Bobby17

When you’re outside and you push the send button on the screen of your smartphone to send a message to someone, the smartphone sends this message in every direction from your smartphone in order for your smartphone to reach the nearest cell-tower. This message in every direction must have a weight bigger than zero in every direction. Because what weighs zero or nothing is nothing and nothing can only remain itself. And when this message in every direction has a weight bigger than zero in every direction, for not being nothing, one can see this message in every direction as very tiny bullets that leave your smartphone in every direction at high speed while each tiny bullet has a weight bigger than zero. And that’s when the logic of a smartphone starts to fail because all these very tiny bullets in every direction crash at high speed with the other very tiny bullets in every direction from other smartphone users so that the message doesn’t reach the nearest cell-tower in the original form. That means that smartphones use a manifestation of the impossible to send their message in original form to the receiver and that leads to the study of manifestations of the impossible.

If you compare the absence of time vs the presence of time with the absence of speed and therefor distance and the presence of speed and therefor distance you claim that one cannot ask how much distance a car drove when it drove at zero miles an hour for an hour because zero miles an hour is the absence of speed and therefor also the absence of distance. But the question is legit just like asking how long the absence of time was able to remain itself before it became the presence of time.

I know what you mean but there is no other option but to look at the transformation of the absence of time into the presence of time as claimed by some scientists when they claim that the presence of time has not always been. And when there’s no other option but to discuss this transformation, one can always ask how long this transformation took. How long did it take for the absence of time to transform into the presence of time?

I know what you mean but there is no other option but to look at the transformation of the absence of time into the presence of time as claimed by some scientists when they claim that the presence of time has not always been. And when there’s no other option but to discuss this transformation, one can always ask how long this transformation took. How long did it take for the absence of time to transform into the presence of time?

Some scientists say that space and time didn’t always exist and that it was the absence of time and the absence of space that led to the presence of time and the presence of space with the big bang. So let’s take a closer look at the absence of time. How long was the absence of time able to remain itself before it became the presence of time? Since the absence of time isn’t any period of time it ends at the same time as it begins. The end is the beginning. The absence of time became the presence of time at the same time the absence of time began and so the absence of time is always the presence of time and that makes the presence of time dominant. In other words: The absence of time did not have the time to eliminate the mass of the big bang there where one can calculate that mass before the big bang. And when the absence of time is always the presence of time, the presence of time is not only always dominant but it also makes the future and the past of the presence of time both infinite. And when the past of the presence of time is infinite, the past has already finished an infinity of time and that is a manifestation of the impossible. And so the topic called The presence of time vs the absence of time leads to another topic called The study of manifestations of the impossible.