Thursday, February 19, 2009

Hundredth post: On Time

I'll guess this is a fitting topic for the hundredth post for this blog, started on 20080831.

Any measure of time is erroneous, I believe. Even if the scientific definition of time is satisfied, what of the OTHER viewpoints? A fellow blogger, Katry, says this. She has the viewpoint that time is flexible and depends on the viewer's age, as to how fast it passes.

I have to wonder if time passes at all. Yes, subjective time passes. We experience an aging that starts at birth and ends with death. But the moments before an impact, while the vehicle is sliding down the wet pavement, headed for an assignation with another vehicle, can stretch for what seem whole lifetimes. Adrenaline flows, shifting our minds and bodies into high gear. But all those words that we use don't seem to be talking about the same thing, do they?

Is time:
dragging or flying or exploding or ratcheting or smoothly flowing or flashing or stopped or fleeting or not?

The next time you think of it as concrete and discrete, think of this post and ask yourself whether or not you just might be mistaken or viewing it from the OTHER perspective in just that moment.



  1. If time* is merely a name given to the sequential passing of events isn't the speed at which ordinary time passes always relative to the observer's situation?

    *Ordinary Euclidian time

  2. @ Radiodayz

    Yep. Stare directly into the image of a clock dial at the top of this post and repeat after me...