Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #656781

Re: What is "present time" in physics?

Show all headers | View raw

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 here or now, or here and now??? where? here? now? is it here now?

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

What is "present time" in physics?  Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-09-04 15:10 +0000
  Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-04 10:10 -0700
    Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-04 22:46 -0700
      Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-05 09:40 -0700
        Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-05 12:44 -0700
          Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-06 14:58 -0700
            Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-06 17:07 -0700
              Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-06 20:53 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-07 09:51 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-07 10:05 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-07 10:53 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 12:04 -0700

csiph-web