XPost: sci.math   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 17:26 schrieb The Starmaker:   
   ...   
   >>>> I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of   
   >>>> Einstein's text.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about   
   >>>> time as linear and countable.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that   
   >>>> isn't mentioned.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain   
   >>>> era), because eras are not numbered.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is   
   >>>> most likely wrong.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons   
   >>>> 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough.   
   >>>   
   >>> The problem with the word "time" (and many other words) is that in   
   >>> Common Language it is used for many different meanings. When clearer   
   >>> expression is desired different words should be used for different   
   >>> meanings. Often, and in particular for discussing physics, it is   
   >>> best to restrict the meaning of "time" when used as a nout to   
   >>> expressions that can be used as an answer to the questions that ask   
   >>> when someting happens, i.e., values of a time coordinate of an event.   
   >>> The word "duration" can be used for difference of two times. But even   
   >>> in physics discussions it is usually assumed that the participants can   
   >>> understand from context which of the multiple meanings of "time" is   
   >>> used.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> The problem with your assumption is, that you would need to define a   
   >> zero point in time and can't do that.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> TH   
   >>   
   >   
   > Since I'm the only expert on earth regarding Before the big bang...   
   >   
   > the "starting point" can easily be measured.   
   >   
   > The stars are the measuring points in space.   
   >   
   > Each star is a point in space.   
      
   This is wrong, because what we call 'stars' are actually points within   
   our own home galaxy.   
      
   Such points are not even stable with respect to our own galaxy, be our   
   galaxy moves, too.   
      
   >   
   > You can start with the big dipper and the little dipper which were   
   > around since the beginning of the big bang, (and before).   
      
   I would regard the so called 'big-bang' as a 'white hole'.   
      
   A 'white hole' is kind of 'back-side' of a black hole.   
      
   Since the white side follows the black-hole-side in time, we could say:   
      
   the 'big-bang' is the temporal future of the 'big crunch'.   
      
      
   Now: this 'temporal order' is not THE order, but only one possible   
   (temporal) order (out of many).   
      
   This means, that 'big bang' is actually 'relative' and dependent on our   
   own axis of time.   
      
    From this would follow, that we cannot even regard 'big bang' as an   
   absolute anchor in time, because every possible universe would have an   
   own 'big bang' which all are different.   
      
   > How do you measure the starting point? You need to   
   > reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space).   
      
   Sure, but we cann't, because we can only see into our own past-light-cone.   
      
   The 'real space' is mainly invisible.   
      
   ...   
      
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)