From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Samstag000021, 21.02.2026 um 19:07 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   > On 09/04/2024 10:10 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >> On 09/04/2024 08:10 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:   
   >>> The problem of relativity is the understanding of the notion of present   
   >>> time, that is to say the notion of simultaneity (which should not be   
   >>> confused with the notion of chronotropy).   
   >>> Is there on the planet Fomalhaut IV, a princess Alexandra who lives   
   >>> there, at the same time as me; me who is here on earth?   
   >>> That is to say in the same present moment?   
   >>> It must be said that yes, since whatever procedure of universal   
   >>> synchronization I adopt, whether mine or that of Albert Einstein, there   
   >>> is necessarily a LABEL, and only one, to characterize the existence of   
   >>> Alexandra simultaneous with mine.   
   >>> But according to the method of "synchronization of present time", we   
   >>> will not have the same label.   
   >>> Einstein uses procedure M, Hachel procedure H.   
   >>> Procedure M is the most practical, procedure H is the most true.   
   >>> Procedure M is the most practical, because it derives from the   
   >>> synchronization of the present time on a point M placed very far away in   
   >>> an imaginary fourth dimension, and at an equal distance from all the   
   >>> points constituting our universe. This gives an abstract universal time,   
   >>> but very useful, where the notion of universal present time is flat, and   
   >>> reciprocal. If A exists at the same time as B for M, then B exists at   
   >>> the same time as A for M. It is very practical.   
   >>> Procedure H proposed by Richard Hachel is less practical, but truer. It   
   >>> is less practical, because the notion of symmetry of the present time   
   >>> will not be absolute. But it is truer, physically more accurate, and   
   >>> more beautiful. It will remain eternally true experimentally, and   
   >>> eternally more beautiful philosophically. What could be more beautiful   
   >>> than saying to a child: "This horse in this meadow, this moon in the   
   >>> sky, this galaxy in this telescope, you see them instantly, as they are   
   >>> today, live-live".   
   >>> What is uglier than human thought, which thinks it is intelligent,   
   >>> even though it is full of stupid mockery, conceptual imbecilities,   
   >>> simply because it can say, as all morons say: "The speed of light is c,   
   >>> we know it, we have measured it, experimented with it, and we get   
   >>> 3.10^8m/s".   
   >>> This is the most stupid reflection in the history of humanity, proposed   
   >>> by mocking morons (Python, John Baez) who think they are funny and   
   >>> intelligent, authorized mockers, but who have not understood anything   
   >>> about the notion of universal anisochrony and the two possible ways in   
   >>> which we can (or even MUST be able to) synchronize the clocks of the   
   >>> universe.   
   >>>   
   >>> R.H.   
   >>   
   >> The (physical) space-time is a (mathematical) coordinate space, and   
   >> the (physical) Space-Time is the continuous manifold of the field number   
   >> formalism of QM combined with the inertial-systems'   
   >> differential-system GR, where according to Einstein the GR is   
   >> a differential-system parameterized by a "the time", and in   
   >> QM the time-reversibility has never been falsified, with the   
   >> time-ordering of the path-integral being pretty much classical,   
   >> a "clock hypothesis" is not un-usual, that with respect to a   
   >> coordinate space, yet there's only a forward-pointing ray of time,   
   >> between zero and one a vector field over the entirety of Space-Time,   
   >> that in deep space in absolute vacuum at absolute zero equals one.   
   >>   
   >> Clocks either slow or meet, ....   
   >>   
   >> That "there are no closed time-like curves" and "time reversibility   
   >> has never been falsified" then as with regards to null geodesics   
   >> and any usual ideas about using the time-like as simply an extra   
   >> "Fourth Dimension" for only mathematical extrapolation, has that   
   >> physically it might as well just be considered "the gradient" as   
   >> with regards to "t" everywhere universally parameterizing the   
   >> differential-system and time-ordering of GR and QM.   
   >>   
   >> This sort of theory can for example reduce functional freedom   
   >> from 10^120 to approximately 1, while that "time dilation plus   
   >> length contraction equals space contraction" is simply enough   
   >> as of the FitzGeraldian and associated considerations of the   
   >> Heaviside and Larmour with respect to Lorentz, while in QM   
   >> there are both low-energy and high-energy supersymmetry, as   
   >> whether "virtual" particles are just another model of continuum   
   >> dynamics.   
   >>   
   >> I.e., all one theory, all one manifold, all one t.   
   >>   
   >> The d'Espagnat on a model philosopher's model physicist's   
   >> model philosophy's model physics, "objective realism",   
   >> with Broglie-Bohm and Aspect-like extra-locality, as   
   >> with regards to "anti-realist model physics", helps   
   >> explore then why making for a clock hypothesis and   
   >> a "the time" as Einstein does in "Out of My Later Years",   
   >> why curved space-time is just a model in the Cartesian   
   >> for "space contraction" then that though its consideration   
   >> as a "Fourth Dimension" asks a bit much of a simple numerical   
   >> resource of a mathematical/physical continuum, continuous   
   >> manifold.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> What time is now?   
   >>   
      
   Now is actually now!   
      
   Time is most likely a local phenomenon and the point called 'now'   
   devides the continuum of time into past and future.   
      
   There 'future' is everything happening later than 'now' and 'past' means   
   everything earlier.   
      
   But we usually don't know, what happens now in remote locations, hence   
   the so called 'hypersheet of the present' is mainly invisible.   
      
   What we can actually see belongs to our own past light cone (only!),   
   because the future is invisible and also the present.   
      
   What we can see is therefore belonging to our own past.   
      
   Now the question: what 'topology' does spacetime actually have?   
      
   Well, I personally think, that bing bang theory is mainly wrong, because   
   the universe has no beginning and no end and therefore it makes not   
   sense to ask the question, which time 'now' has.   
      
   Time as we use it is based upon an arbitrary reference point in time, at   
   which we start to count days and years, hence beginn to counting of time.   
      
   This setting of a start had been done repeatedly in the past and for   
   various staring points.   
      
   Today we mainly use the alleged birth of Christ, which is assumed to   
   have happend 2026 years, 1 month and 23 days ago.   
      
   But we could use essentially any point in time, that is well defined by   
   whatever means we have.   
      
   Something located at that staring point in space and time will evolve   
   into the enviroment and roughly twothousandtweentysix years later ends   
   up here.   
      
   But possibly somewhere in a very remote past some kind of void actually   
   split apart and started to evolve into the future, while creating what   
   we call 'universe' today.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)