From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Donnerstag000008, 08.01.2026 um 17:16 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   ...   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> I have written a kind of book about this idea some years ago, which   
   >>>> can be found here:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/   
   >>>> d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing   
   >>>   
   >>> Hummm... Need to read that when I get some more time. Thanks!   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Well, that 'book' ain't perfect, because it was the first thing I have   
   >> written about physics. It's also written in English, which is a second   
   >> language for me (I from Germany).   
   >>   
   >> I'm also not a physicist and that 'book' was the result of a hobby.   
   >>   
   >> But still I think, the concept is quite good.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> TH   
   >   
   > The idea that everything physics is always parameterized   
   > by time or 't' is often formalized "the Lagrangian", sort   
   > of like "the Machian" is a usual notion of far-field.   
   > Lagrange is also known for when in mechanics there's   
   > both the severe abstraction and also the sum-of-potentials,   
   > i.e. two different things juxtaposed across each other.   
   > Mach is similar, known for the acoustic and also the total   
   > or about the field.   
   >   
   > Of course Mach is more known for meaning both the near-field   
   > and far-field, and while Lagrange is known for both the   
   > "real and fictitious" forces in usual models of kinetics   
   > about potentials, the usual attachment of the Lagrangian   
   > the particular formalism after the Hamiltonian, often   
   > results the more "shut-up-and-compute, i.e., we don't have   
   > the language to compute the full term, and truncate the term".   
   >   
   > It's similar an account of "entropy", since the Aristotelean   
   > and the Leibnitzian are basically opposite meanings of the term,   
   > similarly for example to the argument about Newton "vis motrix"   
   > and Leibnitz "vis viva" vis-a-vis notions like "vis insita".   
   >   
   > So, Lagrange is well-known for the usual definitions in   
   > mechanics, yet unless you know that it's also about that   
   > the potentials are real, he's sort of laughing in his sleeve.   
   >   
   > Then a usual implicit parameterization of anything physical   
   > by time 't' is also part of logical, since for a logic to   
   > be modal and more-than-merely-quasi-modal, there's temporality   
   > as to why true logic is a modal, temporal, relevance logic.   
   >   
   > A usual "clock-hypothesis" that there's a unique ray of   
   > time 't' is found in usual theories like Einstein's relativity,   
   > according to Einstein.   
   >   
      
   There exist a book called 'Geometry of Time' by an Alexander Franklin Meyer.   
      
   He had proven there, that 'linear time' is wrong.   
      
   We need to consider a multitude of possible timelines, which would   
   include 'backwards time'.   
      
   This is certainly hard to swallow, but actually quite simple mathematically.   
      
   But if time is 'relative', than 'backwards' is relative, too.   
      
   Hence: if there exists a realm where time runs backwards from our   
   perspective, our time runs backwards, if seen from the perspective of   
   that other realm.   
      
   ...   
      
   TH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)