From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/23/2026 3:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   > 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!   
      
   What about the now, now... ;^D   
      
   https://youtu.be/nRGCZh5A8T4   
      
   lol. Always cracked me up.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)