>Hi Hilmar,
>
>I think it is a mistake to use light as a measure in the definition of space/time. Although light is mans primary way of perceiving the universe, it is not the best tool to use; because, light is to slow in relation to the size of the universe. There is no way to get a snap shot of the universe at any point in time using light.

That is correct. But the whole point is, it is believed that there simply is nothing faster. At least, no way to transfer either matter (or energy, which is equivalent), or information, faster than the speed of light.

>I believe time should be absolute rather than relative. The problem with light is there is no way to achieve instantaneousness between two points over huge distances in the universe.

Nor in any other way. I think you should research what the Theory of Relativity has to say about "simultaneity".

> Light from a distant star might travel 300 million light years before we on earth see it. I lot can happen in 300 million light years, so what we are seeing is ancient history.

... or the immediate past. Depending on the observer.

>
>However, with the proper medium to observe the universe, we could get a point in the flow of time that instantaneously indicated the state, properties and location of everything in the universe at that point in time. I don't know exactly what could be used as a reference point to measure time, but certainly our solar system is inadequate.

Apparently, there is no such medium, i.e., one that goes faster than light.

Let me briefly outline the ideas about simultaneity.

I observe two events, "A" and "B", distant amongst themselves. Considering the time taken by the light, which transports the signals, and the distance from each event to me, I come to the conclusion that that both happened at the same time.

Another observer (moving at a different speed, will come to the conclusion that "A" happened before "B". And yet another observer, moving in the opposite direction (from my point of view), will say that "B" happened before "A"!

Perhaps you can look up the details in your physics book, or searching on Google (include "simultaneity" in your search).

BTW, this entire argument about simultaneity is, precisely, one of the strong arguments against the possibility of travelling faster than light! If it were possible to travel faster than light (for the point of view of one observer), then you would be travelling into the past (from the point of view of another observer).

>It is much simpler to think of time as an absolute, rather than as a relative.

Yes, and that is probably the reason why many people have difficulty accepting the Theory of Relativity. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way our Universe works.

> Using time as a relative, tied to the speed of light, causes distortions of the reality of the universe. For example, two objects in different locations and distances traveling at different speeds as seen by an observer using the speed of light as his medium, must be reconciled back to their absolutes, because of the way light could make the objects appear to be moving faster or slower than their real speeds and real locations. The universe is not alter in this case. It is the observers perceptions of the universe that is altered. To the observer something may appear to be occurring slower or faster than its real absolute speed.

Apparently there is no way to decide on some "absolute" point of view. For instance, if two objects are moving at different speeds, you can say that "A" is moving with respect to "B", or "B" with respect to "A"; but none of these points of view can be shown to have more validity than the other.