Nerds know that he dropped the hammer and she picked it. Comic stories aside, tables turned around, how about a short digression to the classics. Of physics.
Isaac Newton founded classical mechanics on the view that space is distinct from body and that time passes uniformly without regard to whether anything happens in the world. For this reason he spoke of absolute space and absolute time, so as to distinguish these entities from the various ways by which we measure them (which he called relative spaces and relative times).
Look around. Poke a pebble. Hammer that rod. You are living in classical mechanics.
Departing the classics, together with our surroundings, you have a chance of landing here (probably):
In physics, relativistic mechanics refers to mechanics compatible with special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). It provides a non-quantum mechanical description of a system of particles, or of a fluid, in cases where the velocities of moving objects are comparable to the speed of light c. As a result, classical mechanics is extended correctly to particles traveling at high velocities and energies, and provides a consistent inclusion of electromagnetism with the mechanics of particles.
Please read the two excerpts once more. The relativistic first, then the classic. In order to shorten this digression, I’ll mention quantum mechanics, and field theory, by ways of a graphic (although they most likely deserve more).
Consider that tomorrow (years or decades from this Saturday), human society will accept the postulate that – beyond the relativistic crevices of this observable reality – Sir Isaac Newton is eating an apple. As we speak.
Albert Einstein called the intuitive or metaphoric mind a sacred gift. He added that the rational mind was a faithful servant. It is paradoxical that in the context of modern life we have begun to worship the servant and defile the divine.
A majestic tree falls amidst the Siberian taiga. No one around for miles. No one has seen it. No one has heard it. Does the tree even exist? What is the tree, the land, the space and time, without us, without an observer to see and hear?
A watcher brings the eyes and, with the mind behind them, casts a perspective. As it turns out, few of these are a precise match, when observers share them with one another. That is what axioms and equations are for.
Simpler than math, however, is the second law of man: love your neighbor as you love yourself. Revolving the logic: loathe your neighbor and consequently you’ll loathe yourself.
Dunno if to call this a karmic equation. But it is of essence to notice that for the value of love – or the lack of it – among observers, we’re stuck with the material equivalence: if and only if you love[loathe] the other, then you love[loathe] yourself; if and only if you love[loathe] yourself, then you love[loathe] the other. Middle grounds come and go as illusions. Ghosts of a present tough to grasp, to accept. The roller coaster of relativity runs from point A to point B. Everything in between belongs to illusion. Chimeras that never were and won’t ever be.
If you love yourself, then you know this from loving your neighbor. If you love your neighbor, then you can feel this back on loving yourself.
Knowing this, dare to pick that hammer. It is worth trying.
By the way! Is crossing Bifrost faster than the speed of light? Is Bifrost really about speed? Or a simple iteration?