Stevnlmeyer,

"If you travel at close to the speed of light you personally would notice nothing different. Time would appear the same to you. As far as you are concerned you are standing still."

"We' (material beings) cannot travel at the speed of light, within the universe,as mass would become infinite, requiring infinite energy to overcome the gain in mass. Your allusion to the twin paradoxy is valid at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. If memory serves, at very, very near the speed of light, it is not like Star Trek with stars whizzing past the window, rather stars you have behind you appear in front of you because of the extreme warping of space-time. Happy to be corrected on this, but I think William Kaufman said something like this.

time is relitive[yet in some realms]relitivity is suspended

there are those/..of science-bent..who theorise/of the issue of darkmatter..[being over 80 percent/of the uni-verse],,little realising fact is more amasing than their fiction's

we have/the likes of dick/dorkins...who claims to be..the godhead/of religion of physics...as well..as the anti-christ of religious beliefs...and believers..who claims absurdities..in both this realm/..as well as his/ignorance..of the next

who..dares speculate/that alians founded humanity...as well as his delusions of/evolution via species..into new genus...and other quasi athiest-thesisies

if it all seems/too complicated...know its by design...

so lets try to focus..this topic..space/time

so/lets talk of/the dark matter...that science..cannot explain...or detect..yet dares/to quantify..lol..if only in their theory

here is/the scoop...its..[light]..and the hells...ie/those..who reject the light/..and chose..to dwell in hell's darkness

that its ALL called..darkmatter...is the joke..
for of truth..science has no idea/of the concept..thus are the equivelent/embodyment..of..the blind..leading the blinded..stealing the idea/of religion..as their/theory..of unknown dimentions

so/to shine the light..on the matter of dark-matter
these explain this..'dark/matter'...more than the richard/crainium/dick dorkins does/can/could

Quote:

http://www.divinetruth.info/Downloads/CD/NaturalLove/PDFs/Franchezzo%20-%20A%20Wanderer%20In%20The%20Spirit%20Lands.pdf

http://www.divinetruth.info/Downloads/CD/NaturalLove/PDFs/Anthony%20Borgia%20-%20Life%20In%20The%20World%20Unseen.pdf

more here
http://www.divinetruth.info/naturallovepathdocuments.htm

then the other issues

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=rebutting+evolution&aq=f&aqi=g-sx7g-msx3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.divinetruth.info/naturallovepathdocuments.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSuewxm7ER8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlw5P-D8tH0&playnext_from=TL&videos=ETbq_5GnJN4

http://www.momentoflove.org -Every person in the world has a heart
http://www.WantToKnow.info -Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
http://www.inspiringcommunity.org -Building a Global Community for All
http://www.weboflove.org -Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
http://www.transformationteam.net -

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=keiser+report+rt&aq=f

anyhow..try reading of the first two...then note this issue of..'darkmatter'..has had light shone on it for at least 100 years[its even likely...einstein had enough of an open mind..to have read them]...but dare you

there is nothing to fear/..but fear itself

ps..the links i post..soon get taken down...seems both science/and religion..dont like us knowing...these issues...beyond this/material/time and space..

beyond this realm...they think/they..control..here and now
this short read..even goes into re-incarnation

http://www.divinetruth.info/Downloads/CD/NaturalLove/Word/Jane%20Sherwood%20-%20Post%20Mortem%20Journal.doc

I think it's a shame that we're only looking at this conundrum through the bipolar (have to stop using that horrid word) and dogmatic spectacles of analytic philosophy and theology, especially when Continental philosophy sits between those extremes. Specifically, what about Kant (who also sits between analytic and continental philosophy) and his notion that space and time provide for the sensate "form" of our experience, providing our "pure a priori intuitions," thus making object reality possible. Surely we have to validate this before we evolve our hypotheses?
This seems prerequisite to me, especially apropos the question, "does time exist?" Time and space "form" our "transcendental unity of apperception": self-consciousness; yet it's doubtful they exist in themselves--we seem to agree on that?
So if space and time structure/facilitate/translate/cognise reality for us, our perception is fundamentally intuitive--human. What is fascinating is that QM is so counter-intuitive; if it and other exotic theories can be verified, that amounts to evidence that we do not perceive things as they are (ho hum, I know). But the theory (of everything) that we can finally reconcile quantum mechanics with the gross reality of what we perceive, credulously presupposes the validity of the latter, no?
Perhaps we need to explore more exotic possibilities for the laws of our material reality?
Time exists in as much as it insistently interposes itself within (as a Plank of) our conceptual reality.

