Time Keeps on Slipping ...

Time is infinite. There was no Big Bang, no beginning; there always has been an exponentially growing universe. To trace the universe back to a point where, from a human perspective, the universe appears as a dot would not bring us to anything approaching a “beginning” of time—there is no beginning, damnit, and there is no end. The history of the universe as we conceive it is endlessly less than a nanosecond in terms of the time it took to enlarge to the size that would be equivalent to a quark.

Time is relative to mass. For the sun, a day may be equivalent to a human moment and to an electron a human moment may be equivalent to a million years. From our human perspective, an electron can be everywhere and nowhere in a given moment. In a nanosecond, we may be recording the equivalent of a billion years of electron movement. It is also why a quark can “spontaneously” exist one moment and disappear without a trace (to us) the next. Think of how long (from our perspective) it takes a star to form and then die. It is possible that the quark that comes into and out of existence in a moment (from our perspective) has had an equivalent lifespan—relative to its size—as a star.

Imagine 186,000mph/second if you’re the size of a quark. Now imagine if 186,000mph/second if you’re 999 trillion trillion times larger than the sun. For the subatomic, a trillion trillion lifetimes can pass in one second; for an object exponentially larger than the sun, a second is imperceptible, unmeasurably faster than a nanosecond is to a human.

Perhaps an object can move at a top speed that is in proportion to its relationship with time. Perhaps subatomic particles  move faster than the speed of light and faster even than time (as perceived by humans). Without time, there is no difference. All would be one. Time fragments oneness into difference. In a moment, when able to witness from a particular perspective, things appear separate, as others. Even the self is separate; conception a matter of difference allowed by the fragmenting of time. What causes time? Did it originate or has it always existed? It had to have always existed. There was never a “oneness”; there has been only “difference.” To believe otherwise is of no consequence but then again to believe what I've written is of no consequence, either.

How would believing what I've written change the world? I mean if the majority of people in the world believed what I'd written or some similar variation of it? I ask because if believing what I've written changed the nature of relations in the world then believing what I've written would be of consequence and not believing it would also be of consequence. So which is it? Is it of consequence to believe what I've written or not? If it is of consequence then what I've written is of consequence even if no one believes it; it's of consequence because it is an alternative to current beliefs that is rejected and the act of rejecting this premise is an act of strengthening one's current beliefs. If it is of no consequence then no beliefs are of consequence; beliefs, in that case, have no bearing on relations in the world.

We know the latter is untrue so what I've written here, right or wrong, believed or not, is of consequence. You're welcome.