From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   > Den 13.10.2025 07:59, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >>   
   >> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about   
   >> time as linear and countable.   
   >   
   > So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what   
   > the time is now. :-D   
      
   in a way..   
      
   Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute   
   anchor' in time.   
      
   The 'big-bang' was actually assumed to provide such a zero point in   
   time. But the big-bang-theory is most likely wrong.   
      
   Therefore, the universe does not have a beginning in some sort of   
   explosion and also does not provide 'linear' (calendar like) timelines.   
      
   The 'real deal' is actually complicated and so counter-intuitiv, that   
   not too many people understand this idea.   
      
      
   You should think about the axis of time as imaginary and the axes of   
   space as real.   
      
   But both are more or less the same and the axis of time could be rotated   
   into space by a multiplication with i.   
      
   This would create the impression of a 'big-bang'.   
      
   But that isn't creating an entirely new universe, but a new subset of   
   the real universe, which we cannot see.   
      
   >   
   > What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'.   
   >   
   > I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET   
   > That's 'a point in time'.   
   >   
   > If I left my home at   t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET   
   > and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET   
   > Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today   
   > was 54 minutes and 40 seconds.  (Δt = t2 - t1)   
   > That's a duration (or 'interval').   
   >   
   > So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.   
      
   No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point (=   
   the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already.   
      
   >> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that   
   >> isn't mentioned.   
   >   
   > The 'starting point' is obviously 'the point in time' at   
   > the beginning of the duration in question.   
   >   
   > If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to   
   > use a clock we can set to zero at any time.   
   >   
   Sure, that's correct.   
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)