[Update to the update: More stuff came in to further refine what I'm trying, hopefully with at least some success, to articulate here, and so I decided to just take it all back in and republish (there are also new "See Also's" that have been added). Thank you all for your patience with me on this, unfortunately stumbling, sort of approach, in attempting to always ask deeper questions, that being a very odd savant, forces upon me. J.V.]

[Update Note: The phrase "Time is the space in duration" has been rattling around in my head for many years now, for reasons, in the "way back when," that have always mystified me, though the feeling it generated has always felt so strong, and resonant. And now, finally, something new just popped in to go along with it, to extend it as a related conjecture here. Something I felt I should just throw in the mix and let see what happens.

So. The phrase now comes out as this:

Time is the space in duration.
Where both "space," and "duration," are relative to your frame of reference, and the vector of experience association that frame is based on.

Let this new, "Side Note #1," and some further thoughts about it, swirl around in your head and see what you think of it. As well as whether it is pertinent to this conjecture as a whole.

J.V.]

Could there be a type of "reactance" in space itself, when something is accelerated, and that reactance differs depending on the type of acceleration, as well as with what might be accelerated? Not to mention, of course, the frames of mind of the people going about the actions that get things moving at all, and all of the ensuing entanglements that might arise?

When you watch waves rolling in from a picturesque ocean, onto a beautiful beach, sometimes one wave will go much farther than the others, having had more wave volume to work with, and then, with subsequent new waves coming in, the fall back, from the last big one, comes rolling back with what is left of its original water volume. And then you get to see this fascinating undercutting of the new wave, with the fading reactance, of the old one.

There is an incline, in that supposed model, of course that creates that rolling back, as well as what started the interaction, and provide a sink with which to absorb, and then yield back, left over mass/energy. Is that incline a metaphor for something basic in space, as it relates to mass moving through it?

Could this suggest that there is some kind of "pressure wave" ahead of an accelerating mass, that could be the cause of the increasing incline? Is that how nature accomplishes the feat of not letting anything go faster than the speed of light, no matter how much more force you apply to do the acceleration?

This may, or may not, also beg the question of how you might argue the way that mass moves through space (see the "It Seems To Me There Are Now Three Ways To Consider How Meaning (aka Mass) Moves Through Space" sub section of the "Of Course I'm Out Of My Depth Here" post); as in, for instance, is it more like something displacing the fluid like medium around it and, just like such things going through air, or water, it puts counter strain back on the accelerating object.

One thing is for certain, though, thinking about it like this certainly puts up a lot of interesting juxtapositions; especially when you look at it from highly contrasting frames of reference.

[Side Note 1:
Does this statement make sense:

Time is the space in duration.
Where both "space,", and "duration," are relative to your frame of reference, and the vector of experience association that frame is based on.

As I think about this I am then also reminded of something that has to be related.

Isn't it interesting how, when we go ever faster, with the number of frames per second that we might use to capture a moment, in an ever more detailed a sequence, that, when we play it back, at anything near the normal amount needed to depict smooth representation (for human "Meaning Processors" at least), the activity recorded plays ever more slowly.

Kinda also like how, when you go nearly the speed of light, relative to a friend, you experience time more slowly than your friend. Doing so because there are just so many more, arbitrary, frames of change, to deal with, as your total inertia scoots you through resolving the state of every arbitrary thing, at each frame of change, there is to resolve.

]

[Side Note 2:
Might it be possible that our reality, in it's initial phase of aggregating matter, slowly creating concentrations and then singular points of fusion, whereupon more heavier elements came into being, so that newer, more complex aggregates could be associated over time, was a fundamentally different associating environment, than the one that now sports sentient choice makers? And that they are fundamentally different precisely because of a sentient's ever increasing entanglements, caused by ever more powerful extensions of sentient faculties, creating cause, and effect, at greater removes from the sentient's primary scale of consideration. Their primary frame of reference in physical space.
]

[Side Note 3:
But what creates that counter wave that comes back as the reactor to create the total "impedance?" Why must push always come to shove, because an action must always have an equal, and opposite reaction. For me the feeling says that it has to relate to flows of information; how they are mediated meaningfully, and how the energies created are dissipated usefully.
]

Reactance theory

Images for electromagnetic reactance

Images for coronavirus lockdown protests

Images for anti environmental protection law protests

See Also:
[Post Note: This passage is from the post "Of Course I'm Out Of My Depth Here." J.V.]