way -time is dependent upon light; light its existence is a sensation of the mind; our mind works like a computer that can refuse any incoming datum. The datum in this point is light. Light in fact is matter but the mind is immaterial. Is there then a thing that connects these two? Perhaps, there is. This is time. Time is not material nor could it be classified immaterial belonging to the same category as our mind. For if they occur in the same plane one could control each other. Let us say that when the material plane interacts with the immaterial plane, a point of interaction occurs. This is where time lies We do not talk of time in a sense that we measure it in units like seconds, angstroms etc. let us view time as an everchanging phase - just like infinite number of photographs that picture every interaction of matter and unmatter. Can we still go back in the same photograph years ago? No. You can just record it in your mind but you can never retrieve it. This also explains why you can sometimes taste a "taste of ice cream" on your tongue everytime you think of the flavor of the month. There is no ice cream but why the taste? It simply shows that when your mind interacted with matter (in this sense the ice cream) and you found the taste, time has been the platform of such incident. Years later, the thought of that particular incident would give you a sweet tongue sensation. Then if that is so, how come the "second hand incident"? The incident happens when your mind at an instance stops interacting with matter. Time stands still and you find yourself in a photographic instance. I could tell more of what's inside my mind but perhaps time won't permit- and no, I did not stop interacting with matter. (1996)
Have you ever glanced at your watch and find out that the second hand is motionless for a while as though the clock is not working? You'd be surprised but as soon as the second hand ticks again you'll say that it is still working. There are things that happen in our present dimension that is not within our sanity. Perhaps one of the things these occurrences happen is time. Time has always been an enigma to almost every intellectual paragon on Earth. Perhaps, the best explanation of time comes from Albert Einstein when he stated that the speed of light would always be the same for all planes of existence. In his explanation of the reality of time relativity, he connected time with the speed of light as its basis. By moving faster approaching the speed of light, Einstein theorized that time slows down; by moving at the speed of light would virtually be timeless (though it is impossible!). Somehow, if we could travel faster than light computations show that time would move backwards. These are just few of the things that bugged Einstein. In this case, time would be dependent of light. I agree with this notion. But going back to the "second hand incident", I seem to notice that there is something that Einstein might have missed . Let me bring it out this way -time is dependent upon light; light its existence is a sensation of the mind; our mind works like a computer that can refuse any incoming datum. The datum in this point is light. Light in fact is matter but the mind is immaterial. Is there then a thing that connects these two? Perhaps, there is. This is time. Time is not material nor could it be classified immaterial belonging to the same category as our mind. For if they occur in the same plane one could control each other. Let us say that when the material plane interacts with the immaterial plane, a point of interaction occurs. This is where time lies We do not talk of time in a sense that we measure it in units like seconds, angstroms etc. let us view time as an everchanging phase - just like infinite number of photographs that picture every interaction of matter and unmatter. Can we still go back in the same photograph years ago? No. You can just record it in your mind but you can never retrieve it. This also explains why you can sometimes taste a "taste of ice cream" on your tongue everytime you think of the flavor of the month. There is no ice cream but why the taste? It simply shows that when your mind interacted with matter (in this sense the ice cream) and you found the taste, time has been the platform of such incident. Years later, the thought of that particular incident would give you a sweet tongue sensation. Then if that is so, how come the "second hand incident"? The incident happens when your mind at an instance stops interacting with matter. Time stands still and you find yourself in a photographic instance. I could tell more of what's inside my mind but perhaps time won't permit- and no, I did not stop interacting with matter. (1996)
Comments