From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 15.10.2025 09:54, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >   
   > To treat time as a coordinate is  a VERY bad idea!   
   >   
   > This is so, because with 'coordinates' we usually mean positions in space.   
   >   
   > But time does not define a position in space.   
   >   
   > Actually time values do not define 'positions' in time , neither.   
      
   I snap my fingers now.   
   This is a event.   
   An event happens at one point in time, and one point in space.   
   An event doesn't move in space or time.   
   Four entities must be used to define an event.   
   It is common to call these four entities coordinates.   
   So we have four coordinates, one temporal, three spatial.   
   (temporal = related to time, spatial = related to space)   
      
   But the spatial coordinate system, and the time coordinate   
   must be defined, they are not given by nature.   
      
   I choose to use the Earth fixed Geographic coordinate system,   
   so the spatial coordinates are latitude (lat), longitude (long)   
   and altitude (alt)   
      
   I choose to use the Gregorian calendar and UTC for the time coordinate.   
      
   So the coordinates of my finger snap are:   
       t = 2025-10-15, 09:52:31 UTC   
     lat = 58⁰ 19' 41"   
   long =  8⁰ 34' 06"   
     alt = 37m   
      
   We are however free to use other temporal and spatial coordinates.   
   But they must be precisely defined.   
      
   > The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a   
   > zero point in time and can't do that.   
      
   Which planet do you live at?   
      
   Have you never, here on Earth, had a date with your dentist?   
   Did he ask you to meet at a 'point in time, or in some duration?   
   Did he say: "meet at my office in 54 hours and 37 minutes", or   
   did he say: "meet at my office at, e.g. September 13. 2025 14:30" ?   
   (where 14:30 is in the local time zone based on UTC)   
      
   If you said to your dentist that it was impossible to meet   
   at September 13. 2025 14:30, because "the zero point is not defined",   
   he would probably consider you to be an idiot.   
      
   Would he be right?>   
   > Actually the so called 'big-bang-theory' was meant to provide just that,   
   > but is most likely wrong.   
   >   
   > Not only did it come from a catholic priest, who wanted to make 1. book   
   > of Genesis 'scientific', but it's also quite illogic.   
   >   
   > Therefore, the (real) universe is not expanding from a certain   
   > beginning, but a visible subset is.   
   >   
   > The 'real universe' is mainly invisible, hence we cannot know, whether   
   > or not it had a beginning.>   
   > At leat we cannot measure the beginning and that would make the use of   
   > such a startig point in time next to impossible.   
      
   Why are you babbling all this nonsense?   
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)