XPost: sci.math   
   From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 06:53:20 +0200, Thomas Heger    
   wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   When you  reverse einginneer all the points in the sky (space)...you   
   enter  our own past-light-cone.   
      
   The 'real space' is not  invisible...a fish space is ...wet.   
      
    'real space' is a very dark blue color...and it's also wet.   
      
   it has...waves.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)