From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:05:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"   
    wrote:   
      
   >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 = 58? 19' 41"   
   >long =  8? 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?   
      
      
   when you snap your fingers you snap two fingers. Each finger is at a   
   different point of space and time.   
      
   i don't want to bother you with the energy surrounding the snap, ...   
   you might get  a headache and snap.   
   --   
   The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,   
   to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,   
   and challenge the unchallengeable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)