"So if space and time structure/facilitate/translate/cognise reality for us, our perception is fundamentally intuitive--human." - Squeers

Yes, space and time are fundamental to intuition. Suspect even the mind requires dimensionality, even if its existence lies in part beyond the neurology of the brain in the observed world.

Our human conception of reality is different to that of a tree or a bat. A dog or a dophin might come closer; yet, prima facie, there appears to be a link between sentience and inituition.

In what sense would time and space exist, if not observed by sentient beings? Do time and space exist in the same manner 4.6 billion years after the Big Bang, than one billion years after the BB, noting there were no second generation stars (heavy elements to create life)? Is the relationship between sentience and intuition complementary regarding time and space?

Thanks for the stimulation, Oliver.
That "even if its existence lies in part beyond the neurology of the brain in the observed world." certainly establishes your credentials as "an open mind" (a rare beast).
"..prima facie, there appears to be a link between sentience and inituition." In fact one and the same?
"In what sense would time and space exist, if not observed by sentient beings?" In themselves? The anthropocentric alternative is Hegel's idealistic trump card--and a return to theology?
"Do time and space exist in the same manner 4.6 billion years after the Big Bang, than one billion years after the BB," Logically no. Do they exist at all, then, if there's a discrepancy in their reality, based on what measure of time? Are you suggesting that time is after all integral to reality? (ergo our senses are felicitous--always a possibility, even likely given we, presumably, adapt to the universe rather than the universe adapting to us; idealism)? But then so is space, and both are formative ingredients in our current space/time. Thus, I think, we arrive at "noting there were no second generation stars (heavy elements to create life)? Is the relationship between sentience and intuition complementary regarding time and space?" Does reality conform with perception; do we live in a materialist universe?
I'll hazard "no," but I don't buy idealism either (not that I'm saying you do). Just because we ideate reality, that doesn't mean we create it, as some would have it. Does it exist independently of us then? And if so, in what form... Oh Gawd!
...Maybe the analytic is the way to go :-)

Thanks Squeers,

Please excuse brevity:

1. Though still speculative there are theories involving QM and that counscious is a field.

2. Yes, sentience could be one and the same. Moreover, sentience and conscious have been put to bring reality in to existence. Though no expert, I more for the idea of decoherence from QM being achieved properties of assebly are large enough to be recognised by the macro-world.

3. Anthropocentrism would link to truth with Hegel and yes the nature of truth has religious implications. On the other hand, when dealing with Gegel, I needs to check first to see if he was referring to the metaphysical or the corpeal. Perhaps, some Marx's dialectical materialism was drawn too much metaphysical notions.

4. I agree a universe with 4.6 billion candles is different to the early universe. In 1 billion, there was no one to blow the flames (except, except for the theist, the alledged same God, who watched the Quad)

5. I think time is complemented by superpositions (QM) and that durations in observed time be underpinned by other phenomena which permits all those probability/change equations that seem to (erroreously) suggest the universe too young for life. We are here.

Something happened/is happening. Perhaps, in a QM or enjoined realm. We live in a (macro) material unverse but it does not follow enjoined realms do not influence us, because QM-Our Reality might work via a semi-permiable seam.

6. If sentience is tacit observation of the explicit, we would need to recognise that as individuals' peceptions cum intuitions are personal, which would beg the question, "if consciousness brings the universe into being, is it "exactly" the same universe for each individual, when tacit and explicit knowledge are held to be co-efficent and indivisible.

7. As alluded to above, I suggest we perceive a materialist universe, yet, akin to Newtonian vis-a-vis relativity, day-to-day we don't see the full construction of the material universe, where things are happening outside of common experience.

Cheers.