Time is to distance or acceleration what progression is to space. Time “exists” like distance as a measurement but is not ‘real’ like me, you or the earth that we stand. Time is a measurement of temporal progression. In the same way acceleration is a measurement for spatial progression. We have misconstrued time as a plane of existence due to the limited duration of our physical existence. But time is not causative of the progression in the universe. The interaction of the opposing forces of stasis and motion perpetuate vibration in the universe and the universal vibration generates universal static electricity that hold the vibrating constituents together coherently. All this happens in space but we can measure how they progress through time because the present is fleeting. But the causation of perpetuation of vibration is the interaction of stasis and motion and the electromagnetic net it generates through universal vibration.

  • Such is an interesting form of describing time. Time can be considered "a tool for measurement" in a Kantian perspective: for him, time (inner sense) and space (outer sense) are subjective intuitions, time allowing the sequence and order of knowledge, so yes, it can be considered a "measurement tool" (BUT: space is not necessarily fundamental). Check the SEP, time, 1.1.
    – RodolfoAP
    Sep 22, 2022 at 8:36
  • The only reason I say space is fundamental is because it contains and pervades our existence. Logic of identity dictates that a thing can only be what it is, only that and nothing else. Space is the container that holds the entire physical universe without its content. Space is interweaved through every fabric of our reality and I believe it’s the conductor of static electricity. Space is real because it is physically abundant and objective. Time is a subjective measurement except when done with tools. Space remains consistent and fundamental. When I say space I don’t include it’s content.
    – Ugo Nwune
    Sep 22, 2022 at 11:12
  • This is not a substantially different question to your previous one: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/93660/… Voted close. You don't show any genuine interest in either physics or philosophy, only your own opinions.
    – CriglCragl
    Sep 22, 2022 at 11:14
  • The question was closed. I’m trying to do a rethink using only logic, I’m trying to avoid making any statements that contradict logic, the reason I share this again is I’m hoping someone could point out the flaws to my premise so that I may improve on them
    – Ugo Nwune
    Sep 22, 2022 at 11:59

1 Answer 1


Relativity theory teaches us that time is pretty much equivalent to space - our perception of it as different is mainly due to our everyday experience limited to small velocities. Thinking of time as different is akin to thinking that vertical direction is different from the horizontal ones, because we can displace ourselves horizontally, but not vertically.

On a more basic level time, space (and possibly other dimensions) follow from the basic symmetries of the universe.

This could be better answered in physics community - although the answers may be somewhat technical, the community is usually quite open to non-experts.

  • I think the question is more of a philosophy of science problem. To make it clearer, let’s attempt to define a physical plane of existence and a measurement tool. A physical plane of existence is a medium for physical matter to exist and interact in physical reality. A measurement tool could be described as a system that records or measures the convergent universal symmetry to make quantitative calculation such as numbers, distance, displacement and time. Space is a plane of physical existence while time is merely a tool that records progression.
    – Ugo Nwune
    Sep 22, 2022 at 11:04
  • @UgoNwune scientists themselves are also concerned with philosophy of science, so my suggestion to pose a question in physics community remains valid. Relativity did arise from asking how do we measure things?, which triggered abandoning of the concept of absolute time, which characterized the physics before that (classical physics in scientific parlance.) I realize that there is a risk of cross-talk here, as you talk philosophy and I talk physics, but you might be dismissing science too quickly: plane of existence and measurement tool are inseparable.
    – Roger V.
    Sep 22, 2022 at 11:20
  • When I say plane of existence I mean a plane of physical existence. Like a medium that can hold matter, that is what makes space fundamental. It is not in the same category as time which isn’t a plane that can hold matter rather a tool that measures the progression of matter or energy in that physical plane called space. Physics is all about physical existence and that is why space is fundamental to understanding it. We have had a vague understanding of space confusing it for its subatomic content that vibrates. But space is the empty static host of the universe. The platform for vibration.
    – Ugo Nwune
    Sep 22, 2022 at 12:04
  • @UgoNwune let's not touch for a moment the sub-atomic stuff - there is a similar measurement problem there, but this is unrelated to the relativity. You are making assumption that time is absolute, that it exists apart from the matter. However, the only way to be aware of time is via using matter - like clocks, circadian rhythms or other changes of matter. And, as it has been shown more than a hundred years ago by Einstein, taking into account how we measure time leads to different conclusions. Time is different from our perception of time.
    – Roger V.
    Sep 22, 2022 at 12:58
  • Time is different from our perception of time, but absolute time in itself is abstract. Absolute space is tangible, it is the container you displace in when you vibrate. Absolute space existed before the beginning of time because we are limited to conceiving time as the beginning of the progression of the universe into vibrations from primordial stasis.
    – Ugo Nwune
    Sep 22, 2022 at 13:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .