[tiereenny]

sammy,

"this is one of the more complicated subjects to understand when coming to anti-matter and matter. its best not to think of it as "empty" cause its still space its just space with no or - mass. as you stated its the natural consequence, which would be time. the distance or "space" is whats needed for time within the space, if there was no distance there would be no time. it would just be space/mass and not space/time."

-why is it not best to think of it empty? is there a measurable value in proceeding this way? if so tell me how or why. you say it is just space or with no mass or antimatter mass. if there is no mass how could it not be empty, if it is space or antimatter where do they come from and where does the thing it comes from come from so on and so fourth? if you are not sure what would be your hypothesis of what would be there and any evidence supporting it? i don't believe distance is needed for time. example: you can travel across space without measuring it by time or thinking about it (sleep being one example) because time is a view that some people have or while others do not. i have read many stories of people saying that entity not from here incarnal or not have no concept of time and is only a choice even if it is a heavily conditioned one that is useful for purposes of relativity.

mentioning that it is space in conjunction with mass rather than space in conjunction with time doesn't mean time cannot be dropped in what most people see as time space anyways. again time is a perception and choice

space is everything we have to ability to recognize or be included to empty, full or anti, either space inside ourselves we know as thoughts or outer space that we see as an object if we choose to look at it as such. but we can still just be and not necessarily even choose to think of it is space. space doesn't exist solely based on our recognition of it although we can change to structure or influence of space itself based on our attention and expectation -