🚀 go-pugleaf

>So I just go in circles and keep coming back to the same place? I don't
>quite follow this one.
>
Not necessarily the same place. You can keep walking around on the
earth for very long without finding the end or coming to the same part
again. (Although you can�t do that infinitely)

>Oh, man. What a question. Maybe instead of objects, we should say points. I
>want to go from point A to point B. It's a distance of one mile. I move
>there and it takes me one minute because I'm going 60 mph. Time, one
>minute, is a way to describe measure the relationship of the distance, the
>motion (velocity?), and the beginning and ending points of A and B. Perhaps
>time begins as motion begins and ends when the motion ends. But is still is
>part of a greater time continuum. Perhaps time begins when the universe
>begins (Big Bang?) and ends when the universe ends.
> 
You always move.

>Except that if things weren't so far away, we wouldn't need so much time to
>get there. I think they both have to be considered.
>
I don�t agree on that. Distance isn�t the real problem. The time it
takes us to get there is. Time is what makes it a long distance. 
If we could travel at above c, we would say that Alpha Centauri is
"nextdoors", while the absolute distance remains the same.

>Yes, I suppose so. Leave a temporal dimension, enter another where time and
>distance are irrelevant, and pop out at your destination 3000000 light
>years away. It's profoundly speculative. Is there anything scientifically
>substantial to hint at such a concept?
>
You can�t leave a dimension , since you are always present in all of
them, just not moving in them (or not as fast as you would like to.)

Question: Would you out there consider "hyperspace" as the fourth
dimension or as something else? 

Haplo