Rushing through life
Time is an invisible driver. How much can be crammed into a single day? Eight hours of sleep (for the lucky few) and another eight hours of work (or more), leaves the same number of hours for commuting, cooking, eating, errands, cleaning, bill-paying — the list goes on and on until night comes again with more sleep in an endless loop of hurtling through existence.
But what if it isn’t real? Time, that is. After all, it cannot be seen. It cannot be touched. What evidence is there that time exists at all?
The clock, one might say, ticks away seconds, minutes, and hours, so that must show time is a tangible thing. But technically, a clock simply measures time rather than embodies it.
Time certainly has an impact as shown by becoming hungry or tired or older but, in the end, those realities are the effect of the passage of time rather than actual time itself.
Another paradox is time is not constant, depending on where and how it is experienced. Picture the following experiment:
Get Carol Eaton’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Imagine observer A is at rest on a train station platform, while observer B is travelling at a constant speed on a train. The train passes between two trees (one tree at the front of the train and one at the back) and observer A stands at the middle of the platform. If both trees are struck by lightning at the same instant, the light from each will reach the eyes of observer A simultaneously.
However, since observer B is in motion, moving closer to the tree in front of the train, the light from the front lightning strike will reach observer B before the light from the tree at the back of the train. In other words, the light from the lightning strike at the back has to travel further distance to catch up.
Now, what does this have to do with the alleged inconsistency of time presented so far? Well, referring back to “simultaneity,” this experiment proves that it is completely possible for two events (the lightning strikes) to happen at the same time in one reference frame (observer A) and at different times in another reference frame (observer B). Both observers are correct in their findings, and we can deduce that time is not absolute, but it depends on one’s frame of reference. To put it another way, time is relative. (source)
Kind of mind-blowing to think about. Maybe the takeaway from Einstein and all the other theoretical physicists is simply not to be ruled by a clock. Indeed, “Clock time is a very specific way of looking at time. As a global system it’s a less than a 100 years old. It’s remarkable to realise that.” (source)
Rather than filling every minute with as much activity as possible, prioritizing quality over quantity might be the ticket. Nurturing relationships, taking time for self-care, savoring a hot beverage, soaking in a sunset, breathing in an herbal delight or engaging in some another bucket-filling treasure might be the best use of time — real or not — because moments that restore are never wasted.
“People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint — it’s more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly… time-y wimey… stuff.” ~ Dr. Who
